Quote
Bashlets
So if article about 17 songs is correct so is the part about Ryan Tedder’s involvement. I think this is all speculation until we get an official notice. No doubt an album is coming. It could just be they have 17 tracks to choose from including B sides or whatever. Still hoping for 9 to 10 songs sequenced really good and if they have more put out another album in a year.

The new album will be released in 20-30 different formats and versions with different bonus tracks on each one and different covers too to cash in with the die hards, it's the only way to sell a good number of physical copies, the fans will buy the same album 20 times to collect all the versions available.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
Bashlets
So if article about 17 songs is correct so is the part about Ryan Tedder’s involvement. I think this is all speculation until we get an official notice. No doubt an album is coming. It could just be they have 17 tracks to choose from including B sides or whatever. Still hoping for 9 to 10 songs sequenced really good and if they have more put out another album in a year.

The new album will be released in 20-30 different formats and versions with different bonus tracks on each one and different covers too to cash in with the die hards, it's the only way to sell a good number of physical copies, the fans will buy the same album 20 times to collect all the versions available.

I know you're joking...right? Stop trying to freak us out georgelicks!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
Bashlets
So if article about 17 songs is correct so is the part about Ryan Tedder’s involvement. I think this is all speculation until we get an official notice. No doubt an album is coming. It could just be they have 17 tracks to choose from including B sides or whatever. Still hoping for 9 to 10 songs sequenced really good and if they have more put out another album in a year.

The new album will be released in 20-30 different formats and versions with different bonus tracks on each one and different covers too to cash in with the die hards, it's the only way to sell a good number of physical copies, the fans will buy the same album 20 times to collect all the versions available.

I know you're joking...right? Stop trying to freak us out georgelicks!

Joking? I wish, you'll all find out next year, just see ABBA's, Taylor Swift, Macca's, etc, latest releases to get a picture.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
Bashlets
So if article about 17 songs is correct so is the part about Ryan Tedder’s involvement. I think this is all speculation until we get an official notice. No doubt an album is coming. It could just be they have 17 tracks to choose from including B sides or whatever. Still hoping for 9 to 10 songs sequenced really good and if they have more put out another album in a year.

The new album will be released in 20-30 different formats and versions with different bonus tracks on each one and different covers too to cash in with the die hards, it's the only way to sell a good number of physical copies, the fans will buy the same album 20 times to collect all the versions available.

I know you're joking...right? Stop trying to freak us out georgelicks!

Joking? I wish, you'll all find out next year, just see ABBA's, Taylor Swift, Macca's, etc, latest releases to get a picture.

Maybe they'll also do what Macca did with his McCartney III 'Imagined'...remix's and collaborations with other artists. > MACCA III Imagined
Sort of like what Mick did with his Getta Grip/England Lost tunes...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
"The best in 50 years..."

LOL nobody said that!

Hopefully someone in the Stones camp has paid attention to The Cult's UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN album - 8 songs, 35 minutes: perfection.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Hopefully someone in the Stones camp has paid attention to The Cult's UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN album - 8 songs, 35 minutes: perfection.

End the band as they started...short albums, EPs and singles...LOTS!

Quote
WorriedAboutYou
I will lap up every single note, chord, riff and line of this new album. Beyond excited for it, it's been way too long. I LOVE latter-day Stones and consider albums like Babylon, Bang and Voodoo amongst their very best. If this is to be their final recorded output I expect it will be an album to treasure.

I wish I was like you, easily amused...........

How many formats will they release?

- CD digipack
- CD jewel case
- LP
- Cassette
- CD + docu DVD
- CD + docu BR
- LP (coloured vinyl, limited)
- LP (Picture disc)
- SHM CD
- CD (Japan + bonus track)
- Deluxe CD + booklet

Digital download mp3
Digital download wav
Memory stick

- CD picture disc
- various super deluxe fan editions (incl. merch stuff like posters, key rings, bottle openers, guitar picks, scarfs etc.)

78's ....



ROCKMAN

wax cylinders...

Neural implant with collectible poster

Quote
GasLightStreet
Hopefully someone in the Stones camp has paid attention to The Cult's UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN album - 8 songs, 35 minutes: perfection.

A mini album? The people did those funny things, usually even divided into two sides, 35 years ago before CD format took over. You know, the time when the Soviet Union existed, Mandela was jailed, and I was damn young and innocent.

There were also only two options: a vinyl or a cassette. Wasn't that boring, no?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-02 14:14 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GasLightStreet
Hopefully someone in the Stones camp has paid attention to The Cult's UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN album - 8 songs, 35 minutes: perfection.

A mini album? The people did those funny things, usually even divided into two sides, 35 years ago before CD format took over. You know, the time when the Soviet Union existed, Mandela was jailed, and I was damn young and innocent.

There were also only two options: a vinyl or a cassette. Wasn't that boring, no?

- Doxa

I’m not sure I’d classify an album with a running-time of thirty-five minutes as being a ‘mini album’ That’s been a reasonably standard length throughout the time of popular music. I guess it’s a little short if you factor in that LP’S got a little longer in duration during the 70’s. I don’t think we’ll get a tight, concise release, however. It’s been a long time, so undoubtedly, we’ll get something a little excessive, ala, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang. I’m not sure if there’s any legitimacy to this ’17 tracks’ rumour, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s a somewhat accurate figure.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
rolling1us

Quote
Doxa

Quote
rbk
Seventeen songs is TOO MANY! You'd think they'd have learned that with Voodoo and A Bigger Bang. 4-5 of the seventeen won't be nearly as good and will drag down the whole effort.

But shouldn't we first hear the album in order to say if there are too many songs or not...

- Doxa

Completely agree with you

Yes - a very good idea...

Disagree...that would take WAY too much time. I say shoot first, ask questions later.

OK, but don't come crying to me if you decide the long awaited album is bloated and weighed down with too many sub par tracks. :-)

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GasLightStreet
Hopefully someone in the Stones camp has paid attention to The Cult's UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN album - 8 songs, 35 minutes: perfection.

A mini album? The people did those funny things, usually even divided into two sides, 35 years ago before CD format took over. You know, the time when the Soviet Union existed, Mandela was jailed, and I was damn young and innocent.

There were also only two options: a vinyl or a cassette. Wasn't that boring, no?

- Doxa

I’m not sure I’d classify an album with a running-time of thirty-five minutes as being a ‘mini album’ That’s been a reasonably standard length throughout the time of popular music. I guess it’s a little short if you factor in that LP’S got a little longer in duration during the 70’s. I don’t think we’ll get a tight, concise release, however. It’s been a long time, so undoubtedly, we’ll get something a little excessive, ala, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang. I’m not sure if there’s any legitimacy to this ’17 tracks’ rumour, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s a somewhat accurate figure.

I was making fun of that. But the cruel fact is that the concept of album has changed along the years. The old standard was based on physical limits of a vinyl record. That shaped the idea of an artistic wholeness when especially 60s and 70s rock musicians started to see an album as a main vehicle of an artistic expression. It wasn't just a random collection of songs, but an artistic statement of its own. People get used to it, and seeing albums (and the representation of music) in terms of it. Especially we fans of classic rock, since our heroes mastered the art of LP format.

But that is just a custom, based on old and contingent technological limits. The CD offered a new format to get rid of those old formal constraints, and the albums started to be more lengthy and more shapeless by not any longer divided into two different sides. The accessability of an individual track by just pushing one button also changed the habit of listening the albums. As it was easier to skip the lesser tracks, the significance of an album as a whole listening experience lessened. The whole concept of an album changed, and the digital turn, when music lost its physical carrier, offered more possibilities, some even limitless in space. Some artists used that option more than others. (For example, see what happened to live albums: new formats offered much better options to represent whole shows instead of torsos like the vinyl ones back in the day).

For the lovers of old vinyl album concept some of this development has been tragical. It's 'quantity over quality', I hear they say. Could be. But why should a record or an album limit itself only to, say, 35 to 40 minutes? So that not so much filler or crap is released? Well, back in the old days, especially very old days, it wasn't so untypical that big amount of those 35-40 minutes was full of crap, filler stuff. The limitation itself didn't make the music better. In a theory a better criterion could be: 'hey, let just release great music. When it gets crap and filler, let's stop there'. Or 'let's make the album as lengthy as we think our art needs' But how many songs would then qualify: three, seven, twelve, twenty-one? I guess that would depend on the quality of the material and the one to estimate that is the artist him/herself. But would the result last three or twenty or 45 or 180 minutes, that's an open issue.

Similarly, we could ask, why concerts typically last two hours or something like that these days? Shouldn't them be shorter and more compact? Think if the Stones put their energy and concentration into 45 minutes instead of spreading it all over 2 hours, how much better the show would be in quality? Well, they, thankfully, do not, but why they don't is another result of history, based on customs and habits (that had changed quite a lot from their early days). .

I think the idea of an ideal album being based on 35 to 40 minutes is just a reminiscent of the past, of our old customs and habits, resulting of contingent technological poossibilities and constraints. I personally miss those days - as it was the way I learned to view albums - but those days are long gone.

- Doxa



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-02 16:21 by Doxa.

For me, I'll be happiest with a CDR I burn of the album and all it's B-sides. If they did a version of every album with added disc of bonus tracks, I'd love it. If I'm going to hunt down every damn song any way, I don't worry about what my 10 favorite were and how the album would be better with less.

I cant believe this is actually happening. I started to read this thread 2018 for the first time and year for year everything about the thread that changed was the name of it, adding the new name of the year. Excited about it, however it might sound.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GasLightStreet
Hopefully someone in the Stones camp has paid attention to The Cult's UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN album - 8 songs, 35 minutes: perfection.

A mini album? The people did those funny things, usually even divided into two sides, 35 years ago before CD format took over. You know, the time when the Soviet Union existed, Mandela was jailed, and I was damn young and innocent.

There were also only two options: a vinyl or a cassette. Wasn't that boring, no?

- Doxa

I’m not sure I’d classify an album with a running-time of thirty-five minutes as being a ‘mini album’ That’s been a reasonably standard length throughout the time of popular music. I guess it’s a little short if you factor in that LP’S got a little longer in duration during the 70’s. I don’t think we’ll get a tight, concise release, however. It’s been a long time, so undoubtedly, we’ll get something a little excessive, ala, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang. I’m not sure if there’s any legitimacy to this ’17 tracks’ rumour, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s a somewhat accurate figure.

I was making fun of that. But the cruel fact is that the concept of album has changed along the years. The old standard was based on physical limits of a vinyl record. That shaped the idea of an artistic wholeness when especially 60s and 70s rock musicians started to see an album as a main vehicle of an artistic expression. It wasn't just a random collection of songs, but an artistic statement of its own. People get used to it, and seeing albums (and the representation of music) in terms of it. Especially we fans of classic rock, since our heroes mastered the art of LP format.

But that is just a custom, based on old and contingent technological limits. The CD offered a new format to get rid of those old formal constraints, and the albums started to be more lengthy and more shapeless by not any longer divided into two different sides. The accessability of an individual track by just pushing one button also changed the habit of listening the albums. As it was easier to skip the lesser tracks, the significance of an album as a whole listening experience lessened. The whole concept of an album changed, and the digital turn, when music lost its physical carrier, offered more possibilities, some even limitless in space. Some artists used that option more than others. (For example, see what happened to live albums: new formats offered much better options to represent whole shows instead of torsos like the vinyl ones back in the day).

For the lovers of old vinyl album concept some of this development has been tragical. It's 'quantity over quality', I hear they say. Could be. But why should a record or an album limit itself only to, say, 35 to 40 minutes? So that not so much filler or crap is released? Well, back in the old days, especially very old days, it wasn't so untypical that big amount of those 35-40 minutes was full of crap, filler stuff. The limitation itself didn't make the music better. In a theory a better criterion could be: 'hey, let just release great music. When it gets crap and filler, let's stop there'. Or 'let's make the album as lengthy as we think our art needs' But how many songs would then qualify: three, seven, twelve, twenty-one? I guess that would depend on the quality of the material and the one to estimate that is the artist him/herself. But would the result last three or twenty or 45 or 180 minutes, that's an open issue.

Similarly, we could ask, why concerts typically last two hours or something like that these days? Shouldn't them be shorter and more compact? Think if the Stones put their energy and concentration into 45 minutes instead of spreading it all over 2 hours, how much better the show would be in quality? Well, they, thankfully, do not, but why they don't is another result of history, based on customs and habits (that had changed quite a lot from their early days). .

I think the idea of an ideal album being based on 35 to 40 minutes is just a reminiscent of the past, of our old customs and habits, resulting of contingent technological poossibilities and constraints. I personally miss those days - as it was the way I learned to view albums - but those days are long gone.

- Doxa

Things have certainly changed, though I still think ‘rock’ acts will continue to release albums in a more traditional form. Whether the masses will consume their product the ‘intended way’ is a different matter, of course. Streaming has changed everything. I believe that, say, Coldplay, go into the studio and create an album, with an intended track sequence and theme. There are still many in the rock sphere, I’m sure, who appreciate the traditional form and ideals.

Happy to hear many tracks
I think it a pain in the ass to produce a product
I m so happy the stones have given us
New music
I think they would rather be enjoying their time.
Thank you to bv for this forum
Thank you for all who share the unreleased music
Ps hope to see couple more shows
Remember miami 2019...

Maybe they'll do 3 different versions of the album like Transatlantic



[en.m.wikipedia.org])

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GasLightStreet
Hopefully someone in the Stones camp has paid attention to The Cult's UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN album - 8 songs, 35 minutes: perfection.

A mini album? The people did those funny things, usually even divided into two sides, 35 years ago before CD format took over. You know, the time when the Soviet Union existed, Mandela was jailed, and I was damn young and innocent.

There were also only two options: a vinyl or a cassette. Wasn't that boring, no?

- Doxa

I’m not sure I’d classify an album with a running-time of thirty-five minutes as being a ‘mini album’ That’s been a reasonably standard length throughout the time of popular music. I guess it’s a little short if you factor in that LP’S got a little longer in duration during the 70’s. I don’t think we’ll get a tight, concise release, however. It’s been a long time, so undoubtedly, we’ll get something a little excessive, ala, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang. I’m not sure if there’s any legitimacy to this ’17 tracks’ rumour, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s a somewhat accurate figure.

I was making fun of that. But the cruel fact is that the concept of album has changed along the years. The old standard was based on physical limits of a vinyl record. That shaped the idea of an artistic wholeness when especially 60s and 70s rock musicians started to see an album as a main vehicle of an artistic expression. It wasn't just a random collection of songs, but an artistic statement of its own. People get used to it, and seeing albums (and the representation of music) in terms of it. Especially we fans of classic rock, since our heroes mastered the art of LP format.

But that is just a custom, based on old and contingent technological limits. The CD offered a new format to get rid of those old formal constraints, and the albums started to be more lengthy and more shapeless by not any longer divided into two different sides. The accessability of an individual track by just pushing one button also changed the habit of listening the albums. As it was easier to skip the lesser tracks, the significance of an album as a whole listening experience lessened. The whole concept of an album changed, and the digital turn, when music lost its physical carrier, offered more possibilities, some even limitless in space. Some artists used that option more than others. (For example, see what happened to live albums: new formats offered much better options to represent whole shows instead of torsos like the vinyl ones back in the day).

For the lovers of old vinyl album concept some of this development has been tragical. It's 'quantity over quality', I hear they say. Could be. But why should a record or an album limit itself only to, say, 35 to 40 minutes? So that not so much filler or crap is released? Well, back in the old days, especially very old days, it wasn't so untypical that big amount of those 35-40 minutes was full of crap, filler stuff. The limitation itself didn't make the music better. In a theory a better criterion could be: 'hey, let just release great music. When it gets crap and filler, let's stop there'. Or 'let's make the album as lengthy as we think our art needs' But how many songs would then qualify: three, seven, twelve, twenty-one? I guess that would depend on the quality of the material and the one to estimate that is the artist him/herself. But would the result last three or twenty or 45 or 180 minutes, that's an open issue.

Similarly, we could ask, why concerts typically last two hours or something like that these days? Shouldn't them be shorter and more compact? Think if the Stones put their energy and concentration into 45 minutes instead of spreading it all over 2 hours, how much better the show would be in quality? Well, they, thankfully, do not, but why they don't is another result of history, based on customs and habits (that had changed quite a lot from their early days). .

I think the idea of an ideal album being based on 35 to 40 minutes is just a reminiscent of the past, of our old customs and habits, resulting of contingent technological poossibilities and constraints. I personally miss those days - as it was the way I learned to view albums - but those days are long gone.

- Doxa

Ian and Billy focused on quality. The Cult recorded 20 songs (last I knew) for UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN and after a lot of work, focused on 8 tracks.

They as artists were happy with the results. It wasn't some kind of social or commercial media material decision or something Black Hill Records demanded - it was statement of the intent of the art/music.

That statement was 8 excellent songs.

The term LP evolved in the 1990s. Long held as a vinyl album, Long Player was redefined - by artists, even - as the work they did for an album, format having no relevance.

Would serious Cult fans want more than 8 songs from their newest LP? Of course!

More is more!

There is a line, though. Just as with some previous Cult albums, there are the last 3 of the 4 Stones albums that focused on quantity rather than quality.

It's one thing to think, What if Pink Floyd had 78 minutes in 1972. To do what they did on vinyl for DARK SIDE OF THE MOON - imagine if with CD...

Sometimes it's backward: an album that is 35-39 minutes long... as if a 74 minute LP would keep it going - is must long enough, based on personal experience, to be left wanting more.

In this case I play UNDER THE MIDNIGHT SUN probably 4 times a day. CD and/or the auto-rip on Amazon.

I love that it's quick: it drives me to listen more.

Skippy, I haven't followed The Cult for decades, and my ability to judge their ups and downs is pretty limited, but I trust your word here. They have done a great job in terms of quality vs. quantity.

But the Stones too with their previous album. It was funny how short BLUE & LONESOME felt like when it was released. It was 'ouch, did it end already? Okay, I start from the beginning again'. Which I did, again and again. Funnily, as I know checked, it actually lasts over 40 minutes, a pretty normal lenght in the old days, but now like a 'mini album' ..

Anyway, I realised that I haven't had listened a brandnew album like that for ages. Not even the previous Stones albums. I still recall the first times listening especially VOODOO LOUNGE and A BIGGER BANG and after the first burst of novelty had gone, those albums started sound endless, and listening the whole thing started to be like a helluva job ('do this ever end?'). And after the last cut I felt like relieved and didn't feel like going back again at all. Since that it was just checking out some individual tracks.

As far as these recent Stones albums nowadays go, I don't listen them that often, but when I do, it is funny how many times I am surprised when I took a singular song out of its context: 'hmm, it wasn' t so indifferent at all. Actually it is pretty good'. But if I try to listen them more, even the whole album, I find myself being bored pretty quickly. But BLUE & LONESOME is different. When I listen it I almost always end up listening the whole album. It like asks listening the whole lot. The album flows so naturally, the songs are like supporting each other, and together they make a helluva musical statement. And it leaves you asking more...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-03 11:26 by Doxa.

whoever mixed BLUE & LONESOME did a masterful job...the songs jump out at you...they attack you....like the Stones used to attack...vibrant, alive.....urgent....hope the new record is similar in style. Obviously the public responded....thats how people want to hear the Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-03 12:16 by Rip This.

It's still a bit over-compressed and "loud" in the mastering though.

With better judged mastering, the recording would have revealed much more light and shade with more natural dynamics. [i.e some softer bits between the loud bits ]

not reading every post, is there a release date or rumours yet so I can take that day off?

Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack

is there a release date or rumours yet

No release date yet - just rumours. The new album comes probably with the new Tour in (spring) 2023.

Quote
Spud
It's still a bit over-compressed and "loud" in the mastering though.

With better judged mastering, the recording would have revealed much more light and shade with more natural dynamics. [i.e some softer bits between the loud bits ]

A BIT over-compressed??? It’s terrible. One of the worst sounding albums of good music of all time. An absolute shame. I stand by my theory that to the band members ears, after years of playing live on stage every night, that their ears are shot, and THEY think this type of mastering sounds not only right, but great. Dreadful. I love the album but can barely play it.

Rod