Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: July 20, 2005 16:07

stargroover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Make it a double and blow Exile back into the 70s.


You took the mouths right out off my word.

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: T&A ()
Date: July 20, 2005 17:55

Exile would have only been a single disc if released in the CD era. Voodoo Lounge is essentially a double LP by 70's length standards. The point? They had classic material oozing outta their butts in '72; not in '94.

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: sjs12 ()
Date: July 20, 2005 18:02

The vinal release of Voodoo WAS a double.

The CD release of Exile IS a single.

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: T&A ()
Date: July 20, 2005 18:04

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The vinal release of Voodoo WAS a double.
>
> The CD release of Exile IS a single.


right- and your point is?

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: JumpingKentFlash ()
Date: July 20, 2005 18:33

I'd say all the 18 new ones, since it's been 8 whole years since the last record. grinning smiley

JumpingKentFlash

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: July 20, 2005 18:34

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

Gazza honey, is that turgid as in "swollen & distended", or as in "tediously pompous", or as in the adjectival form of "turd", or ... ? just curious. :E


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: ifyacantrockme ()
Date: July 21, 2005 03:39

I agree with you guys, i think 10-12 is more than ample for an album. Because of fillers and just plain audio fatigue. It's much easier to get into an album that is about 45 min as opposed to longer. All of their classic releases were about 40-45 min and we regard them very highly.

Save some of the others for B-sides down the line.

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: billwebster ()
Date: July 21, 2005 12:43

Well, as many as the band see fit. 14 like on the last 2 full studio albums would be nice, I think. But please just don't leave off the Jump On Top Of Me-s, even if they are Neo-Con-s.

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: Tseverin ()
Date: July 21, 2005 19:06

If, and I mean IF, it's the last album then I think to go out in style & seal their legacy etc. it has to be a great album & as Gazza's formula neatly pointed out that means all very good songs. You can get away with the odd mediocre track on a b side but not on a great album.
Actually even if it isn't the last album I think they should adopt this policy anyway.

Re: How many songs should be on the new album
Posted by: backstreetboy ()
Date: July 22, 2005 02:28

after 8 years in exile they really should have enough for a 15-18 song album,that kicks ass.if not i agree pick the best 10-11 songs and maKE IT A STRONg album.that does still mean something when looking back aT IT IN A FEW YEARS,OR SO.i understand though that the more the merrier after this long drought,but as much as i love the stones,the last few tours,and even the solo stuff.the pressure is on to deliver some vintage material.

john scialfa

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1762
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home