beantownbubba wrote:What the hell, I'll try one more time: For sure, understanding the circumstances in which an album is made helps to understand the songs and the album's "gestalt." The examples i gave above are, i think, very appropriate and Rumours is another classic example.
But the JUDGMENT that Trinity Sessions is an album of "quiet, understated beauty" does not depend at all on how many tracks it was recorded on or where it was recorded. Those facts may explain HOW they did it, but it doesn't change WHAT they did.
As I understand it, none of those "extrinsic factors" is relevant to how one evaluates the ultimate QUALITY of the album in relation to other albums, or dare i say it, history. If, for argument's sake, a band overcame huge adversity in making an album, e.g. one of the members had a life threatening illness and recovered, a tornado blew down the recording studio, somebody else's dog died and another member was going thru a bitter divorce, it might be a miracle that the album got made. But if the songs suck, they suck, and if they're great, they're great. And if a song on the album is a metaphor for the band member's illness and recovery, than knowing about the illness will help one understand the song. But I don't think the song gains or loses "points" because of the subject or because of how difficult it was to write and record. If that wasn't the question, than i apologize for the thread hijacking, but that's what i thought dime was asking.
I agree.
I understand why some people might factor in the circumstances of an album's recording when they're rating and/or comparing albums, BUT.......to me that doesn't matter. I think what matters is the end result. Not how it was made. For example, I could say that Exile On Mainstreet was easier for the Stones to record in '71/'72 than Dirty Work was in '85/'86. During the Dirty Work sessions, the Stones were falling apart and Mick Jagger was embarking on a solo career. It looked as if the band were going to break up. Bad times indeed compared to the endless party in the South of France during the recording of Exile. So should we say that Dirty Work is as good or even better than Exile because the Stones had to pull that album out of a difficult situation? Should Dirty Work get spotted 3 stars on a 5 star rating scale because the Stones were falling apart during the recording?
As far as DBT goes, I doubt many people would argue that A Blessing and A Curse is weaker than SRO, Decoration Day, and TDS, although I'm sure some people love ABAAC. But we know that was recorded during a rough patch for the band, and Patterson had said that the band had a great time recording Decoration Day. So which one is better? It's a rhetorical question, but the point is that the cirucumstances of an album's recording really only matters to fans. It helps us understand an album more and maybe makes us appreciate it more, but in the end, I don't think it should factor in our judgement of the music itself. The music should stand on it's own, which I believe is what most artists want in the first place.
