This has puzzled me since I started on this site. Other than albums that are clearly build around a single concepts (like Sgt Pepper or American Idiot), what is the difference between an album and a bunch of songs? Aren't most albums basically a bunch of songs that the band had recently written at any given time? How is the Ronettes' album any different from Ten in that respect? Is it just the difference in marketing styles of 1963 vs. 1991?
I'm sincerely asking the question, because you've openly stated what seems to be an undercurrent here, that albums from before, say, Pet Sounds are really just a bunch of singles, and don't really count. I've never understood that.
Please advise.
Listmeister (non puppy-hater)
I actually don't know for sure if it applies to Presenting The Fabulous Ronettes, but some early albums were collections of songs from previously released 45s, recorded during totally different studio sessions, so the songs don't tie together quite as cohesively as an album conceived during a single period of time. this does not make one thing better or worse. I'm thinking more along the lines of records that were essentially greatest hits albums from singles artists.
The fact remains that Presenting The Fabulous Ronettes is a peak moment for girl groups. _________________ http://jonnyleather.com
After listening to the eight albums in this round, either of these two would have beaten any of the other six if they had been paired up differently. Luck of the draw.
Mmm ... I don't even know here how to put it. The Ronettes are perfectly alright. I very much enjoy Vedder's solo work. Pearl Jam ... just not so much. Yes, I have listened to this album, yes, it contains my favorite materials of theirs, and even then, this goes to The Ronettes. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
meccalecca
Listmeister
Defago
benpaco
