unity vs variety
 

This is probably a false choice, but which do you prefer? An album that has a consistent mood, sound, theme, etc. or an album that's all over the place (I'm thinking of something like Raindogs, The White Album, sorta Sandanista)? Unity or variety?

variety is the spice of life.

Both can be done spectacularly or poorly. But I would go with variety because hopefully you can find at least one thing you dig and can take time to let the others sink in.

Variety is the hardest to carry off. I fucking hate that Zorn/ Zappa/ Patton wanking off over 'how many genres can we do in one album?' Really makes me very angry. Ground Zero's 'plays standards' is one of my favourite albums because there's not much chaff there, and it's a fairly broad selection. The proper pop trick of 'let's do a Spanish number!' annoys me for similar reasons.

A bit of fiddling about/ trying new things is fine, and necessary, but not too much, or you become jack of all trades. Jandek does so very little different, when he does a slight change of tempo it seems revelational. That's the way to do it (but then Jandek is a pretty special case).

*Edit - of course, I'm talking in musical terms, lyrical themes are a different matter.

First one.

Albums need consistency and coherence in my opinion.

Unity. There are too many artists like Zorn, Zappa, Patton, as mentioned above. Someone I hate even more with a passion for being the paradigmatic jack of all trades of all jack of all trades is Beck. That guy is a prisoner of his talent.
I'm much more interested in the act of commitment.

I like both.

And Zappa, Patton, and Beck are fucking geniouses.

But overwrought proggy concept albums are fucking annoying, too.

unity.
for the record, pink floyd were THE only band capable of making a concept album worth a listen. their work became much more cohesive post-barrett.

wouldn't labeling it as a proggy concept album also make it a consistent style?

I find anything "prog" to be "samey" and boring.

variety, but it depends on the band.
SCG and climax golden twins pull it off well, but some bands should jsut stick to what they do, like the ramones

I was referring to the consistent style.

The "this album is about innocence" pretension annoys me. I once really dug Radiohead albums for having the same atmosphere throughout an album but nothing explicit, but now it all just bothers me. But my listening trends change frequently.

It totally depends, but most of my favorite albums are albums that are united, with a special mood (generally that "out-there" atmosphere, as in Bad Moon Rising, I really love that atmospere).

But albums that goes in every direction can be really great too, for instance Mahjongg's Kontpab explores more than one direction per track and it's still a grand album

But doesn't that reduce the term "genius" to absurdity? Beck just fooling around like "Oh, Salsa rhythms? Well, I've never done that. Let's put it on my next album. A monk's choir? How cool is that, let's do that, too. Etc. etc."
Of course even the work of someone like Beck has its moments, but that's just logical, because if you plain and simple do everything that is possible, then at least sometimes you'll do the right think automatically.

Yes. I saw Beck at Rock en Seine in 2006 and it was very bad and dehumanized, while I was expecting something at least enjoyable because he's a good musician (even if I'm not a fan). Beck is musically skilled but is not able to make something really focused.

variety can be difficult to achieve and very anoying but i guess occaisionally it happens well. that said, sameness can be very dull also so i guess the ultimate is a mixture of the two.

variety. with unity.

bravo, the right answer.

Very true.

Maybe you won't exactly do something right by being Beck, but you'll still end up with something that might sound acceptably interesting for someone not to turn it off straight away.

Like everything, eccleticism is good in the hands of those who can pull it off, and by the same token sameness can be fine when done well too.

^Agreed with Porks statement. Thats pretty much the gist of this subject, also at soncipark said it well...variety with unity.

The problem I have with a lot of musician's idea of variety is that it's always a very narrow sense of variety. It's easy enough to parody, say, 'Gregorian' chant (which isn't necessarily 'Gregorian'), but there's a subtlety that's often indiscernible initially that is lost, inevitably. To students of early chant there's a massive difference between, say, Tallis and Bingen (the only names I know well in that field) and it always strikes me as disengenuous to throw away the majesty of any music with an ill-prepared pastiche.

Of course, it's all organic, and a things grow out of other things - Soukous is meant to be some African version of rock n' roll, but it's entirely different. I'm not entirely in opposition, but a lot of musicians seem to go about pastiche (which I'm not opposed to) in a very cavalier fashion.

It does come down to talent, there isn't much to debate on this.

There are different ways to look at it, though. Someone mentioned, rightly, people like Beck, who often tend to have 10 tracks on an album and a good 7 of them are in diffrent styles, generally all shite. Then you have people who change style with every album they put out, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so.

What about those who suddenly go from having played in fairly the same style for years to a complete change of direction?

What about people like Prince?

What about the funk marathons tinted with jazz/rock etc etc etc? Are those always sexy?

What about us?

Agreed with both above posts, and here's my two cents:

Talent is essential. A good band or artist will definetly have their own style/asthetic/sound/nuances, which you will know them by. This is regardless to any biting or imitating of other groups or bands, everyone does it to a lesser or greater degree so lets just call it that. BUT, being able to make a body of work or music that has a dynamic and variable flow, yet still maintaing the ''trademark'' or ''staple'' sound of the group is where the talent comes in......arrrgggh nevermind, the bottom line is make a silly first album, sell millions and then play what your mind and soul ask for. If you're good then you'll put variety in your music and maintain your own style.

everyone knows I hate Beck and his stupid shit, not because it is eclectic, but because it is so very GENERICALLY eclectic.

I prefer variety myself. I like butthole surfers records, or cornelius, or albums where the band is rocking in as many ways as they feel like. Of course they need to pull the shit off.

I also like unity. I like cohesion in albums as well, but this is mostly a result of the band involved. Mudhoney for example, only has two songs. arocking bluesy rmp or a slow bluesy dirge. with those two "songs" they fill up 3-4 albums of music. The melvins are the same way. There are many bands I love that have cohesive sounds throughout their albums. Again, if you do this, you have to be very good or else it wil all sound like filler.