Fun Stuff > BAND

EPs Vs. Albums - what do you think?

<< < (4/4)

october1983:
Man I'm going with Darryl on this one, it's a pretty context-sensitive idea that really depends on the band, their music, what they're trying to achieve etc. Trying to pin it down to "I think bands should start by releasing an EP and then this and that and so on" assumes that most bands should be following a similar trajectory rather than the path that best suits them, which is frankly ridiculous. It's like trying to argue which is better, a short story or a novel - the best one is the one that fits best for whatever's trying to be achieved.

dancarter:
It's really apples and oranges right?  It depends on the EP and it depends on the record.  An EP can be brilliant or it can be an exercise in extreme torturous departure because a band wanted to try something foolhardy that was better left on the cutting room floor or better yet, in their heads.  Same with any album.  Some are great.  Some not so much.  I've heard 70 minute albums that I hate and 30 minute albums that I love or vice/versa.  Conversely, I've heard some fantasic and staggerlingly horrendous EPs along the same lines.  Okay.  I just repeated myself. Time to end my blather.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page