Define filler. Is it always bad or is it purely subjective? Examples please.
I realize the standard definition is tracks made to flesh out an album when there isn't enough material for a full 40 minute (60~80 minute CD) album. But is it really that simple? A lot of effort might have gone into tracks which some regard as filler.
Filler is a very subjective phenomenon; and for the most part, in my experience of reading album reviews, isn't used solely to describe sub-standard tracks but rather the tracks that the reviewer didn't like on an album, or the tracks that aren't as good as the hits, also called "album tracks" by some people, so in other words one man's filler is another mans treasure!
For example, for me Wish You Were Here is two good tracks and the rest is filler, which is why I never listen to it. And I hear those two tracks regularly anyway on the radio or compilations or spotify, so I don't need to hear the album.
Spot on. That's how I usually see it used.Originally Posted by PeterG
?!? Which are the two good tracks? If you didn't hear the rest on the radio would you still consider it to be filler? It's very hard for me to imagine this album without any of the songs.
Pretty much.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Well, the fact that you have to ask and that you like the album as a whole means that you don't think there is any filler on WYWH, which proves my point of the term "filler" being highly subjective.
Filler are the tracks that don't take any risks musically, have nothing new to say lyrically, overall not bad or good. The song is just kinda there, filling up the disk.
But PeterG is correct, I think, when he says the judgement is often leveled at songs someone just doesn't like. I guess that's almost the only criteria one could use, although sometimes people seem to use it to label bits that aren't really full-blown songs, or are just reprises or what have you.
But I've seen the term used when discussing bands like Rush or Marillion, where one person will say such-and-such songs are just filler, and then someone else says "but those are my favorite songs!" So I think the term is really just used to identify songs someone doesn't like (and is therefore pretty bogus).
Maybe, though, we can identify a few tracks we all agree are "filler?" Hmm... Peter Gabriel - "We Do What We're Told" (Milgram's 37)" (from So)?
Yes, before anyone says it, I know what that song is about, but I never thought it was any good. But it was tacked on at the end and brought the album length from about 36 min. up to almost 40 min. IMO they would have been better off including "This Is the Picture (Excellent Birds)" on the original album instead. I always liked that song after seeing it performed live (for the first time?) on TV on Jan 1st, 1984.
But I'm sure someone will say "I love We Do What We're Told..."
It depends on a person's personal musical tastes. With musicians ...sometimes not. A musician may like a so called filler track ..but not value it overall. A filler track could have characteristics ..for example the track may sound a bit too reminiscent of previous work. The artist may be utilizing reflections of a previous work, but the listener will feel cheated. I have listened to hundreds of recordings which clock in between 35 to 40 minutes where 2 tracks in particular are magnificent and the others are filler. It's a hard challenge for an artist to please a majority of their fans...yet in the past various bands/artists have released material that was pathetic. I may sound like an extremist..but it's very common for an artist to let a percentage of their fans down. Fans that have high expectations for their favorite artist to release something in music which they can personally identify with which may be from the past. Artists sometimes find that pressure putting them in a position which is contrived and forced. It's a vicious circle.
Note to self... come back when I have time (in other words, not today).... to throw a cobble stone is the quiet pond, to stir shit up
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
You can't define Filler. Imagine this - some people think the five solo tracks on "Fragile" are filler. Do you? I don't. But others do. Filler is what you make of it.
I'll reply in advance of your statement — no, the '80s weren't all filler.Note to self... come back when I have time (in other words, not today).... to throw a cobble stone is the quiet pond, to stir shit up
There were some tracks that were objectively filler. The Beatles re-recorded "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" and "Bad Boy" strictly so that Capitol could have some extra tracks to make new albums with -- to "fill them up."
Terry Brown told Rush they needed a 3 1/2 minute track to make Signals' album sides equal, so they came up with "New World Man." Amusingly, it became their only charting hit.
I think we can all define filler for ourselves. I personally don't care for the term. There are songs I like and songs I don't like. Using the example of Fragile - the solo tracks are not my favorites and I think the album overall could have been much stronger with a couple more full band tunes (unless for some reason I felt those songs were really weak). That's not to say I don't find the solo pieces to have any musical value at all - far from it. I just much prefer the songs on Fragile.
But the other reason I dislike the term "filler" is that it implies we have some knowledge of the artist's intent for creating a given song. And without that specific knowledge...it's pretty insulting. More insulting than just saying we don't like the song, that the song is weak or totally sucks... It says that the artist knew it sucked, didn't care, and used it to pad out the album anyway.
In a lot of cases it just doesn't make sense that the artist would feel that way (of course, I'm sure there are misguided artists out there lacking any common sense, but...). If an artist puts a full 70+ minutes of music on one CD do they get paid any more than if it were only 45 or 50 minutes? If you consider the time and money investment to include another 20 minutes of "substandard" music...well, why would they bother?
And weren't there are few Rush albums where something similar happened? So in a sense, yes, those songs are objectively and in the most practical sense "filler". And yet I wouldn't consider the result filler in the sense that it had no value.
Technically "Lucky Man" was a "Filler" track.
Sure I read somewhere that Kansas thought 'Carry on Wayward Son' was filler & didn't want it on the album. It became their most famous song.
Similiarly, didn't Black Sabbath record 'Paranoid' at the last minute to pad out the album. The rest is history !!!
For me personally the filler is usually slow ballads and sappy love songs. There are exceptions of course. Overall I agree with the sentiment that "filler" is in the ear of the beholder.
Same with "Dust in the Wind."
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
I believe that it was recorded at the last minute because they didn't have enough material. But I think "Dust in the Wind" was their most famous, though COWS couldn't have been far behind. But yes, it's a good example of how one man's filler is another man's hit song...
For me, though I love a lot of the Flower Kings' stuff, they do have what I consider to be a bit of filler. My take on it is how a song like "Stardust We Are" is extended with too many repetitions of certain themes. It may just be his writing style, but I observe it on others, like Transatlantic's "Whirlwind". I like the music, and the live DVD really brought it home to me. But I think the album would've been a lot more interesting had they cut back at least 10 or so minutes of repetition. I can't write that way; when I state a theme, and develop it a bit, then I'm off to something else. Otherwise, it *feels* like padding to me, and decreases the impact of the music.
Now, as stated above, we're all different, and our view of "filler" will vary widely, but that's my take on it...
Gnish-gnosh borble wiff, shlauuffin oople tirk.
Not from what I've read. Rabin said that Horn wouldn't go record anything else until that song was done, because he sensed it would be a hit.
Gnish-gnosh borble wiff, shlauuffin oople tirk.
I've always understood "filler" to mean songs that were written for the sake of "filling out" an album. As such, they betray signs of being hastily written and performed, often do not stray very far from an artist's established sonic template, and are just generally uninspired.
No, that's just the story Lake tells. It was not recorded at the end.
In his book Emerson tells how he and Eddie Offord set up Advent's Moog as his hadn't arrived yet.
The way they tell the story is that LM was the first song Emo used the Moog on.
But, there are the multiple overdubs of "Tank", so that must have been recorded after LM.
BTW, the example I was going to use as filler is "Are You Ready, Eddie?"
not for nothing but why do you automatically discount Lakes account and accept Keiths account? I don't know which is right but just saying...the way Lakes tells it, he says he wrote the song when he was 12 or whatever and they needed a last song for the album that was the one. Either way, I don't regard it as "Filler". It's a huge and classic track.
I'm curious too--which two tracks are not filler on Wish You were Here? Meaning you most likely regard virtually the whole album as filler? lol, that's funny.
Last edited by ProgGreaser; 02-25-2013 at 02:42 PM.
are you going to cause Ripples?Note to self... come back when I have time (in other words, not today).... to throw a cobble stone is the quiet pond, to stir shit up
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks