In The Dock: Overly productive / low quality control pop groups

(If you're wondering what this is all about, click here.)

This week's subject: Overly productive / low quality control pop groups

The case for the prosecution (Jonathan S)

There are lots of motivations for wanting to be a musician; fame, notoriety, influence, hedonism, money. Even - occasionally - love of pop music. Noel Gallagher wrote decent songs when he worked on a building site, probably because he wanted it so badly. It's odd that in the years that followed, songwriting seemed to stop being such a pleasure and became a chore, and his talent disappeared. But for most of us, people who don't spend our time writing songs, but who certainly do spend our time slogging away in demeaning and demanding jobs, vying for parental approval yet cursing every wasted minute, the dream of being a musician has more to do with freedom - no more day jobs, no more scrabbling for half an hour to do something creative. The parties and the indulgences would be fine, but it's the idea of space that bewitches.

Of course, it isn't really like that, as plenty of pop stars (Joss Stone being the most recent example) will tell us. For Graham Coxon, tired of Blur, the worst of it was the relentless daily routine, not recording so much as touring and promotional stuff; getting locked down into industry schedules; write, record, promote, tour, write, record, promote, tour. He wanted freedom too, so when Blur began recording Think Tank, he just stayed away. He was more interested in freedom, and began pursuing it by stepping out of the industry cycle and recording and releasing his own records. Where Blur managed six albums in twelve years, he quickly released his first four albums in five, and has added two more subsequently. He toured when he wanted to, he recorded when he wanted to, and he released records when he wanted to. Perfect.

Except of course that no-one bought the records until album number five, when he realised something I could have told him, if he'd have asked. Overly productive, low quality-control bands may make for great Best Of compilations, but they try your damn patience, too. His first four albums contain plenty of ace tunes, amongst a ton of throwaway stuff, but half of them even are under-recorded and half-assed. 2004's Happiness In Magazines was a revelation, because for the first time since Coxon worked with Blur, he was taking care to produce a set of smart, cohesive pop songs.

iPods and the advent of MP3 technology have arguably devalued the concept of the album, as opposed to the pop song, making it less important that the new Primal Scream album, say, has a few real stinkers on it. Just download 'Country Girl' and 'Little Death'. But this principle will really only work so long as Primal Scream buck the trend (as they assuredly will) and make a better effort next time. For bands without their sheer force of character, the problem is more pronounced. Everyone knows that Peter Doherty can write a decent pop song, but why did the Babyshambles album contain so many half-drawn duds? Because his quality control impulse wasn't high enough. Why have none of the Wu-Tang Clan, with the genius example of Ghostface Killah, made a decent record since GZA's Liquid Swords back in 1995? Because their quality control is poor. There are some stunning songs in there, but not one consistently brilliant record. It's certainly better than having nothing at all, but it makes you want to grab them and shake them 'til they raise the bar.

Some bands hover on the precipice, and the importance of quality control is more evident. XTC released some of the best records of the late 70s and 80s (Black Sea, Skylarking and English Settlement are gobsmacking) but never broke through. If you want to know why, listen to 'Mummer' or 'The Black Express'. There's not a better lyricist anywhere in the world than Andy Partridge, but why is he rarely acknowledged as such? Because he couldn't resist writing the odd song about his "pink thing" either. Since XTC's late 90s second wind, Partridge has been digging through the crates for songs he never used, and has released eight albums since 2002. Think how much more diluted the back catalogue of one of Britain's finest bands might have been!

There are, obviously, shambling, half-coherent records I love. But just as is there is nothing better than a beautifully packaged record, so there is nothing better than an artistic vision meticulously drawn. Slow down and take care, young Mr.Doherty, you can do better. And you should so some things, thinking about it, less.

The case for the defence (Damo)

OK – first up, when I said I’d defend this one, I said I’d defend overly productive groups, not ones with low quality control. Clearly there’s no defending the latter trait. But the title remains the same I see... how to progress? Simple, my job here is to show that "overly productive" doesn’t necessarily mean "low quality control"... and equally that underproductive bands don’t necessarily produce classics simply because they take their time.

First up, how often does this happen - and how frustrating is it - when your new favourite band becomes everyone’s favourite band? Not out of any kind of elitism, but because the constant demands of touring are put upon them by their record companies, as well as the album being "milked" for an endless stream of singles. The result? You got the first couple of albums in two years, but now you’ve got to wait three years (or more) each time because every time the band expresses the will to get back in the studio, the record company says "You’re neglecting Australia". It happens. And at that level, touring’s where the money is, so the bands might be happily compliant anyway. The obvious examples are the "big ones" - your U2s and Coldplays, but for those of you with more "indie" tastes it’s no different. How often do you get a new Flaming Lips album these days? When do you reckon the third Arcade Fire album will come out?

Basically, waiting three years for another 45 minutes of material from a band you like is patience-trying at best. That’s why we should appreciate the acts that manage to buck the album-tour-single-tour-single-tour-single-tour-tour-festival circuit-tour trend - and do it well. Good examples? I’d start by suggesting Sufjan Stevens, Guided By Voices (RIP) and Ryan Adams (OK – there’s some low quality control there, but you still get decent new material far more frequently than with your average artist if your selective powers are good). And of course the dear old Fall. As with the point in the previous paragraph, this isn’t about whether you like those particular artists; there are more and that doubtless includes ones that you like. It’s the principle we’re dealing with here.

And why shouldn’t artists work hard to earn their respect (and money)? Plenty of acts given lots of "creative space" manage to come back with something massively self-indulgent. Sometimes it’s good to feel more than to think. The graveyard of dodgy records is littered with artists who were allowed to lose their focus... or worse, were forced to chuck something out quickly so that they could get back out on tour again.

Reading that, I would imagine that some of you might be baulking at my suggestion that we should place constraints and (heaven forbid) time limits on artists. At the risk of being controversial, sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind. Not always, but definitely sometimes. Ask Kevin Shields.

Or Axl Rose.

* * * * *

Thanks to Jonathan and Damo for their contributions. Now it's over to you. Guilty or innocent - YOU decide. The comments box is open and awaiting your comments - you've got until Friday to make up your mind...