View Full Version : Self Titled Albums
Laziness or not, what do you think? Heard that Jebidiah have self titled their latest, and it started me thinking.
I can understand that for a first release, self titling can be a beneficial marketing tool (ie etching your name into memory), however, after you've made a name for yourself, whats the point? How difficult could it be to name an album? Surely after putting so much time and effort into creating your masterpiece, you would want to title it so as to give it a "life" of its own?
Dr AlfAndrews
12 Mar 2002, 01:25
The implication of self-titling an album is that it's the only album you're ever going to make.
I think Led Zeppelin's first album was called "Led Zeppelin". I reckon they probably didn't expect to be around very long. They started out as one of those sixties "supergroups" that were all the rage at the time. There were a lot of those sorts of bands around at the time. Eric Clapton and Stevie Winwood had a band called Blind Faith that only made one (self-titled) album.
I think Led Zeppelin were actually called the New Yardbirds when they first started. Then they changed their name to Led Zeppelin and made that first album, which was probably meant to be their definitive album. But instead it was just the beginning.
Then came Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin III.
Their fourth album didn't even have a title.
After that, I think they actually started titling their albums. "Houses of the Holy" would have been their first album with a real title.
Hard to understand why a band like Jebediah would bring out a self-titled album at this stage of their career. Haven't they been around for yonks?
Seems a silly idea.
The Hitman
12 Mar 2002, 04:58
It sh*ts me when a band doesn't name their album. To me it smacks of lack of creativity and laziness. :o
The Hitman
Yeah when i heard they were gonna self title the album i was pretty annoyed. I like the titles of there first two albums and the artwork that went with them. There usually pretty creative, have you seen the Harpoon film clip? Slightly Odway and Of Someday Shambles were cool, strange names for there albums and i thought they might have had a theme going with the O's and S's..
Pretty annoying but it wont take away from the quality of music, if you havent got it yet, go and get it!
JEBS ROCK!
Metallica's self-titled (Black) album was their fifth overall. Maybe it means that their songs no longer have a message to collectively group under one title because they are are churning out formula hard rock to chase commercial success. ;)
In a way, I suppose Sly's post implies this as well because the name itself is a marketing tool - adopting this stance at the fifth album suggests that a band is chasing an even bigger market.
I don't know much about Jebediah to be honest, but think they would probably have been termed an alternative band with their previous albums, just as Metallica were previously a metal/thrash band.
Maybe "Jebediah" and "Metallica" are so titled to announce their "debut" in the mainstream of rock.
Or maybe they just ran out of better names (anyone thought of that?) :D
Originally posted by Darky
Or maybe they just ran out of better names (anyone thought of that?) :D
hahaha.. yeah, thats it.. hehe..
outta my favs,
blur, released their self-titled on their fifth album...
supergrass, released their self-titled on their third release..
a new direction perhaps? re-birth? or re-hash? hmm..
hmm.. self-titled albums dont really bother me that much...
greatest hits compilations (with one or two new songs) sh*t me even more...
Originally posted by coxon
hmm.. self-titled albums dont really bother me that much...
greatest hits compilations (with one or two new songs) sh*t me even more...
Agreed, even more so with bands doing a greatest hits CD after only two or three albums!
Danny Chook Fan Club
12 Mar 2002, 10:59
The Beatles' self-titled album was their tenth (British) studio album, surely some sort of record.
Of course, the reason for it (as well as the plain white sleeve) was as an antidote to all the hype about album covers following Sgt Pepper's.
Mooster7
12 Mar 2002, 11:26
I don't think albums need names. The music should be good, and somewhere on there should be the name of the folks that recorded it.
Dr. Alf mentioned Led Zeppelin. Even their name implied they didn't expect to be around long.
The Beatles had a great idea with a thematic album 'Sgt Pepper's' I don't think anyone since has done much but walk in the shadows of that idea. Possible exception being Pink Floyd.
None of the stuff I've written reminds me of any one particular theme. If I compiled it onto a disc, I suppose I'd have to call it 'Stuff Mooster Wrote.'
Be on the lookout for 'Stuff Mooster Wrote II.' It's better to be honest.
Bloodstained Angel
12 Mar 2002, 11:39
I'm all for a minmalist, neo-classical approach here.
Naming albums is pretensious bullsh't
Just number your albums for chrissake, Led Zep had the right idea with
LZ
LZ II
LZ III
but then I guess they were persuaded by the Marketing w@nkers to start putting dumb-ass puedo-intellectual 'names' on their LPs
Strangely, the quality of their music went down the gurgler at the same time.
Keep it simple, unpretentious and let your music do the talking.
If your music is awful - well, then I guess you better come up with a snazzy Sleeve design / catchy title then huh ? :rolleyes:
cheers
Stealth bomber
12 Mar 2002, 13:14
What gets my goat is people who self-title an album, then follow it up by using the first name for a title, then the initials for a title, then some nickname, then (you get the idea).
The Hitman
12 Mar 2002, 18:30
Just a question, Coxon. Is your name after the Blur band member?
The Hitman
Originally posted by The Hitman
Just a question, Coxon. Is your name after the Blur band member?
The Hitman
yes, sure is...
named after the guitar god himself... graham coxon..
who's released three solo albums... no self-titled release yet..