12 tracks, 17 tracks, or 30 tracks? (And how many CD's), one or two?




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-18 09:06 by Demon.

I'm thinkin' close to 30.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-18 09:07 by Demon.

14 tracks plus a fugue.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

10

I'm hoping for 10 or 12. And in addition to that they should put out 2 or 3 singles at least with some unreleased songs from the new album as the flip side. So we actually end up with having around 15 or 17 new songs.

JumpingKentFlash

11 songs on the cd. It will reach no. 1 in the carts for about 2/3 weeks.
Also 2 singles. No new songs on these singles, just boring remixes. The barely reach the charts. But within a year the Stones release another album from the same sessions. Again 11 songs on this one. But no singles this time. I actually will like the second cd better. That one will be not so commercial.

I think Potted Shrimp has it about right.

It wont be a double CD. It would make no commercial sense.

Considering the gap since the last album, they'll probably pad a CD out though with filler like they did with Voodoo lounge.

If they were going to FINISH 30 songs, they'll be in the studio for far too long and it would delay any tour. As they're intending to start a tour in the summer and have an album out by then, they'll hardly finish many more songs than what they NEED.

Plus, anyone knows that Mick and Keith dont have it in them to fill a double CD full of releasable, new material. Come to think of it, hardly anyone does.

*Cough*.....So what about EOMS?

JumpingKentFlash

what about it?

Double album.

JumpingKentFlash

Exile is a double LP. Its also only a single CD.

I didnt say a double album (in LP format) - I said a double Cd (in relation to Demon's original post)

She mentioned the possibility of a 30-track release. Exile has 18 songs.

My post referred to their understandable inability to release a double Cd of killer material.

Exile is a single CD which was released as a double LP 32 years ago. In fact, its only about 5 minutes longer than Voodoo lounge, which was also released as a double LP.

It was also released when the band were at their creative peak.

To suggest they have it in them now to release a double CD full of material of that standard is optimistic in the extreme, I think

Oh. I didn't catch that. Thanks for straightening it out man.

BTW: You say: "My post referred to their understandable inability to release a double Cd of killer material".

- In reality don't you think that you're a teeny bit prejudice here? I mean, no matter how good the material they put out is it will never get as much credit as, say, Exile. Even if they outdid themselves and made a record that was better than Exile or SF.......or both of those put together, it wouldn't get the credit it deserved. That's for sure. If they made the new album in a completely different style from anything they ever did and that style was made way better than the bluesrocking style of Exile, it still wouldn't get the credit. And that's what I hate. That's also the reason so many people bash VL and B2B. It's just prejudice. I mean......They really make an effort to make something that doesn't sound like the records from the seventies and sixties. And they succeed. And it's great and awesome and all that. But what do people do? Bash 'em to smithereens. That's wrong I think. I can't accept that. If it's good, it's good. And then it shouldn't get bashed. But it does, and I don't understand why.

No offense by the way.

JumpingKentFlash

Absolutely no offence taken

Youre right in that it wont get the same credit as Exile would (an album which incidentally had the shit ripped out of it when it was released). Simplem reason is that its not considered 'cool' for a BAND to still be making records in their 60's. Solo artists get away with it for some reason.

But no, I'm not prejudiced at all. I dont live in the past but neither am I delusional. I'm glad they're still working and I've no time for this "why cant be it be like 1972/bring back Mick Taylor" bollocks.

I loved BTB incidentally. I thought it was the best album theyve done since Some Girls - well, maybe not quite as good as Tattoo you but not a kick in the arse off it.

I mentioned an "understandable" inability to make an album of Exile standard. Simply because a) they're decades past their prime b) they have not been very creative of late and Keith's lack of recorded output in the last decade does not bode well for his songwriting 'chops' and c) what material they DID put out on 40 licks did not suggest a band with much creativity.

I still think (and always have done) that their next album will be a very good one. I cant explain why logically, but I think that the fact its been SO long and (unlike 40 licks) they'll get a long period to work on new songs instead of bashing a few out in 2 weeks would surely suggest they have SOMETHING left. It'll also almost certainly be their final studio album, and they know that too.

Demon:
"Final studio album," sure.... like this is the last time, for a tour too, surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee it is.

Gazza likes settin' me straight, on certain topics, I guess I'm one of those>> "optimistic in the extreme," types. Btw, I love VL and "B2B," (Not BTB "Between The Buttons") hey Gaz?

Gaz said:
"My post referred to their understandable inability to release a double Cd of killer material.

Demon: Fey, fey.

Gaz:
Exile is a single CD which was released as a double LP 32 years ago. In fact, its only about 5 minutes longer than Voodoo lounge, which was also released as a double LP.

Demon: No sh_t, really!

Gaz:
It was also released when the band were at their creative peak.

Demon: Fey again....

Gaz:
To suggest they have it in them now to release a double CD full of material of that standard is optimistic in the extreme, I think"

Demon:
Well, Mr. Was, (in a recent interview) said the boys have been bangin' out the songs, as in "in their peak." They're very creative, etc., he said, and, in addition to all that, they are getting along with each other too, as in their "hey day." Whatcha think about that, ol' Gaz, me lad?

I see your point Gazza. But I really don't think that this will be the last one. I think they'll keep on touring and making albums until one of them snuffs it. The Stones have done very much to make people understand that they will keep on doing what they do until one of them goes away. So why should they stop???

JumpingKentFlash

Demon

You've obviously not got much to occupy you today if you choose to sarcastically nit-pick my replies to Kent as I was pointing out to him a few things he'd overlooked from your original post when replying to a previous one of my own. Whatever.

EVERY Stones album as long as I can remember gets heralded way in advance as "the greatest thing theyve ever done". Even Dirty Work did. Like I said, I've confidence it'll be a good one. But one to match what they were 35 years ago? Sorry, no. But I'd love to be proved wrong.

I dont necessarily think it'll be their final tour (and I didnt say it would be), but Mick and Keith have said in interviews in recent months that they dont really see much of a future in recording new albums. The next album will be their first in 8 years. The ones before that were three and five years apart. Theyve produced four new albums in the last two decades. Considering their age and the health problems that some band members have had in the last few months, I dont think there's much chance of them rushing into the studio that soon after this one to make another album. Again, I'd love to be proved wrong, but time is catching up with them.

Additionally, after the next studio album they're out of contract. Would you give a long term recording contract with a big advance to a bunch of guys in their 60's who go anything from 5 to 8 years between studio releases?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-19 22:16 by Gazza.

I'm thinking that they'll get a new contract. But only for 1 or 2 new albums I think. And I don't we'll have to wait this long 'till the next one comes out ever again.

JumpingKentFlash

Maybe, maybe they'll start their own recording label again.

Hi Gaz, sorry, I guess I was finger happy the other night, not being on so long, the net, I mean.

yeah, I was beginning to wonder what had become of you...!!

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see your point Gazza. But I really don't think
> that this will be the last one. I think they'll
> keep on touring and making albums until one of
> them snuffs it. The Stones have done very much to
> make people understand that they will keep on
> doing what they do until one of them goes away. So
> why should they stop???


I agree with the "work till we snuff it" thing. Have felt that way for years

However, theyre not getting any younger or healthier and with the gaps between records these days, that scenario is sadly getting closer.

Hi, I.m gearin' up for the next tour. I'm plannin' ahead. Probably need more money this time around

?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-23 08:55 by Demon.

?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-23 08:54 by Demon.

?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-23 08:53 by Demon.

?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-23 08:55 by Demon.

Just to cheer up this forum, found an old thread "How many songs on the new album, do ya think..."

That was 2004.................

Now it's 2009, how may songs will there be on there new record.....I go for 12

__________________________

Gazza and Kent, though being different ages and having different perspectives, have given us a lesson in how to disagree respectfully.

As to the question--I like listening to an album in its entirety, and I have trouble listening more than 45 minutes at a sitting (probably trained that way due to the limits of LPs), So, I'd like an album with about 10-12 really good songs that clocks in under 50 minutes.

Back to one of Kent's points, I agree that nothing they do will be particularly appreciated. It's undoubtedly true that they were not rewarded for breaking form and giving us "Laugh I Nearly Died. Like Gazza, though, I tend to see that as a result of the band not being considered relevant by the culture as a whole. I don't really think the fact that a few people on IORR gripe about the record will affect its impact or sales.

I still enjoy the Stones -- I play enjoy their music regularly and loud (old and new, live and studio, official and not) and I always have a good time at the shows. The energy is still there.

If the music doesn't have quite the same power and resonance it used to have for me, I attribute very little of that to the loss of Taylor. Some of it has to do with me, and some of it has to do with the songwriters lacking that spark of genius they used to have. It is normal for a person's best creative years to be limited. Luckily for us, Mick and Keith have become excellent craftsmen as far as writing and making a record. I wish they'd write more together...

I'm with Texas Fan that a short album with the 10-12 best songs is ideal. I've loved that in the mp3 age, albums have gotten shorter, but that's just my personal preference -- I don't have time to invest in a 70 minute album very often.

That said, if they put out one with 17 songs, I won't get on the board and b*tch that it's too long.

And I prefer the experimentation of Bridges and songs like "Laugh, I Nearly Died" to a batch heavy on "stonesy" rockers. That's why (personally) I prefer Bridges to most of ABB. Bridges stands out for sounding different than the records that came before it.

Any number of albums they made represented a shift:
Buttons -- more English Music Hall than blues
Satanic -- psychedelic not English dance hall
Beggars -- Back to roots, not psychedelic
Goats Head Soup -- The "wasted" hangover album
Some Girls -- punkish rather than funk-based B&B.
Undercover -- Embraced the 80s sound in drums and feel, rather than the straight forward Tattoo You
Voodoo -- A return to roots with a mixture of styles, a more "mature" collection of songs, to follow the classicist slick Steel Wheels
Bridges -- contemporary vibe with attitude, after the clasicist Voodoo.

What will be next??

What I loved about A Bigger Bang was that it had the same rawness of Some Girls (and to a degree, Black And Blue) and sounded better than the previous three albums. They got rid of all the crap they did with Bridges (obviously not every song but no more sampling, trendy current garbage), got a more biting tone than Voodoo and sounded much more honest than Steel Wheels and abandoned the lazy songwriting/crafting of the 3 they put on Licks (exception is Keith's tune, personally). They did those songs in their sleep. To show they were still a working band - yet they still came off more like, to use Mick's example, The Beach Boys, which they further delved into on the Bang tour.

Key tracks to point out on those previous Bang albums though that were the more true to their nature - Sad Sad Sad, Almost Hear You Sigh, Blinded By Love, Break The Spell, Love Is Strong, I Go Wild, Out Of Tears, Flip The Switch, Lowdown, Out Of Control, all three of Keith's tunes...

If that makes any sense.

Point is, I'm guessing they'll do at least one more album. They are an album band, at least they have been for quite some time now. Still, it seems they average three world wide single releases from an album. They have the mindset that it takes eons to record one song yet alone 45. So just doing a single isn't gonna happen - they'd still do probably 15 songs just to choose one.

Since they own their masters, they don't really have to record a new record, they could just release whatever leftovers. They've done that a lot. No reason to stop now.