A Strange Day vs. The Hanging Garden

Started by nausearockpig, April 04, 2007, 08:21:11

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Steve

Don't take this personally Janko, but is there something wrong with your caps lock button?

Looks like you're shouting when you post  :lol:
Cheers
Steve
I know tomorrow's going to taste like cake
http://www.balatonfured.hu/en_index.php

Dillinger

 just another robert smith wannabe  :lol:

Janko

Quote from: farquad92 on April 12, 2007, 16:10:08
just another robert smith wannabe  :lol:


THIS IS TRUE...

IF ROBERT CAN, SO CAN I ...

AH, WHAT ELSE IS NEW?!

:-D


ps

yes, nothing much

:D
Fatter than Bob, balder than Porl, as sober as Simon, as amusing as Jason

nausearockpig

try this: in wmp or winamp or whatever player you want, queue up all the tracks which appear on Standing On A Beach but replace The Hanging Garden with A Strange Day and have a listen.
does it flow, does it sound better, does it suck?

I believe that in the context of Pornography, The Hanging Garden flows perfectly. it sits in the right place [tracklisting wise] and is generally "right". But in a singles compilation context, I don't know....

KingOfSomeIsland

Quote from: Janko on April 12, 2007, 15:49:12
INTERESTING,ALSO,HOW ROBERT SAID THAT THE ALBUM
BLOODFLOWERS HAD NO SINGLES AT ALL
WHILE "MAYBE SOMEDAY" WAS THE SINGLE MATERIAL
100%
WITH A BETTER AIRPLAY
AND SOME CUTTING TO MAKE IT AROUND 3,5 minutes
IT COULD BE MASSIVE HIT

:rocker

actually the reason no singles were released from Bloodflowers was because Robert diddnt want to have to cut any songs down because he diddnt think theyd have the same effect. I do think Spilt Milk wouldve made a good stand alone single.

Janko

Quote from: KingOfSomeIsland on April 15, 2007, 05:50:23

I do think Spilt Milk wouldve made a good stand alone single.


WELL IT WAS A RADIO PROMO SINGLE...


TO ME:

LAST DAY OF SUMMER
MAYBE SOMEDAY
WHERE THE BIRDS ALWAYS SING
THERE IS NO IF...


WOULD BE PERFECT FOUR SINGLES OFF "BLOODFLOWERS"
Fatter than Bob, balder than Porl, as sober as Simon, as amusing as Jason

japanesebaby

well i'm aware it's maybe a sort of easy thing to say since it doesn't really crave any imagination from me, but i've always been very happy with the idea of 'bloodflowers' being an album without singles. i somehow feel this gives it a sepcial kind of stature, almost like self-confidence as an album - it's doesn't need any singles to advertise itself, it's perfectly ok in its very own both strong and calm way without any tracks being ripped from the structure. surely, it's filled with gorgeous songs, many of which would apparently "made great singles", but they are even better when they are kept in the context of the album. surely they would have beaten most of the other songs out there in radio play at that time by the terms of quality of the songwriting itself, but still none of the songs is shouting out "i'm a great single, look at me!"
i think the decision not to put out any singles was a very good one, and in perfect harmony with the nature of the album.
why would it need any singles?
don't get me wrong but i get the same feeling as every time when people talk about certain B-sides and say this or that song "should have been an A-side". like there was some sort of hierarchy where being a B-side means the song was somehow neglected. the same with singles: i don't think some songs very accidentally neglected (or on purpose either) when they maybe weren't released as singles. i don't think this is true at all. robert often talked about this, how and why he chose the certain songs on this or that album and why some songs (that were often even recognized as being far superior songs by him too!) were left out. like why 'wendy time' was on 'wish' and 'this twilight garden' wasn't. i think he had perfectly reasonable ideas behind this, since he was always thinking about the album structure as a whole, how to make it work the best possible way as an album. so i don't think he neglected anything or missed noticing some songs had potential, but it was a conscious choice.
well ok, the choice of singles was sometimes not his choice but also maybe dictated by the record label. so in that respect it's maybe a bit different... but anyway, i don't feel any need to regret that there were no singles released from 'bloodflowers'. it's not a fixed question of value. and i don't know why singles should even be compulsory - the album structures/contexts are different: for some albums the "producing of the singles" come naturally, for others it doesn't. and i don't think 'bloodflowers' has this "single mentality" on it.
and yet, this is definitely more like a strenght than a weakness, imo.
so, no singles for me, please. :)

(i also think it was only good that 'spilt milk' was released completely separately from 'bloodflowers'. it wouldn't have been comfortable on the album anyway - especially if they had put it in just to have one song with "single quality". it would have been totally obvious and would have felt out of place, breaking the arch of the rest of the album.)


Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine

Dillinger

can someone please send me spilt milk?


bloodflowers is one of my favourite albums and i think its better than disintegration when you listen to both as albums rather than collections of songs, it just didnt have a lullaby or lovesong on it. criminally under rated i think, if the next album reaches that quality il be very pleased

japanesebaby

Quote from: farquad92 on April 16, 2007, 00:16:57
criminally under rated i think, if the next album reaches that quality il be very pleased
i wouldn't say it's underrated. i feel it's just as often almost overrated and strangely for the very same reasons than it' also underrated for... people just keep saying it's underrated because it didn't get as much airplay as some other albums - because there were no singles - but that's not the only way to rate something. it certainly didn't sell poorly and it was practically praised to death by most critics. it was a nominated for the grammy award. the tour that followed was pretty succesful everywhere they went to. nobody's really slagging it off in a way that people keep beating WMS or 'mixed up' - those might be underrated (that is if they ever deserve to be called that - but that's another story altogether). etc. etc.
anyway, doesn't sound like an underrated album for me!
Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine

Dillinger

the only people that rate it though are cure fans and critics, you ask anyone else and the reactions always go like "are they still around?" "past it..." "oh yeah the last one i had was wish" etc. when you mention the band people think of just like heaven, disintegration, wish, friday im in love and not bloodflowers despite its brilliance and being a decade younger. and the cure will always have succesful tours, regardless of album

japanesebaby

sure, but i would concentrate on what people who know and care about the band think about, like people here on the forums. not on what people who don't really know much or only associate the band with some old hits do think. i see what you meant and i don't want to sound blunt but i just honestly don't think that everyone and their dog's opinion is really interesting to consider in this respect. sure, they probably didn't notice 'bloodflowers', because they only notice hits at its best. but these people always miss a multitude of great albums anyway but yet it's not the same as if those albums were somehow criminally neglected in general. the best things are rarely the most popular ones - and maybe it is even good that way! i don't really worry about the popularity or non popularity of something i like. it's not important or interesting to me.
personally i just honestly don't care how non cure fans rate this band - since they are not fans i don't think they can have much interesting to say (unless they become fans first hehe ;)).

and so what i meant is that it's somehow strange to me that people on cure forums (=fans) pretty unanimously keep praising 'bloodflowers' but also keep adding that "it's so underrated" - because why should we bother what some non fans think about it or how they rate it? i just think it's much more interesting to concentrate on how we fans perceive the material, since we are the ones familiar with it. the rest can be ignored.
Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine

Dillinger

i guess its just what you consider under rated, if i see a great small band who have a small but dedicated following i still think theyre under rated because they are passed over by most, which bloodflowers is, even by new fans.

japanesebaby

Quote from: farquad92 on April 16, 2007, 02:03:03
i guess its just what you consider under rated, if i see a great small band who have a small but dedicated following i still think theyre under rated because they are passed over by most
sure. but isn't it often also considered even better for some band that most people just pass it by? how many bands were really loved when they started and they were "underrated" in this way, then as they started to gain publicity and suddenly people were saying they were "overrated" and not so good anymore.
so being "underrated" (or not) has nothing to do with the actual quality of the subject.

don't get me wrong, i don't mean 'bloodflowers' wouldn't have deserved to be found by even more people than now. it's a great album and beats most others that came out at that time, maybe even all the rest of them. but i just mean it's not necessarily anything criminal. it isn't any lesser album now and i don't think it wouldn't have been any better if it were more widely known. so i just mean that maybe there's nothing to regret after all. it doesn't really matter because it wouldn't change anything.
Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine

Dillinger

well i like to introduce people to new music, and am very good at it even if i say so myself, so i just wish such a great album is known by and enjoyed by more people.

japanesebaby

of course! and i like to do that too, sure. but i think it often works best on a "grass level", when one individual introduces something to  another indivual. and so again, it's maybe not about how the great masses think or rate this band. i jusr don't think that 'bloodflowers' is an album that would have benefited/would benefit from any extensive commercially oriented hype. it an album that people seem to find it one by one. people often say (even fans) that it took some time to get into it, to figure it out. not that it's so called "difficult music" but because it's rather layered, you uncover it's secrets differently than you listen to some more pro-singles oriented album.
so, "one by one, they'll all submit to it, just wait and see..." ;)
i just like this quality in that album. that it's so "silently powerful" somehow. it doesn't need any hype, it's like it was above it...

(anyway, i don't want to sound annoying with what i say here, like i was splitting hairs or something. i guess i just like to discuss the things in detail sometimes.)
Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine