Send Away The Tigers - a success? - Forever Delayed

SHR · #1 05-06-2017, 18:41

I'm just wondering, why do the band consider this such a successful album? Is this just in comparison to KYE and Lifeblood? Did it sell more than those two albums or was it just more critically acclaimed? Interested in hearing thoughts...

Automatik · #2 05-06-2017, 18:52

I always presumed it was because it freed them from (what they see as) the Lifeblood cobwebs.

Europa Gluten Free · #3 05-06-2017, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHR

I'm just wondering, why do the band consider this such a successful album? Is this just in comparison to KYE and Lifeblood? Did it sell more than those two albums or was it just more critically acclaimed? Interested in hearing thoughts...

Because people were interested in them again. I also think they enjoyed the process of it and playing the songs (quite simple straightforward RAWK!) live.

People need to consider as well that the Manics are a "concept" band in that they start each era with an idea of what they want and this is what makes them feel that an era is a success or failure.

Porco · #4 05-06-2017, 21:06

A number 2 hit single helps. It was even top, ahead of Beyoncé, in the midweeks.

I think it also won them a whole new raft of fans, whereas I suspect Lifeblood and KYE lost more than they gained (because people are silly).

Ironically it was probably their one last success "at mass communication", rather than the one last "attempt"... at least by their own particular standards.

slop101 · #5 05-06-2017, 21:33

Besides hits, it seems like MSP considers a record a success if they had a positive time making it.

I think Lifeblood is better than SATT, but they band didn't have a good time making that record, so they don't like it, even though most fans feel that Lifeblood is superior.

Europa Gluten Free · #6 05-06-2017, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by slop101

Besides hits, it seems like MSP considers a record a success if they had a positive time making it.

I think Lifeblood is better than SATT, but they band didn't have a good time making that record, so they don't like it, even though most fans feel that Lifeblood is superior.

Nail on head.

UEF · #7 05-06-2017, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Europa Gluten Free

Because people were interested in them again. I also think they enjoyed the process of it and playing the songs (quite simple straightforward RAWK!) live.

People need to consider as well that the Manics are a "concept" band in that they start each era with an idea of what they want and this is what makes them feel that an era is a success or failure.

It must be very hard to ignore the financials. Especially compared to the glory years of multiple platinum sales or whatever. The money is what keeps them in the life of millionaires and on a label. I'd defy anyone to not end up writing songs that work towards that.

Europa Gluten Free · #8 05-06-2017, 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by UEF

It must be very hard to ignore the financials.

Absolutely. Which is why they do a lot of festivals every summer now and dress it up as a love for travelling and experiencing new countries.

SHR · #9 06-06-2017, 12:20

Yet didn't a lot of the singles from Lifeblood chart highly too? Was SATT a success to them because it wasn't panned by the music press like the previous two albums? It seem to me that if the press had praised KYE/LB the band would have loved those albums too. Does anyone remember the 2001 interview (may have actually been in Cuba) where Nick is singing the praises of KYE and saying it's the best thing they've ever done and how he's now finally on par lyrically with Richey? Then came the negative reviews and his opinion flipped entirely.

Porco · #10 06-06-2017, 13:49

I think there's critical reaction, sure. And also the promotional exercise of telling everyone it's great when it's brand new because you want people to be interested. But I also think it's entirely normal for artists of any kind to be more enamoured with work they've just completed after a lot of time and effort than they sometimes are later on, upon more reflection with a bit of time to look at it more dispassionately.

I don't think it comes down to one single thing that influences their perspective, I think it's a combination of factors.

UEF · #11 06-06-2017, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porco

I think there's critical reaction, sure. And also the promotional exercise of telling everyone it's great when it's brand new because you want people to be interested. But I also think it's entirely normal for artists of any kind to be more enamoured with work they've just completed after a lot of time and effort than they sometimes are later on, upon more reflection with a bit of time to look at it more dispassionately.

I don't think it comes down to one single thing that influences their perspective, I think it's a combination of factors.

Most people would be proudest of the work they've just done. As a musician (or actor, or a few other occupations) you have to spend your life with people talking about a single week's work you did 40 odd years ago, if you're lucky,. That must be draining.

Automatik · #12 06-06-2017, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHR

Yet didn't a lot of the singles from Lifeblood chart highly too?

Curiously, The Love Of Richard Nixon and Empty Souls peaked at 2 in Britain (both higher than all the singles from KYE - FTS 9, SWSS 8, OS 15, LRS 19) - and were the highest charting singles since Masses.

I've always strongly suspected that Cardiff Afterlife was to be released as a single but was shelved after the album sold below expectations.

raven · #13 06-06-2017, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHR

Yet didn't a lot of the singles from Lifeblood chart highly too? Was SATT a success to them because it wasn't panned by the music press like the previous two albums? It seem to me that if the press had praised KYE/LB the band would have loved those albums too. Does anyone remember the 2001 interview (may have actually been in Cuba) where Nick is singing the praises of KYE and saying it's the best thing they've ever done and how he's now finally on par lyrically with Richey? Then came the negative reviews and his opinion flipped entirely.

Ah well they may have changed their opinion on going to Cuba
...I bet you felt proud you silly little fucker

I think drawing from what they've said over the years they want well what any band wants I guess - both critical and commercial success...but I don't get the feeling they're driven by one over the other....after all after Send Away the Tigers they released Journal for Plague Lovers....a critical success for sure but it was never going to be issuing a string of number ones and have everyone singing along to the radio was it now

They've always had integrity and maybe a little luck that's allowed them to release a mix of commercial and less so, hits and not hits without ever finding themselves cut off and dropped from their label

SHR · #14 06-06-2017, 19:54

Am just wondering why they don't stand by the albums that the press have slated? It always aligns with what brought them critical acclaim. Anyway, didn't KYE shift as many as SATT ? It's bizarre they had an anniversary for the latter, what did that album do by anybody's standards, bar win the band more favourable reviews than the previous two? What's there to celebrate? Is there some kind of nostalgia there that I'm missing?

cherrybomb · #15 06-06-2017, 21:35

I think Morrissey is a complete bellend but I remember him being asked once about which songs or albums he'd recorded that in retrospect he thought were crap. He refused to answer saying there were plenty he hated but he wouldn't name them as they would be somebodies favourites. That's the way to do it I think.