it is said that the stones have done 18 new songs,
but it is not clear how many of them will finaly make it for the album.

Since it has been 8 years since Babylon i would like to have a kind of double album, which has to be about 15 songs....
so that the missing 3 songs can make it as b-sides.

I know some of you would like to hear just about 10-12 songs per album,
but WHY ?
as a Stones fan i want to hear as much new songs as possible,
the more...the better.

see you on the tour
regards
salar

I prefer an old-fashioned 45 min. album with just 10-12 good songs than a CD-fashioned 65 min. album with the same songs plus four fillers.

Leave those four fillers to B-sides and things like that.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

More than 12, so 18+ is a good number, those short albums suck!

"Fuc the Rock babe, I want the Roll." (KR)

We've waited too long for a new album. It seems to be that they have written album for the true fans with heavy guitars and lots-o-Keef(PLEASE GOD LET IT BE SO). In that vein I think the we want as much music as possible as long as it isn't crap. NO crappy fillers. Just good B-sides. I am jonseing for a Rolling Stones fix so give it to me.

as long as all the songs are good, its irrelevant whether its 10, 12 or 18. Ideally I'd like an 80 minute album, but I doubt that they have that many great songs to justify it

the format of CDs hasnt been good for bands in many ways. They feel under more obligation to fill the disc, and this usually ends in longer delays between albums and lots of 'filler' that would previously have been left off or just used as b sides. So, potentially great/very good albums lose some of their greatness because the work overall gets bogged down with filler.

Voodoo Lounge being a prime example. They admitted to cramming a few extra songs on because it was their first album in 5 years - but a 11 or 12 track version of that record would have seen it remembered more fondly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-19 18:50 by Gazza.

45 min. (10 songs)

i'm with Bruno - 45 minutes tops. Albums shouldn't take more than that to listen to, frankly. I like listening to albums in one shot...I rarely have more than 45 minutes to do so at a time...

short album

Since CDs came out everyone wanted to fill up those 72 min
mostly with junk

I say the album will be short
U2 Oasis Beck their new cds are


i think bands are now listening to the fans and making music they wantt to hear

Of course I'd rather hear 18 great tunes. But if 2 of them will drag the other 16 down then please make it a shorter album to begin with. To me Voodoo was the prime offender too like Gazza says. I guess the main reason VL still rubs me a bit wrong these days is beacause of the weaker stuff on there. They should have released two shorter albums in shorter succession maybe after sifting through Brew and Stew once again.

Why would anyone want less songs. Face it the days of 45 minute records are over. The Stones have not given us much new material in recent years so why wouldn't people want as many new songs as possible even if there are a few filler songs in there. Everyone is going to hunt down bootlegs to find those filler songs anyway. Some people think certain songs on Voodoo are weak or filler while others think those are the best songs so why not give us more so we can hear what the guys are writing these days.

For reasons cited above, JJF. Less is more. That's why.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone is going to hunt down bootlegs to find
> those filler songs anyway.

That's another reason for a short album with no fillers. This way we fúcking freaks will be hunting down the songs not included in the album so we can discuss that they one or two could have been.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Even IF there are 18 good tracks, I'd like them to keep 6 or 7 for the next album, to be released sooner.

18 would be alright if it's the Last album. But it never is!

How about an additional DVD with the new album? or a few songs done as performance for additional DVD content.
DR

10-12 tracks max. 45mins with 1 keith track.

Voodoo and Bridges were spoilt with filler.

They will release at least 2 cd singles.Why not release a couple of different versions of each (very common nowadays) to get the extra tracks out and attract multi sales for completists .

sc uk

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> J-J-Flash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Everyone is going to hunt down bootlegs to
> find
> > those filler songs anyway.
>
> That's another reason for a short album with no
> fillers. This way we fúcking freaks will be
> hunting down the songs not included in the album
> so we can discuss that they one or two could have
> been.
>

true but thats only relevant if the songs in question get 'leaked' out to begin with.

security is a lot tighter with these things now than it used to be for that reason (we only got the VL stuff primarily due to some thieving being done by Woody's son, apparently)

Two of the last three Stones studio albums havent had anything bootlegged from them. The new album was pretty much all recorded in Mick's home. I dont imagine there'll be much 'leaking' out from these sessions either.

true about tightened security. aside from the Palais board - there wasn't one single soundboard leak from the Licks tour (I'm not talking about FMs, etc - which don't require a security leak to emerge) - that tells you they've tightened things up.

i reckon 12 songs is about right we want it short and punchy..and please only one keef song...we dont want the album to drone on..let mick choose the tracks

It's been 8 years of waiting for new songs now. If we get 10-12 songs it will be less than 2 songs for each year...
But every new Stones song is potentially a diamond, so bring it to me baby!


Let it rock!

10

its more than enough for any album

think of it in vinyl terms, 5 tracks per side. total 40 mins max

it was fine then so its fine now


all killer, and no filler please!

That is why I am saying I'd rather just get as many songs as we could. We have not had any outtakes sort of things to find since Voodoo so chances are if they are not on the album then we will never hear them. And there are always a few songs that I really like that don't make the album.

JJF:

I'm trying to understand your reasoning - really, I am. Are you saying you'd rather they throw on more crap just so we have more songs?

What some of the rest of us are saying is that's how you wind up with a VL. Less is more, buddy!

For me VL is one of my favorite Stones albums, and I have been a fan for many, many years. What I am saying is for them not to do an album that is just 45 minutes of music just because that was the standard in the days of vinyl. Of coarse I don't want them to put crap songs on it just to fill space. But I also don't want them to leave songs off that some of us might like. Think of if they made Exile just 2 sides, we would not have had some great songs.

So all I am saying is if Mick and Keith are as inspired as they say there were in terms of writing good music together and they have enough to fill up 16 songs on the cd, then use them all. If it is hard for them to pick which ones to leave off because they are all quality songs than keep up on there for us to enjoy.

Songs like Brand New Car and Sweethearts Together get bashed here and many people probably wish they were left off VL but I love those songs.

Im in the 'less is more' club as well..I will be happy with 45mins of killer stones tunes, KR singing on one track only. 45mins is enough. If the other tracks are good, put 'em out with cd single releases.

JJF:

I guess my expectations are lower than yours. I'm not convinced the Mick/Keith songwriting team has 20 minutes of prime material in them at this point, let alone 45. To think they could come up with 16-18 songs at this stage that would do anything other than tarnish an image is beyond my grasp.

...btw I happen to like the two VL songs you mentioned, but there are a handful that I consider dreadful, like Thru & Thru, Blinded by Rainbows and Out of Tears.

T&A, glad you like the tunes I mentioned but am pretty surprised that you don't like the ones you said above. I guess that is what makes the Stones so unique and everyone has their opinion to what they like. I thought Bridges to Babyon was solid but there are one or two songs which I don't really like. Didn't think any of the new songs on Licks were anything special.

I would be happy with another VL but would like to see most of the album feature a 5 or 6 piece band. Songs that don't need much else besides the boys themselves. A nice simple rock and blues album.

Make it a double and blow Exile back into the 70s.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
> Songs like Brand New Car and Sweethearts Together
> get bashed here and many people probably wish they
> were left off VL but I love those songs.

Personally I'd have left off Mean Disposition and Suck On The Jugular first, both of which I think are turgid.

the two you mention are a bit cheesy but have a certain charm about them. B-side material, however, I would have thought.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is why I am saying I'd rather just get as
> many songs as we could. We have not had any
> outtakes sort of things to find since Voodoo so
> chances are if they are not on the album then we
> will never hear them. And there are always a few
> songs that I really like that don't make the
> album.


10 very good songs + 4 ok ones + 2 crap ones = decent, but not great album
10 very good songs and no filler = very good/classic album

as long as they release all the "very good" ones, no point filling space with dross thats going to bring down the overall standards of the album

save that stuff for a boxed set or b-sides.

The best solution to this would be a limited edition bonus disc with the extra songs.