Does the title of an album matter to you?

[Kid Presentable]

Have there ever been albums you liked (or albums you've not liked, even) with titles you couldn't stand? Or is an album's title something you would never in a million years have an opinion on?

[gbsuey]

Tbh i very rarely even take notice of what the album's called-free downloads and streaming mean each album isn't quite so precious as when having to buy it or particularly owning the cd/vinyl. old classics/fave albums from years ago-the titles mean more. I don't think the name of an album has ever influenced what i thought of it

[Documad]

I was mad a Peter Gabriel for having several albums called Peter Gabriel. I don't like self-titled albums anyhow, but you definitely shouldn't have more than one.

[mickill]

Yeah, self-titled albums annoy me, too. The Peter Gabriel ones especially, because you pretty much have to describe them by the cover when specifying which one you're talking about since not everybody always knows which one is the first, second, or third. At least with the s/t Weezer albums you can go by color.

But to answer the question, I do tend to favor albums with good titles. Especially rap albums for some reason (Illmatic, Supreme Clientele, Amerikkka's Most Wanted, ATLiens, etc). Rock albums tend to have more "clever" titles, but more often than not, a lot of my favorite rock albums have lame titles that only seem okay because they're attached to iconic albums (London Calling, The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society, Sticky Fingers, Abbey Road, Axis: Bold As Love, etc). There are a few exceptions (a lot of Bowie and Pink Floyd ones).

Meanwhile, in another favorite genre of mine, jazz, the albums seem to frequently have titles that seem like afterthoughts. The earlier ones, anyway.

[mickill]

It just occurred to me that I don't like one Beastie Boy album title. Maybe it doesn't matter after all. But I'm also a sucker for good artwork, and they've always come through in that department (save for maybe Ill Communication....which is probably my favorite title).

[JoLovesMCA]

I love album titles and think they are important to have but if I am a fan I'll buy it regardless of what they call it. I do love the creativity behind naming them. I remember Bon Jovi's "Slippery when Wet" always stood out to me! Beastie Boys to me have great album titles. I'd say my favorite titled would be "License to Ill." Nobody could come up with something so fresh and cool!

I've always been intrigued by Alice Cooper and Meatloaf album titles too lol.

[TurdBerglar]

don't give a shit

i also don't give a shit about album art

[Guy Incognito]

it pisses me off when a band releases an eponymous album that isnt their first. thats just lazy. The titles is part of it and it should be something that appears to have been thought about, not just eponymous or when a single title is used.
i havent been put off buying an album by a bad title.
When i had more disposable income and record shop discount i did buy the odd album purely on strength of cover or if it had an intruiging title. but those days are gone.

[Planetary]

It just occurred to me that I don't like one Beastie Boy album title. Maybe it doesn't matter after all. But I'm also a sucker for good artwork, and they've always come through in that department (save for maybe Ill Communication....which is probably my favorite title).

paul's boutique is cool. but that's it.

[yeahwho]

What if "Exile on Main Street" was titled "I Live in a Van Down by the River"?

Or as motivational speaker Matt Foley would say if he were here still alive today and a registered member of the BBMB and also just happened to read this thread... he would say, " you'll have plenty of time to ponder "Does the title of an album matter to you?" when you release an album titled "Does the title of an album matter to you?

Frank Zappa (and the Mothers) sure could title an album (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mothers_of_Invention#Discography) in the day.

I like all of the Hendrix Album Titles, I read somewhere that "Are You Experienced" was to be titled "Vomit of Diarrhea". I think it was in an old Tiger Beat Magazine my mom had, I always thought that was very interesting.

[Guy Incognito]

After waiting five years for the Stone Roses to bring out a 2nd album and the pressure that was on that i remember thinking calling it the Second Coming was a bit daft but the joke grew on me, it was a piss take.

[dave790]

Rock albums tend to have more "clever" titles, but more often than not, a lot of my favorite rock albums have lame titles that only seem okay because they're attached to iconic albums (London Calling, The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society, Sticky Fingers, Abbey Road, Axis: Bold As Love, etc). There are a few exceptions (a lot of Bowie and Pink Floyd ones).



Yeah, it's a good point. By itself the Kinks title is a bit wacky, but in line with the record it obviously becomes in line with the whole theme. One of my favourite albums by the way. Music for the Jilted Generation comes into focus when listening to the album too.

Having said that I like most the Beasties titles, but then maybe that's because I like the albums so much to the point that the title becomes irrelevant.

I do like well-titled albums though, especially if they don't represent a song on the album, though that does work when the said song is kind of defining... as with say Californication.

[dave790]

it pisses me off when a band releases an eponymous album that isnt their first. thats just lazy. The titles is part of it and it should be something that appears to have been thought about, not just eponymous or when a single title is used.
i havent been put off buying an album by a bad title.
When i had more disposable income and record shop discount i did buy the odd album purely on strength of cover or if it had an intruiging title. but those days are gone.

i know what you mean, but to me it makes sense if a band is at their 3rd or 4th album, lets say, and see it as a sort of defining record. having said that all the valid examples have left my brain... and to be honest my favourite self-titled album (rancid - rancid...the one in 2000) is not really a defining sound for the band!

[Guy Incognito]

i know what you mean, but to me it makes sense if a band is at their 3rd or 4th album, lets say, and see it as a sort of defining record. having said that all the valid examples have left my brain... and to be honest my favourite self-titled album (rancid - rancid...the one in 2000) is not really a defining sound for the band!

i cant agree, all that "yeah this the truest reflection of the band so we thought we would self title it" translates to me as "this album was a fucking pain to record and we are sick of the sight of it so when it came to naming we couldnt be arsed to think of anything".

[dave790]

well, i pretty much disagreed with my own point, but yes, i hear what you're saying.

[checkyourprez]

it matters about as much as what a chick looks like after 20 beers. (when i was a single man of course.)

[camo]

Not particularly but if it's creative then it'll go some way to sticking into my mind. The first one I could think of was

Atmosphere - When Life Gives You Lemons Paint That Shit Gold.

and

Reuben - Racecar is Racecar backwards.