Hatful of Hollow - a Real Album?

C

Consumer Monkey

Guest
I'm looking for an explanation as to why so many people think that "Hatful of Hollow" isn't a proper album. Some people seem to think that its merely a collection of B-sides(?) and therefore doesn't carry the weight of other albums. This, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.
Its not a collection of B-sides, but a collection of sessions done for radio - the production is therefore very simple, but also very pure. In many ways it is a record that defines what The Smiths are all about. Some people seem to think that a 'proper' record has to be put together by following some sort of convension set down by the music industry, and that The Smiths should somehow be forced to adhere to such convensions before a record can be generally valued as a 'true' album. When you listen to "Hatful of Hollow" dont you get a sense of something that is complete and real and whole - not just a collection of bits and pieces?


b&w-sharron.jpg
 
my understanding is that the record contains tracks from a bbc broadcast, and songs from the session that was intended to be the first album which was scrapped and re-recorded, resulting in the self-titled piece of junk.

perhaps a close look at the track information would reveal which songs came from which source. i know a few off-hand and they don't seem to be in any cohesive order (like if side a was all the bbc stuff and side b was the studio).

that said, technically and quite unfortunately, it isn't an album in the sense of the others, though it is a much more enriching listen than the self-titled.
 
> I'm looking for an explanation as to why so many people think¿ that "Hatful of Hollow" isn't a proper album. Some¿ people seem to think that its merely a collection of B-sides(?)¿ and therefore doesn't carry the weight of other albums. This, to¿ me, makes no sense whatsoever.

It certainly DOESN'T "[carry] the weight of other albums;" a studio album represents an artist's body of work at that particular point in their career. Usually (and I stress that word) the same producer is used, in the same studio, with the same musicians. The songs may be diverse, but they're "cut from the same cloth," if you will. They were created and developed around the same time, and you're presented with a piece of work that lets you get a feel for what the artist(s) wanted to accomplish by its style and production.¿ Its not a collection of B-sides, but a collection of sessions¿ done for radio - the production is therefore very simple, but¿ also very pure. In many ways it is a record that defines what¿ The Smiths are all about.

That's not the point, though. I mean, if THAT is the case, we may as well throw in all their compilations,live albums and bootlegs.¿ Some people seem to think that a¿ 'proper' record has to be put together by following some sort of¿ convension set down by the music industry, and that The Smiths¿ should somehow be forced to adhere to such convensions before a¿ record can be generally valued as a 'true' album.

I'm not understanding you. If "conventions," in your case, means going in a studio and recording, then...well, what ELSE would one do when making a studio album?¿ When you¿ listen to "Hatful of Hollow" dont you get a sense of¿ something that is complete and real and whole - not just a¿ collection of bits and pieces?

Well, yes and no. But the thing is, you just can't compare a collection of sessions with a completely and carefully planned studio album - too much work goes into them, and it just wouldn't be fair.
 
Surely, what's important is the final work, not preconceptions about what's a real album and what's not. This record is far superior than 99.9% of any other 'studio' albums by any other groups one could buy, so to say you can't compare them is nonsensical. The way in which any record happens to be put together is completely at the discretion of the group involved - generally speaking this would mean going into a studio with a producer etc, but its not an axiomatic priciple. The Smiths, in this instance, decided to release this album in this way; who are we to judge this decision - the record works, and works remarkably well.
You could argue that World Wont Listen and Louder than Bombs are the same, but there is something 'special' about Hatful of Hollow that puts it into a completely different category.¿ It certainly DOESN'T "[carry] the weight of other¿ albums;" a studio album represents an artist's body of work¿ at that particular point in their career. Usually (and I stress¿ that word) the same producer is used, in the same studio, with¿ the same musicians. The songs may be diverse, but they're¿ "cut from the same cloth," if you will. They were¿ created and developed around the same time, and you're presented¿ with a piece of work that lets you get a feel for what the¿ artist(s) wanted to accomplish by its style and production.¿ That's not the point, though. I mean, if THAT is the case, we¿ may as well throw in all their compilations,live albums and¿ bootlegs.¿ I'm not understanding you. If "conventions," in your¿ case, means going in a studio and recording, then...well, what¿ ELSE would one do when making a studio album?¿ Well, yes and no. But the thing is, you just can't compare a¿ collection of sessions with a completely and carefully planned¿ studio album - too much work goes into them, and it just¿ wouldn't be fair.




b&w-sharron.jpg
 
> I'm looking for an explanation as to why so many people think¿ that "Hatful of Hollow" isn't a proper album. Some¿ people seem to think that its merely a collection of B-sides(?)¿ and therefore doesn't carry the weight of other albums. This, to¿ me, makes no sense whatsoever.

Well it can't be classified as a proper album because of the reasons you stated. It's a complilation of songs from the archive of BBC sessions and a couple rare b-sides.¿ Its not a collection of B-sides, but a collection of sessions¿ done for radio - the production is therefore very simple, but¿ also very pure. In many ways it is a record that defines what¿ The Smiths are all about.

I agree.¿Some people seem to think that a¿ 'proper' record has to be put together by following some sort of¿ convension set down by the music industry, and that The Smiths¿ should somehow be forced to adhere to such convensions before a¿ record can be generally valued as a 'true' album.

Well that is simply the standard that is set down. I mean wouldn't you feel cheated if a band never released a "proper album" and just sat down and sang some songs on the radio and then put them all together a year later? That also takes the enjoyment out of experiencing something completely new that you've never heard before.

I mean the songs had already been heard by the public when the album was released. Bootlegs of those sessions were also floating around amongst fans also. In fact, the main reason that album was put together in the first place was because of the amount of fan mail that The Smiths had received saying - hey we want to hear those sessions again, will they ever be released.

Now the point of a proper album is putting something new together, releasing it, and having people digest it. Then feeling either hey this works, this is a brilliant album, or this doesn't move me, it just doesn't gel. A complilation is material that has been heard before thus already digested to some extent.¿ When you¿ listen to "Hatful of Hollow" dont you get a sense of¿ something that is complete and real and whole - not just a¿ collection of bits and pieces?

Well that really depends on at what point you came upon The Smiths career. If you had already heard those songs on the radio then you would most likely look at it as "bits and pieces" of a sort.

Now if you came upon The Smiths and never really heard any of those songs then you would most likely see it as a proper album.

The only song on that album that was never heard before until the release of that album was This Night Has Opened My Eyes. So again it's just impossible to look at that album as a proper album when all of the songs had already been heard before in some form or another.

The fact that it was packaged so originally and given a title that doesn't suggest a complilation also tends to make some people feel as if it is a proper album. Which is, I'm sure, what The Smiths were trying to accomplish. They most likely wanted people to feel inspired to buy the album and not look at it as a compilation. Marketing tactics you know.

Now had it been titled The Smiths Radio Sessions and Rarities and had a picture of the band in the studio with John Peel, I'm sure you would have been more likely to look at it as a compilation.

Of course, the fact that it is a complilation doesn't make it any less fulfilling to listen to. It also seems that you are taking the fact that people don't consider it a proper album as lessening it's value in some way. Which of course isn't the case.
 
Re: Hatful of Hollow - a Real Album?: Sadly no.

"Hatful Of Hollow" was voted 4th best album of all time in an NME writers poll on January 2 1988. ("The Queen Is Dead" was at the top)

However, for all its glory and sumptuous beauty it is just a compilation album at heart with just one "new" song ("This Night Has Opened My Eyes").

It was originally priced at £3.99 sterling (£4.99 Irish pounds) in November 1984 as an enticement for existing fans (those who had copied the Peel Sessions and wanted a full release) and the new consumer who previously may not have been tempted by The Smiths.

Interestingly enough, the band played an Irish tour during the week of release of "Hatful Of Hollow" and the following day after the Waterford gig (12/11/84 was the day they stormed The Savoy), Morrissey was discovered in a local record shop (Sinnotts) and duly stayed on there for 45 minutes or so and signed copies of the said LP and other Smiths material. The previous night's entertainment was my first ever concert and was made even more special by the opportunity to meet the main man and to get his scrawl on the album sleeve.

Even so, amidst this haze of nostalgia, the album cannot be treated as a "proper release" and remains the best compilation of all time.

The Smiths released 4 studio albums; a short career in the opinion of many, but wow, they certainly spawned enough jewels to eclipse any other band, past and present.

That night (and day) really opened my eyes......

:)
 
It is a real album. And a great one too.

As is BEETHOVEN WAS DEAF, which happens to be Morrissey's BEST album ever. (I had to vote for STRANGEWAYS in the poll because BEETHOVEN wasn't listed.)
 
Of Course it's Real, BUT...

> Surely, what's important is the final work, not preconceptions¿ about what's a real album and what's not. This record is far¿ superior than 99.9% of any other 'studio' albums by any other¿ groups one could buy, so to say you can't compare them is¿ nonsensical.

Fine. Compare them on certain levels, if you must, but I just don't feel they should be grouped together because they're NOT THE SAME TYPE OF RECORDING.¿ The way in which any record happens to be put¿ together is completely at the discretion of the group involved -¿ generally speaking this would mean going into a studio with a¿ producer etc, but its not an axiomatic priciple.

...which is what I meant when I said, "usually" (I even stressed it!)¿ The Smiths, in¿ this instance, decided to release this album in this way; who¿ are we to judge this decision - the record works, and works¿ remarkably well.

I'm not judging their decision, at all! What I'm doing is offering my opinion as to why it should not be lumped in with their studio recordings. What the Smiths decided to do in the studio was obviously up to them (and it hardly matters what I think, anyway, as we're talking about something that hasn't happened in over 12 years). Regarding said decisions, well, I'm not complaining - I quite enjoy the finished products! Besides, what CAN we do on this discussion group, if not "judge?"¿ You could argue that World Wont Listen and Louder than Bombs are¿ the same,

I never said that. Same as what?¿ but there is something 'special' about Hatful of¿ Hollow that puts it into a completely different category.

But...but...you just spent two posts arguing that it should NOT be in a completely different category!

For what it's worth, "Hatful of Hollow" is probably my favorite Smiths LP and I agree that it's quite special (as are ALL of their recordings), but I STILL don't think it should be put in with their "proper" studio recordings. In THAT case, my favorite Smiths LP would have to be "The Queen is Dead."

But then, you didn't ask. :)




stuartmurdoch.jpg
 
Re: Hey Lifeguard...

Just curious... WHo is the pic of? In your post? I am ignorant...
 
Hey, uh...ME

> Just curious... WHo is the pic of? In your post? I am¿ ignorant...

Why, he's none other than the brilliant mind behind Belle and Sebastian, the beautiful and gifted Stuart Murdoch.




stuartmurdoch.jpg
 
> It is a real album. And a great one too.¿ As is BEETHOVEN WAS DEAF, which happens to be Morrissey's BEST¿ album ever. (I had to vote for STRANGEWAYS in the poll because¿ BEETHOVEN wasn't listed.)

Beethoven wouldn't have been in the poll, anyway, as it wasn't by the Smiths, but by Morrissey.


stuartmurdoch.jpg
 
all albums are concept albums

You know what I mean? 'Hatful of Hollow' is a brilliant collection of songs, but they were just left-overs. The band didn't go into the studio and say, 'let's record a whole bunch of new songs and call it hatful of hollow'. You must know the difference between a compilation and a studio album. I think I see your point, though. 'Bona Drag', for instance, never ceases to amuse me. There might not be much difference between a good album and a great compilation in terms of sound or quality, but everything behind it is different.
 
Should I look into Belle and Sebastian?

> Why, he's none other than the brilliant mind behind Belle and¿ Sebastian, the beautiful and gifted Stuart Murdoch.
Thanks for the info, Lifeguard! I feel so silly now, though... You see, I have of course heard of B&S, but have never actually heard their music. *Ashamed* How would you describe it? Is it like Moz/Smiths? I suppose I should look em up, eh? = )
 
Re: Of Course it's Real, BUT...

I can't help but think that we are talking at cross purposes somewhat.
My real reason for starting this thread was that whenever I see a discussion or a poll about "which Smiths album is best", one of the 'rules' that always seems to be there, is that only 'studio' albums should be included. This always irritates me, because I cant help imagining that someone new to The Smiths may very well overlook Hatful of Hollow, imagining it to be just a second rate compilation album. ( this nearly happened to me early on, ( circa 1987 ) and it was only the cheapness of this record that got me buying it and then gasping at its brillaince, and wondering how I'd been able to live my life up to that point without it! ).
For me Hatful of Hollow, and The Queen is Dead go together like a hand and er.. something that you put your hand into ( sorry, what are they called again? - like a mitten, but with a place for each finger ).




dennisandgnasherondark.gif
 
> I'm looking for an explanation as to why so many people think¿ that "Hatful of Hollow" isn't a proper album. Some¿ people seem to think that its merely a collection of B-sides(?)¿ and therefore doesn't carry the weight of other albums. This, to¿ me, makes no sense whatsoever.¿ Its not a collection of B-sides, but a collection of sessions¿ done for radio - the production is therefore very simple, but¿ also very pure. In many ways it is a record that defines what¿ The Smiths are all about. Some people seem to think that a¿ 'proper' record has to be put together by following some sort of¿ convension set down by the music industry, and that The Smiths¿ should somehow be forced to adhere to such convensions before a¿ record can be generally valued as a 'true' album. When you¿ listen to "Hatful of Hollow" dont you get a sense of¿ something that is complete and real and whole - not just a¿ collection of bits and pieces?

It's not a true album because almost every single song is available on some full length or another. Eventually I may buy Hateful, but as of now I don't see a reason becasue I have all but one of the songs on some record.
 
This exactly what I mean. You're not buying something because you have a preconcieved idea about it - For Christ's sake buy it!!! Its 1000 times better then virtually everything else anywhere.¿ It's not a true album because almost every single song is¿ available on some full length or another. Eventually I may buy¿ Hateful, but as of now I don't see a reason becasue I have all¿ but one of the songs on some record.




dennisandgnasherondark.gif
 
If You're Feeling Sinister....sure!

> Thanks for the info, Lifeguard! I feel so silly now, though...¿ You see, I have of course heard of B&S, but have never actually¿ heard their music. *Ashamed* How would you describe it?

Well, firstly, Stuart Murdoch (pictured) writes very beautiful lyrics, mostly about the misadventures of himself, and other awkward (fictional?) characters who, while stuck in a world of conventions and "norms," try to accept how different - and yet beautiful - they really are. Anyway, that's just MY poorly-conveyed interpretation.

Their sound ranges from folksy (further made whimsical and - dare I say - precious, by his singing voice), to a kind of 60s-era Kinks guitar sound - quite eclectic. They also use a lot of strings, wind and brass instruments.¿ Is it like Moz/Smiths?

NO!!! heheh - sorry; it's just that people have debated this ad nauseum, and I don't feel like stirring things up, again! :)

I suppose that any similarity to the Smiths is mainly that both bands evoke warm and fuzzy feelings inside, and that you somehow want to know the person behind the words. There's a thread (that simply WON'T die!) comparing Morrissey and Robert Smith. Well, let me put it this way: I've NEVER had a desire to know what Robert reads, what he does when he's home, or how he feels about certain issues.¿ I suppose I should look em up, eh? = )

Please do! Might I suggest you start with their re-released debut, "Tigermilk," or their "Lazy Line-Painter Jane" EP?




stuartmurdoch.jpg
 
Re: If You're Feeling Sinister....sure!

Thanks Lifeguard! I will definitely look into them, then! I bet they are hard to find, but I am off to cdnow.com to look. Thanks again!
 
> resulting in¿ the self-titled piece of junk.

That is an absurd statement! Yeah, maybe you can argue that the album is badly produced (but is still much much better produced that troy tate's version) and that the drum sound sucks (mike joyce just sucks), but the smiths-the smiths signified a new direction of music. It was cleverly crafted album. The raw sounding music perfectly complements the excellent songwriting. Morrissey and Marr creations, for the album, sound mutually concurrent not as in the other albums where there is a sense distancing between the two. The music is not over produced; it is a genuine Johnny Marr sound.

What do you condsider a good album? I still ponder as to where most of you find the excellent in the TQID. I mean is a marvelous album, but by no means do I classify it as being excellent. The songs are too catchy and poppy. I prefer the raw style of the smiths-the smiths for which you at least have to sit and think about what morrissey is trying to say. I mean most of the songs from the TQID are so easily interpretable. There is a light (straight forward), big mouth (the same), etc, etc. All the songs are pretty much straight forward. I remember I came with about 100 different interpretations to "Suffer Little Children" (This is before the Internet). Until about a year ago when I the read the true reference of the lyrics. I prefer the songs where you have sit down to decipher what the artist is trying to say.

Maybe, I don't like it as much cause KROQ (radio station in LA) over played most the songs from the album when I was younger. Anyway….

I hate you stupid people who think are "know it alls." You made that statement as if you are some kind of authority. You know that was just your opinion (state as such) as this is my own humble opinion…
 
When you¿ listen to "Hatful of Hollow" dont you get a sense of¿ something that is complete and real and whole - not just a¿ collection of bits and pieces?
-------
But it is a collection of bits and pieces. An album is, in theory, supposed to work as a whole, and it's supposed to be intended as a whole.
 
Back
Top Bottom