Album titles - are they really that important?

NIMAN

Was listening to the radio yesterday and heard about a new Soundgarden album for later in the year. The DJ said "they are still working on a title for it".

Got me thinking, does it really matter?

I mean, if a band's albums were simply numbered, 1 ...... whatever, would it make them any less iconic?

I mean, would the Joshua Tree be any less of an album if it was wasn't call The Joshua Tree?

Sinfonia

NIMAN wrote: »

I mean, if a band's albums were simply numbered, 1 ...... whatever, would it make them any less iconic?

Well, obviously not (Led Zep); I'm sure the radio presenter just said that because people would generally like to know the title so they can look it up/keep an eye out for it etc.

karaokeman

The title is sort of like a promotion tool, the name is usually given by a band when they think its time for fans to keep an eye out, but usually it doesn't matter in the long run.

Robbie Williams has said his next album will be called Nine and I'm still listening up for updates, I still thought Escapology worked very well, the title gave a great insight into what the lyrics of many songs on the album were about, as Rob does write a bit about losing yourself and not being part of the world you live in.

It can work both ways too, The Stone Roses debut album was obviously self-titled, if you asked anyone had they heard The Stone Roses, they would think of the band as a whole but did that affect the success and influence of the album? Of course not. Second album was called The Second Coming, which is not much of an iconic title compared to other records, but still captured the feel of a follow-up to a successful debut.

A few other artists use the title of an album to represent the theme of the album, in Mindy Smith's song What Went Wrong she writes "it didn't make me strong, it didn't make me tough, its just stupid love" and the song was released on her Stupid Love album, which is also what many more songs on the album were about. Tommy Fleming with A Voice of Hope, Jimmy MacCarthy with The Moment, RHCP with Californication etc.

kunst nugget

karaokeman wrote: »

It can work both ways too, The Stone Roses debut album was obviously self-titled, if you asked anyone had they heard The Stone Roses, they would think of the band as a whole but did that affect the success and influence of the album? Of course not. Second album was called The Second Coming, which is not much of an iconic title compared to other records, but still captured the feel of a follow-up to a successful debut.

Well the Second Coming was obviously a cheeky reference to Jesus and the godlike status they had amongst their fans so it was meant to be an iconic title. Pity it sounded like the flatulent motions of an inebriated walrus…

Jim_Kiy

Would Soundgardens Superunknown still have being a massive hit if they called it spoonman? Yes,,album titles are generally inconsequential.Often they just chose the name of one of the singles.Its more of marketing ploy when used as above as other posters have said.
New soundgarden album mmh interesting.