Do you supposed that when an artist creates an album, say about 11-12 songs that he/she knows what is "money" material and what is filler? Or is every song from inception to product considered first class material and since is good enough to make the cut of the album, it is (in the artist's mind) "money" material or has "hit" capabilities?

I don't think any artist considers his/her craft "filler". Do you?

dannyd5050 said:

...explain RAP. 100% *****

Graycap23 said:

Notice I wrote "artist"...

"Filler" is why I still buy albums and not just 99 cent iTunes singles.

Cinnie said:

You mean so that you can get all the tracks that aren't singles to see if there are some uncovered gems?

dannyd5050 said:

I think after 1988, Prince became one of the most skilled artists to release filler material.

dannyd5050 said:

Absolutely. I think a lot of listeners miss out by only checking out "the hit".

Usually the same producers, songwriters, session players who worked on the hit also worked just as hard on the album tracks, but the song wasn't chosen as a single when the album was delivered to the label.

I don't think any artist wants "filler" released. They put those songs on the album for a reason.

MrSoulpower said:

But Prince doesn't think it is filler.

dannyd5050 said:

Cinnie said:

He doesn't? Shoot. All these years I never thought he'd be serious with this.

I think at least at the time of release, the artist doesn't believe it is filler.

There is a lot of pressure to finish and release albums as product, so certain albums might be "rushed" and the decision to include certain tracks might reflect the opinion of those songs at that moment.

I think this is why debut albums are often the strongest, the artist has had way more time to decide which songs they love and want to record.

The other thing is, after playing certain songs live, you can see the energy it brings to a room - the performers and the audience, which can make the decision much clearer what deserves to be recorded and released.

Feist assembled a band and toured with her unreleased songs before she recorded them, to work out any kinks, and it became her most accessible album to date.

dannyd5050 said:

It's all about the listeners perception in the end, but in the moment of creation there's really no right or wrong. For example, Earth Wind & Fire's "Love's Holiday" would be considered filler to some people in the scope of all the other songs on "All N All". But watch the reaction of the audience on "The Original Kings Of Comedy" when Steve Harvey talks about classic R&B and them horns come down....
[Edited 4/17/09 12:24pm]

diamondpearl1 said:

I never considered "Love's Holiday" as a filler. I did think EWF "music interlude" are fillers. Not a big deal since at their peek.... I don't think EWF were capable of writing/recording a "filler" at their peak.
[b][Edited 4/18/09 19:17pm]

TD3 said:

But see "Love's Holiday" was never released as a single so causal fans who never went past "Shining Star", "Let's Groove" or "Reasons" might hear it and call it filler, But you ask any real EWF fan like yourself and they'll be like "whaddya mean that was filler"? lol

I don't think an artist seeks out to make filler. After all, there is no need for albums to be a certain length anymore. It does appear to be more bang for the buck, but I don't know.

There probably are some but very few artists that say let's make some hot singles and if we run out of ideas, just do whatever. Kind of sad but probably true. Real artists make albums and if singles are there, fine. I think it's true also that artists make albums with no singles, are pressured to go back in and that is when they get their singles and perhaps some genuine filler that they might not believe in. Somebody should ask musical artists this question, especially those with hit songs!

To me, it depends on the artist. Take for instance Janet Jackson's Control. John McClain was the main overseer of that project. I think he went after Jam and Lewis for the HITS. Then, he realized that they needed a couple of more songs, then Janet worked with Monte Moir and Spencer Bernard. I think Spencer's tracks were looked at their cuts as "filler".

Additionally, writers and producers also looked at it as an opportunity to get a b-side out of it. That way they still made big time bucks.

Do you really think that the use of Jesse Johnson's Pretty Boy and Fast Girls as b-sides were coincidence? Nope. That was Jam and Lewis helping a friend cash in on the Janet bandwagon. Not to mention he was signed to A&M also.
[Edited 4/17/09 15:04pm]

daPrettyman said:

Am I missing something?

JJ's "Pretty Boy" and "Fast Girls" (which are both good but sort of suggest quickly written songs considering the similar titles, themes) came a full two years before with "Dream Street".....were Jam and Lewis in any way involved on the album? They might have pushed to help make those b-sides (even though "Fast Girls" had already been a single with it's own non album b-side at that point), I guess.

diamondpearl1 said:

I'm sorry I didn't have time to finish my thought.

I agree the BlackKnight to some what: Ultimately I think it depends on the artist and how much creative control they have. For those artist who do and can arrange, produce and write their own music, I don't think their creative mind think in terms of fillers, each album is a narrative. For artist who depend on producers/songwriters it maybe be a bit different. Music groups that have been created via casting calls (boy-bands)...2 or 3 hit songs the rest fillers.

I think fillers are bad album songs. Album songs are not necessarily bad, they're just not as commercial or snappy as the usual radio song.


I think good musicians have good album songs that didn't make the single. Take Madonna: I love so many of her album songs, Heartbeat, Where's The Party, Impressive Instant, Mer Girl, Voices..

don't even talk about the Beatles..

and bad artists have one or two good songs and the rest is unlistenable. THESE are fillers.

TD3 said:

I never felt their interludes as filler, but a functional part of the musical concept which Maurice created with the help of others. Their interludes blend fluently in the songs which follow after them.
Not shure but i think that "All 'N' All" was one of the first albums which presented such a unique medley/storybook-like concept.

TD3 said:

i can't follow this. What defines a song ?

Shango said:[quote]

TD3 said:

I saw that and I didn't get back to it .... I was in a rush yesterday!
It was unique the first time EW&F did "music interludes" but after awhile it appeared to be calculated/redundant and some instances interfered with the flow of some amazing songs/albums. (IMHO)

Because of the limits of analog/vinyl you couldn't put 12, 15, 16...20 songs on an album anyways.. unless you were gonna do a double album. Earth Wind and Fire, "That's the Way of the World" was a double album that had 8 songs! I own a lot of Jazz albums which have 4 to 6 songs on an album. So, I think in some instances "filler(s)" evolved with the advancement of Cd/digital technology.
[Edited 4/22/09 10:54am]

Well usually how it goes, is that the artist, lets say for example, Aerosmith, goes into their studio, jams, puts these jams to tape, and then whoever is overseeing the album weaves it into a bunch of tracks to keep working on or throw out...now when they have say 10+ tracks, they go to the label head who has to approve, and play the record for him, case in point, when AEROSMITH recorded PUMP they worked Bruce Fairburn, then the finished product was taken to John Kalodner and played for him, and he made the "judgement" what was a single, a hit, needed to be edited for rradio play, etc....So what is deemed "filler" for bands is not filler, filler is something that critics come up with and we run with the term.

VinnyM27 said:

No, Jam and Lewis were not involved, but Jam, Lewis, and Jesse are all friends. Producers and record companies pick singles and b-sides. Jesse got paid half of the single sales for "What have you done for me lately", "Nasty", and one more that I can't recall.

Single royalties are split equally for writers. It doesn't matter if it was a b-side or a-side.

Exactly. When I was growing up, I would basically just put the needle on some of the tracks that were never played on the radio and listen for only a few seconds to decide if I liked the song or not. As an adult, I have gone back and listened to some of those albums in their entirety and discovered songs that I fell in love with that I had in my collection all along.

vainandy said:

I've done that so many times as an adult. Especially with Earth Wind and Fire albums. Maybe I was a bit too young when they came out to appreciate the music, but fell in love with the albums when I was in college.

Filler's (or whatever it's called) are great.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Some fillers are GREAT fillers. Marvin's "Hey Diddle Diddle" is a good example. Sure it may not have as much hit potential as the ones released but it held up for the "Moods of Marvin Gaye" album.

Timmy84 said:

Are "filler" and "strong album cuts" the same? For example, let's use the J5's "Maybe Tomorrow" LP. Filler from that album would be "I Will Find a Way" and a strong album cut would be "She's Good." Or would "She's Good" fall under a single from the album since it was a B-Side of of title track??