[evollove]

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?

[avantgarde1]

variety is the spice of life.

[pbradley]

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.

[Glice]

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.

[Torn Curtain]

First one.

Albums need consistency and coherence in my opinion.

[Gogogonorrhea]

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.

[StevOK]

I like both.

And Zappa, Patton, and Beck are fucking geniouses.

[pbradley]

But overwrought proggy concept albums are fucking annoying, too.

[Cantankerous]

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.

[StevOK]

Originally Posted by pbradley

But overwrought proggy concept albums are fucking annoying, too.

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

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

[fugazifan]

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

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by StevOK

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

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

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.

[SYRFox]

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

[Gogogonorrhea]

Originally Posted by StevOK

I like both.

And Zappa, Patton, and Beck are fucking geniouses.

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.

[Torn Curtain]

Originally Posted by Gogogonorrhea

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.

[jon boy]

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.

[atsonicpark]

variety. with unity.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Both can be done spectacularly or poorly...

bravo, the right answer.

Originally Posted by Gogogonorrhea

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.

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.

[RdTv]

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