|
|
Post by torethatbridgeout on Feb 16, 2004 1:12:15 GMT -5
Someone tell me if I'm confused on this:
Calling his first solo album "14 Songs" was a nod to JD Salinger's book "9 Stories" and Randy Newman's album "12 Songs." Even with those references duly noted, in hindsight it seems kind of arbitrary, like it's an o.k. title but a little general.
But wasn't it the first album he made (counting Mats) with more than 12 songs? Maybe the first album not to appear on vinyl (a format that could only handle 12)? So "14 Songs" being mainly a CD release for the first time allowed it to have more songs, a fact that he's trumpeting with that title.
|
|
|
|
Post by ClamsCasino on Feb 16, 2004 1:21:42 GMT -5
But wasn't it the first album he made (counting Mats) with more than 12 songs? The Mats very first album had 18 songs. |
|
|
|
Post by torethatbridgeout on Feb 16, 2004 1:48:27 GMT -5
Are you suggesting 18 is more than 12?
OK, let's say since Sorry Ma.
|
|
|
|
Post by Placemat on Feb 16, 2004 10:16:46 GMT -5
24 is the highest #.
Now go & tell the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Regular on Feb 16, 2004 10:40:03 GMT -5
24 is the highest #. Now go & tell the world. But 1 is the lonliest number... God Bless Harry Nilsson |
|
|
|
Post by scoOter on Feb 16, 2004 11:15:01 GMT -5
But 1 is the lonliest number... God Bless Harry Nilsson but 2 can be worse than 1... |
|
Numskll
First Class Scout
Posts: 173
|
Post by Numskll on Feb 16, 2004 14:06:40 GMT -5
but 2 can be worse than 1... Err. . .that's 'two can be as bad as one, but the lonliest number is the number one' Clearly, in the context of the song one is as bad as it gets. In real life, I think the jury is still out . . . . . Back on topic: At least 14 songs as an album title is marginally more interesting then an eponymous one. |
|
|
|
Post by butzodaddy on Feb 16, 2004 19:36:03 GMT -5
"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
|
|
|
|
Post by landshark on Feb 16, 2004 21:07:31 GMT -5
All Shook Down = 13 songs
|
|
Doug
First Class Scout
Posts: 157
|
Post by Doug on Feb 17, 2004 19:35:52 GMT -5
I'd guess a combination of sarcasm/humor, album titles not being a strength (like drums), the songs not especially related to each other, a statement of fact, more arrogance than he has now (he had various successes in the early 90s), etc. I'm sure in my more perceptive moments I've had other theories on the subject as well. I just can't remember them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ClamsCasino on Feb 18, 2004 4:53:05 GMT -5
I think he wanted to play up his status as a songwriter. That also explains why the limited edition release was packaged as a book. I'd guess it's a comment on going solo and putting yourself out there as a lone singer/songwriter. "These are my 14 Songs. Love 'em or leave 'em, but I'll take all the blame/credit this time around."
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyDouglas on Feb 18, 2004 8:50:09 GMT -5
Yup yr right, read in an interveiw that it was to make a clean break sorta thing, establish the songwriter/person seperate from the placemat. A process me thinks finally got to by suicane and then stereo where the work sounds more like PW and less the mat, as the man says like when he started writin songs before the mats.
|
|
Doug
First Class Scout
Posts: 157
|
Post by Doug on Feb 18, 2004 23:18:37 GMT -5
I think he wanted to play up his status as a songwriter . . . "These are my 14 Songs. Love 'em or leave 'em, but I'll take all the blame/credit this time around." I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by torethatbridgeout on Feb 23, 2004 21:05:46 GMT -5
Here's a guy who says 12 songs was the right number for an album, and the music industry is starting to figure that out: u.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,214~24185~1920526,00.html |
|
