Since we have 7 new songs, and one close, but still different (Good time woman), would it have been a good idea to have released Exile as a triple album back in 72? Are the new track as good as the original ones? Would the original album benefitted from the new songs? Remember that if they had been released at the time, some of them would have had Mick vocals from that time, instead of the work he's done now. I don't know, but I still got a feeling that the new songs where left out because they where not good enough.

Any thoughts?

Nice thought, but there really would not have been enough finished tunes, and no way the record company would have agreed to release a triple. They didn't even want to do a double.

Quote
71Tele
.... and no way the record company would have agreed to release a triple. They didn't even want to do a double.

well...if there was ever a time for them to release a triple album...this probably wouldve been it. (after new label & Sticky Fingers etc)

but I remember as a youngster how difficult it was to scrape up cash to buy single albums..let alone double or triple LPs....
.....so I'm sure this was part of the thinking..to keep it relatively affordable no matter how hot the Stones were at the time
or how eager their fans were. Back in the day...I would've had to mowed 6 lawns to buy the double LP...8 for a triple.

I'm trying to think of successful triple albums (by rock/pop bands)....???.........was the Woodstock soundtrack more than 2 LPS?
I think the band Chicago had a boxed set of 6 (??) LPs. I'm drawing a blank.


IORR............but I like it!

George Harrison had a third disc on All Things Must Pass. I believe it was called "Apple Jam" or something like that. Pretty unlistenable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-14 01:24 by 71Tele.

The short answer is no.

Although it's great to have these new tracks, only Following The River and Plundered my Soul are really good enough to have cut it with the original album release. Great as the songs are, I can see clearly why they weren't on the original release.

....they were getting shit from the record company about it being a double album as it was..let alone adding more material....

The Clash made a bit of an error trying a three record set for Sandinista.

Quote
Lynd8
The Clash made a bit of an error trying a three record set for Sandinista.

Indeed, particularly since Sandanista was released one year after a double record set! Sandanista may have killed the Clash. After that, what was left to do?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-14 07:26 by baxlap.

Quote
baxlap

Quote
Lynd8
The Clash made a bit of an error trying a three record set for Sandinista.

Indeed, particularly since Sandanista was released one year after a double record set! Sandanista may have killed the Clash. After that, what was left to do?

Break up in acrimony.

Triple albums usually sink from their own weight.

Sandinista is exhibit A. How do we top a great double album? Go for three! Wrong.


All Things Must Pass suffered from the inclusion of Apple Jam. I'd even argue that it should have been cut down to one killer disc--rather than having stuff like two versions of "Isn't It A Pity." A single disc All Things Must Pass would have been the greatest solo Beatle album of all time, and I'm a John Lennon fan saying that.

Less is more. And no way should Exile have been a triple.

I think it would be hard to convince many people that would have been a good idea at the time.

Exile didn't exactly release to 'critical success' in the first place (that came over time)...people thought it was hard to get into so many songs.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been to a third album?

Plus, there would have been all the bitching about mick sounding like he was singing a solo song.

The Clash released Sandinista as a triple not because of art reasons it was just that they wanted out of their contract & they thoughta triple counts as three LPs. Crazy but true, same with London Calling

Quote
bluesinc.
The Clash released Sandinista as a triple not because of art reasons it was just that they wanted out of their contract & they thoughta triple counts as three LPs. Crazy but true, same with London Calling

That is interesting. Commercial suicide, which for a punk band would probably have been considered cool.

I wonder why they didn't just write an offending song, like c*cksucker blues?

30% of Exile was outtakes, that is songs the band hadn't worked on much or thought not good enough. Where would the extra 10 songs come from?

for the most part the only triple albums that do well are best of packages like neil young's decade

No, they should have released 2 studio albums in 1969/70.

should have been a 16-disc album....would be fun to watch phish try to labor through that....

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bluesinc.
The Clash released Sandinista as a triple not because of art reasons it was just that they wanted out of their contract & they thoughta triple counts as three LPs. Crazy but true, same with London Calling

That is interesting. Commercial suicide, which for a punk band would probably have been considered cool.

I wonder why they didn't just write an offending song, like c*cksucker blues?

The Clash single "Complete Control" was intended as a jab in the eye to CBS after they released the track "Remote Control" from their first album as a single without their consent.

They said release 'Remote Control'
But we didn't want it on the label
They said, "Fly to Amsterdam"
The people laughed, but the press went mad

Ohh, oh, ohh, someone's really smart
Ohh, oh, ohh, complete control, that's a laugh

On the last tour, my mates they couldn't get in
I'd open up the back door but they'd get run out again
At every hotel, we was met by the law
Come for the party, come to make sure

Ohh, oh, ohh, have we done something wrong?
Ohh, oh, ohh, complete control, even over this song


You're my guitar hero!!


They said we'd be artistically free
When we signed that bit of paper
They meant let's make a lotsa money
And worry about it later

Ohh, oh, ohh, I'll never understand
Ohh, oh, ohh, complete control, let me see your other hand

I don't trust you, why should you trust me?
—Huh?
All over news, spread fast
They're dirty, they're filthy
They ain't a gonna last

(Total) This is Joe Public speaking
(C-O-N, Control)
I'm controlled in the body
I'm controlled in the mind

(Total) This is punk rockers
(C-O-N, Control)
We're controlled in the price
Of the hard drugs we must have to find

Total C-O-N, Control
Total (Parent! Control!)
C-O-N, Control

We've gotta ??????
(C-O-N, Control)
That means you
I kick it, I fight it, I gotta get up at it
(C-O-N, Control)
I gotta kick it


The Clash got a lot of bad advice from their management. Releasing Sandinista as a triple was the third on the list, preceded by dumping Topper, with sacking Mick Jones being the worst of some really misguided moves.



But back to the topic...Exile is just fine the way it is/was. Two discs, female background singers, no added overdubs.

And with the exception of Will The Circle Be Unbroken, I can't think of any non-anthology or live rock album that really worked and couldn't be improved by editing.

I was a little too young to remember the circumstances in 71-72....but I'd
guess that after the success of Sticky Fingers, the Stones felt free to take a chance
with a double LP and a bunch of songs that sounded nothing like Brown Sugar.

After Fleetwood Mac's extremely successful Rumours LP......they sort of did the
same thing. Took advatage of the huge demand (from fans) for new material ..and released
a double album (Tusk) which allowed them to stray a bit from the songs released on the 2 previous LPs.
Lindsey Buckingham got more edgy & experimental...but they also included enough
"traditional sounding" Fleetwood Mac songs to keep the Rumours fans happy.

Just wondering if anyone else thinks that's a good comparison..?


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-14 19:01 by sweet neo con.

Quote
sweet neo con
I was a little too young to remember the circumstances in 71-72....but I'd
guess that after the success of Sticky Fingers, the Stones felt free to take a chance
with a double LP and a bunch of songs that sounded nothing like Brown Sugar.

After Fleetwood Mac's extremely successful Rumours LP......they sort of did the
same thing. Took advatage of the huge demand (from fans) for new material ..and released
a double album (Tusk) which allowed them to stray a bit from the songs released on the 2 previous LPs.
Lindsey Buckingham got more edgy & experimental...but they also included enough
"traditional sounding" Fleetwood Mac songs to keep the Rumours fans happy.

Just wondering if anyone else thinks that's a good comparison..?

There's nothing as turgid on Exile as that which bogged down Tusk. Tusk was a drug fueled ego-trip that resulted in disaster primarily because the participants thought they were a democracy. Exile was a drug fueled ego trip that succeeded brilliantly primarily because one strong ego (Mick) took charge at the end and pulled it all together.

Personally, I love Sandinista, the first 4 sides are great and there are "some" good things on sides 5 & 6 too. They basically released all their potential b-sides on sides 5 & 6 and released them for free as the triple album was priced as a single album in the UK when it came out. So, having a triple album may not have sounded great as a cohesive piece of work, but it sure was great to get 2.5 hours of new Clash music (most of it great) for cheap! In the US it cost about $11.00 if I recall.

The funny thing is after London Calling (double album) AND Sandinista, you'd THINK that a new single album would be stunning, but they were running on fumes and Combat Rock is only about 50% great. Of COURSE it became huge in America!

Three by Joel Plaskett is a fantastic triple album.

Quote
Rochdale3
Personally, I love Sandinista, the first 4 sides are great and there are "some" good things on sides 5 & 6 too. They basically released all their potential b-sides on sides 5 & 6 and released them for free as the triple album was priced as a single album in the UK when it came out. So, having a triple album may not have sounded great as a cohesive piece of work, but it sure was great to get 2.5 hours of new Clash music (most of it great) for cheap! In the US it cost about $11.00 if I recall.

The funny thing is after London Calling (double album) AND Sandinista, you'd THINK that a new single album would be stunning, but they were running on fumes and Combat Rock is only about 50% great. Of COURSE it became huge in America!

Combat Rock was originally inteded to be a double LP. There were plans for a deluxe edition 2 cd set with the original mick jones mixes.

Quote
R

Quote
sweet neo con
I was a little too young to remember the circumstances in 71-72....but I'd
guess that after the success of Sticky Fingers, the Stones felt free to take a chance
with a double LP and a bunch of songs that sounded nothing like Brown Sugar.

After Fleetwood Mac's extremely successful Rumours LP......they sort of did the
same thing. Took advatage of the huge demand (from fans) for new material ..and released
a double album (Tusk) which allowed them to stray a bit from the songs released on the 2 previous LPs.
Lindsey Buckingham got more edgy & experimental...but they also included enough
"traditional sounding" Fleetwood Mac songs to keep the Rumours fans happy.

Just wondering if anyone else thinks that's a good comparison..?

There's nothing as turgid on Exile as that which bogged down Tusk. Tusk was a drug fueled ego-trip that resulted in disaster primarily because the participants thought they were a democracy. Exile was a drug fueled ego trip that succeeded brilliantly primarily because one strong ego (Mick) took charge at the end and pulled it all together.

I think (in general) I agree.....but I was mostly talking about...having a hugely successful album which afforded them
to explore & try new things on their next one...(in both cases) a double album. If the material is plentiful...the best time to release
an adventurous double album is after a super successful LP when you know the rabid fans will buy anything & the
record execs will be agreeable too.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-14 23:46 by sweet neo con.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
R

Quote
sweet neo con
I was a little too young to remember the circumstances in 71-72....but I'd
guess that after the success of Sticky Fingers, the Stones felt free to take a chance
with a double LP and a bunch of songs that sounded nothing like Brown Sugar.

After Fleetwood Mac's extremely successful Rumours LP......they sort of did the
same thing. Took advatage of the huge demand (from fans) for new material ..and released
a double album (Tusk) which allowed them to stray a bit from the songs released on the 2 previous LPs.
Lindsey Buckingham got more edgy & experimental...but they also included enough
"traditional sounding" Fleetwood Mac songs to keep the Rumours fans happy.

Just wondering if anyone else thinks that's a good comparison..?

There's nothing as turgid on Exile as that which bogged down Tusk. Tusk was a drug fueled ego-trip that resulted in disaster primarily because the participants thought they were a democracy. Exile was a drug fueled ego trip that succeeded brilliantly primarily because one strong ego (Mick) took charge at the end and pulled it all together.

I think (in general) I agree.....but I was mostly talking about...having a hugely successful album which afforded them
to explore & try new things on their next one...(in both cases) a double album. If the material is plentiful...the best time to release
an adventurous double album is after a super successful LP when you know the rabid fans will buy anything & the
record execs will be agreeable too.

Buckingham's material on Tusk is great. I wish more of that album had gone in that direction. Warner Bros was worried 'cause the economy at the time (like now) was pretty sluggish and thought people wouldn't pay for a double album. ANd it's true that Tusk being a double album cost some sales. A worthwhile experiment, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-15 03:15 by tomk.

Quote
tomk

Buckingham's material on Tusk is great. I wish more of that album had gone in that direction. Warner Bros was worried 'cause the economy at the time (like now) was pretty sluggish and thought people wouldn't pay for a double album. ANd it's true that Tusk being a double album cost some sales. A worthwhile experiment, though.

I must agree about LB. Of course, upon its immediate release most people (including myself) expected more of the same
and found it in the Nicks & McVie stuff..... LB's stuff was so different at the time that it took a while to appreciate. You
might also remember that he went thru a physical transformation too.....going from a shaggy haired rock star to an '80s
androgynous look. Seeing as LB was responsible for the FM & Rumours success..Mick Fleetwood (& record company) had to
give him freedom to do what he wanted. In retrospect he probably should have done it more gradually.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-15 04:02 by sweet neo con.

All Things Must Pass was a great seller and a triple album. One of the top triple albums in sales. Also The Concerts for Bangladesh was a triple, and Wings Over America, both great sellers.
I totally disagree that ATMP should have been a single! NO WAY! Great album and even the Apple Jam is a fun listen. A double album, maybe, no way could it have been a single.
EOMS is perfect as a double album, but perhaps they should have released a few more double albums! Like Some Girls.