'Filler'

I don't think there's such thing as filler. It's completely subjective yet masquerades as fact.

Here's an example; With The Beatles' debut, they had had success with their previous two singles and decided to capitalize on that sudden popularity by putting an album together, of which they recorded the other 10 out of the total 14 tracks in one day. That's unquestionably filler by definition, yet some of those songs, Twist And Shout and I Saw Her Standing There to name a few, are classics, which therefore means they can't be filler because they are of great substance.

Does anyone else agree? Am I wrong? What do you think?

 

"Filler" is just another word for someone saying he doesn't like a song.

 

Yes you are wrong. With The Beatles was their second album.

 

"Now I've Got A Witness" by the Stones from their first album.
If this ain't "filler", nothing is.

 

There are definitely filler tracks: Comedy tunes, spoken word tracks, some instrumentals, and songs by the drummer (kidding, kidding).

Back in the vinyl days, another way to fill up space on an LP was to have songs with very long jam sections.

Case in point: Love's "Love Is More Than Words or Better Late Than Never" (11 minutes) and "Doggone" (12 minutes) from their 1969 album Out Here. Both are great tunes, but they go on way too long. The solo sections don't seem integral to them; nor do they heighten their emotional impact (like the Allman Brothers' "Whipping Post," for example).

I think these songs work better in their edited versions, which can be heard on the now-deleted 1982 collection Studio/Live. On there, the jam sections are edited out and they clock in at 2:30 and 3:15, respectively.

Love - Studio / Live

 

I agree with this point. For example, The Beach Boys were cranking-out so many albums in their first few years that they resorted to "filler" tracks such as these.

I don't agree that long jams on a double album from the 60's or early-70's are "filler." I'm sure that the band liked the tracks, they were en vogue at the time and the album became a 2-LP set because of the long jam sessions; the band wasn't obligated to fill four sides. In this case, I agree with you that an edited single-LP by LOVE would have made for a much better listen.

I'll quote myself here. I posted this on a thread about the Stones Aftermath:

Unfortunately, the use of the word "filler" is here to stay on SH.

 

‘Bull Session With (The) Big Daddy’.


That’s all I’ve got to say ....

 

Plenty of filler on many 60s bands albums. Unsurprising with the amount of productivity expected from them...

 

Of course filler exist. They are those very evident songs written (half-written) hastily to fulfill albums by contract. We all can name them

 

If this isn't filler I don't know what it is

 

There is filler. I'm not sure even the artists themselves always notice but it is there!

 

Generally speaking, cover versions of current/recent hits by other artists, plus the occasional pre-rock and roll standard.


Another obvious one: Mother’s Lament on Disraeli Gears. Utterly dispensable.

 

All those 60s garage and Motown acts LPs contain filler. Mostly covers of hits.
Songs recorded by contractual obligation

 

...not at all a filler...good idea at the time...I still like it very much....!!

 

I think B-side 45's from the late 50's, early 60's really epitomize what 'filler' can be like.
Some B-sides are so bad you wonder why they even bothered recording.
Thankfully, with the likes of Elvis onwards, some 45's start to become double A-sides.

 

No need to pull your hair out for admitting filler exists.

Nobody has the divine grace. Only the Beatles

 

....” Revolution 9 ” is not a filler....??

 

I would say some of the Beatles' cuts were filler, too, though. I won't single out songs becasue I know that the freaks will pile on me, but I don't think there's not a single one of their first five albums (and Help!) that wouldn't be better as a 12-track album.

I think that most sixties groups and singers had filler on their album -- Beach Boys is glaring example, except I really am not sure if those terrible comedy tracks were meant as filler because Brian and the Beach Boys DID have other songs in the can that were unreleased, or released by Brian's side projects that would have been fine on the album.

I think those comedy tracks are an integral piece of the Brian Wilson puzzle, even though they suck.

And the instrumental they did (Shut Down Part 2, for example) are arguably filler, but most of them are pretty enjoyable.

Motown is weird. Tehy all did the same songs, because they had Motown songwriters like Smokey Robinson and Holland-Dozier Holland...so who's to say that the Supremes version of a song that the Four Tops took to the top is filler? I guess it could depend on who recorded it first, but...meh, it's a slippery slope.

In general I think the word "filler" is MUCH overused term, but I do think it exists.

 

I think the Beatles did have filler; but in my books, "Revolution 9" is not a good example of that. I think John was really keen to put it out. He worked hard on it and really thought it was worth hearing.

They had other songs they could have put in its place.

 

Have (m)any artists successfully filled an album with filler?

 

Filler is definitely a thing, in my opinion though not all filler is bad

 

I think there are songs on some albums that DO qualify, even some artists will attest to that. But like a lot of words, its an often overused and abused term.

Just because you don't care for a certain track, doesn't mean it was slapped on to an album to fill space.

 

"Mother's Lament" on Cream's Disraeli Gears defines "filler" ...

 

Often it is, but when the artist admits to having recorded a track mainly to fill out the album it's objectively...filler.

 

Definitely not a filler as it was important to John and he pushed for its inclusion, as you say.

Now, if the boys had gathered round and said "hey, we need something to fill out Side D" and John said "hey, I've got a piece of crap we could use" it would have been...filler.