Quote
ProfessorWolf
i'd add more songs not take em' away

have them polish up and finish some of the outtakes and turn each of those albums into double (cd) albums

Dunno about that. Some of the greatest bands/musicians in history have only ever released one double album...if it was easy to have so much great material I think you'd see more.

Blonde on Blonde, The White Album, Exile on Main Street, A Bigger Bang.

Which of those is not like the others?

So if you have enough material for a great double album, go for it, but if not, for the love of god edit it! Then release all the 'not-quite-up-to-snuff' material, if the diehards REALLY want it, as an 'odd and sods', 'Sucking in the 70s/RARITIES' type release.

This is all silliness. An album had ten tracks because that's what fit the format for vinyl, comfortably. A CD had 15 tracks because the CD-R created a value awareness of what the format could deliver in terms of running time. It's a collection of songs. Everyone has favorites and least favorites. During the streaming era, it's easier than ever to sample and only stream what you like and ignore the rest. If I buy every album by an artist, I also buy the non-album tracks. I prefer they all be lumped together. It doesn't make me cry that the album is now bloated and uneven. In the current era, it's likely it will be 12 tracks and you'll need to pick up vinyl, Target CD, Japanese import, and streaming exclusives to get all the tracks.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
This is all silliness. An album had ten tracks because that's what fit the format for vinyl, comfortably. A CD had 15 tracks because the CD-R created a value awareness of what the format could deliver in terms of running time. It's a collection of songs. Everyone has favorites and least favorites. During the streaming era, it's easier than ever to sample and only stream what you like and ignore the rest. If I buy every album by an artist, I also buy the non-album tracks. I prefer they all be lumped together. It doesn't make me cry that the album is now bloated and uneven. In the current era, it's likely it will be 12 tracks and you'll need to pick up vinyl, Target CD, Japanese import, and streaming exclusives to get all the tracks.

OK, I totally hear that logic. However, as an artistic statement, and as a listening experience, 40 minutes or so has proven to be a really good way for someone to delve into a musician's music for the moment in time they created it. I hear what you're saying that it was due to the limitations of the format. However before 12" vinyl, they used to group shellac into 'albums' (as you know, hence the term 'album' for records) because people didn't just want the song, they wanted more. It just so happens that a 12" vinyl record was more or less perfect for that listening experience. And for an artist, to get a great 10 songs or so wasn't easy, but for a few truly great bands.

Going to 75 minutes with CD led to a lot of uninteresting material released, with some exceptions because bands felt they had to fill up the disc. (EDIT - because - at the time - CDs were really expensive compared to vinyl/cassettes, so I believe it was at least partly to justify this new higher cost of the new format - "LOOK, YOU GET MORE!").

Yes we can accomplish all of this through playlists. What I want is the bands best songs, as a true artistic statement...if they're not able to or no longer want to do that, then why release an 'album' at all? Just release songs as they write and record them digitally?

And maybe that's the best way to have their music out more often so we don't have to wait until they have collected a bunch that sound good to their ears?

Don't worry, they'll make it long enough (50+ minutes) to be a "double album." El Mo could've fit neatly on 3 LPs, but they made it 7 sides. Why?

I'd be open for a three sided vinyl album such as Johnny Winters 'Second Winter', but if there's too much filler would be happy enough with a one sided album.
Maybe just an EP would do the trick, or even just a single with a decent b-side at this point. Anything new and original please.........

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

This thread is hilarious

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rocky Dijon
This is all silliness. An album had ten tracks because that's what fit the format for vinyl, comfortably. A CD had 15 tracks because the CD-R created a value awareness of what the format could deliver in terms of running time. It's a collection of songs. Everyone has favorites and least favorites. During the streaming era, it's easier than ever to sample and only stream what you like and ignore the rest. If I buy every album by an artist, I also buy the non-album tracks. I prefer they all be lumped together. It doesn't make me cry that the album is now bloated and uneven. In the current era, it's likely it will be 12 tracks and you'll need to pick up vinyl, Target CD, Japanese import, and streaming exclusives to get all the tracks.

OK, I totally hear that logic. However, as an artistic statement, and as a listening experience, 40 minutes or so has proven to be a really good way for someone to delve into a musician's music for the moment in time they created it. I hear what you're saying that it was due to the limitations of the format. However before 12" vinyl, they used to group shellac into 'albums' (as you know, hence the term 'album' for records) because people didn't just want the song, they wanted more. It just so happens that a 12" vinyl record was more or less perfect for that listening experience. And for an artist, to get a great 10 songs or so wasn't easy, but for a few truly great bands.

Going to 75 minutes with CD led to a lot of uninteresting material released, with some exceptions because bands felt they had to fill up the disc. (EDIT - because - at the time - CDs were really expensive compared to vinyl/cassettes, so I believe it was at least partly to justify this new higher cost of the new format - "LOOK, YOU GET MORE!").

Yes we can accomplish all of this through playlists. What I want is the bands best songs, as a true artistic statement...if they're not able to or no longer want to do that, then why release an 'album' at all? Just release songs as they write and record them digitally?

And maybe that's the best way to have their music out more often so we don't have to wait until they have collected a bunch that sound good to their ears?

Y'know, I did the Zepathon on New Year's Day with my sons, and as we sat there listening to all of it, I had the wish that bands nowadays would format their song order as if the album were going on a LP first and foremost. Y'know, so that IV ends side 1 with Stairway. Contemplate the song that is going to end a side and begin the second side. Like TY and the rockers and ballads. In this way, a band could bring back some of the old order of things. I love how The Black Crowes LP order of Before the Frost...Until the Freeze is COMPLETELY different from the CD and download versions, and you know what?!?!?!? As the LP, the album is a fkin masterpiece!!!!! Up there with the all-time best that any band has ever produced!!!! Just brilliant. Are there any producers out there who would put that idea at the forefront for track order??

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ProfessorWolf
i'd add more songs not take em' away

have them polish up and finish some of the outtakes and turn each of those albums into double (cd) albums

Dunno about that. Some of the greatest bands/musicians in history have only ever released one double album...if it was easy to have so much great material I think you'd see more.

Blonde on Blonde, The White Album, Exile on Main Street, A Bigger Bang.

Which of those is not like the others?

So if you have enough material for a great double album, go for it, but if not, for the love of god edit it! Then release all the 'not-quite-up-to-snuff' material, if the diehards REALLY want it, as an 'odd and sods', 'Sucking in the 70s/RARITIES' type release.

While I'll admit ABB does not belong in that list, I've always felt that The White Album was highly overrated and bloated. It would have been a monumentally phenomenal single LP. There's a lot that could be cut off of it.

And Fkin A, I'm listening to Bridges right now, and I stand by my belief that this is a friggin modern-day classic. Absolutely luuuuuuuuuuv this album!!!!

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ProfessorWolf
i'd add more songs not take em' away

have them polish up and finish some of the outtakes and turn each of those albums into double (cd) albums

Dunno about that. Some of the greatest bands/musicians in history have only ever released one double album...if it was easy to have so much great material I think you'd see more.

Blonde on Blonde, The White Album, Exile on Main Street, A Bigger Bang.

Which of those is not like the others?

So if you have enough material for a great double album, go for it, but if not, for the love of god edit it! Then release all the 'not-quite-up-to-snuff' material, if the diehards REALLY want it, as an 'odd and sods', 'Sucking in the 70s/RARITIES' type release.

While I'll admit ABB does not belong in that list, I've always felt that The White Album was highly overrated and bloated. It would have been a monumentally phenomenal single LP. There's a lot that could be cut off of it.

The Beatles could've cut 26 minutes off The White Album and it'd be as long as Exile (White- 93 min., Exile 67 min.).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-13 22:11 by NashvilleBlues.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ProfessorWolf
i'd add more songs not take em' away

have them polish up and finish some of the outtakes and turn each of those albums into double (cd) albums

Dunno about that. Some of the greatest bands/musicians in history have only ever released one double album...if it was easy to have so much great material I think you'd see more.

Blonde on Blonde, The White Album, Exile on Main Street, A Bigger Bang.

Which of those is not like the others?

So if you have enough material for a great double album, go for it, but if not, for the love of god edit it! Then release all the 'not-quite-up-to-snuff' material, if the diehards REALLY want it, as an 'odd and sods', 'Sucking in the 70s/RARITIES' type release.

it's not about them releasing a fantastic album at this point to me it's about its been nearly 2 decades and this is very likely the end and i want as much great and filler as they'll allow

i don't understand why someone at this point wouldn't just want everything they can give since it's not gonna happen again

really and ep?

i say give us the best tracks in a basic 10 song lp and a super deluxe with 30 more tracks that's should make everyone happy

right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-13 22:31 by ProfessorWolf.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rocky Dijon
This is all silliness. An album had ten tracks because that's what fit the format for vinyl, comfortably. A CD had 15 tracks because the CD-R created a value awareness of what the format could deliver in terms of running time. It's a collection of songs. Everyone has favorites and least favorites. During the streaming era, it's easier than ever to sample and only stream what you like and ignore the rest. If I buy every album by an artist, I also buy the non-album tracks. I prefer they all be lumped together. It doesn't make me cry that the album is now bloated and uneven. In the current era, it's likely it will be 12 tracks and you'll need to pick up vinyl, Target CD, Japanese import, and streaming exclusives to get all the tracks.

OK, I totally hear that logic. However, as an artistic statement, and as a listening experience, 40 minutes or so has proven to be a really good way for someone to delve into a musician's music for the moment in time they created it. I hear what you're saying that it was due to the limitations of the format. However before 12" vinyl, they used to group shellac into 'albums' (as you know, hence the term 'album' for records) because people didn't just want the song, they wanted more. It just so happens that a 12" vinyl record was more or less perfect for that listening experience. And for an artist, to get a great 10 songs or so wasn't easy, but for a few truly great bands.

Going to 75 minutes with CD led to a lot of uninteresting material released, with some exceptions because bands felt they had to fill up the disc. (EDIT - because - at the time - CDs were really expensive compared to vinyl/cassettes, so I believe it was at least partly to justify this new higher cost of the new format - "LOOK, YOU GET MORE!").

Yes we can accomplish all of this through playlists. What I want is the bands best songs, as a true artistic statement...if they're not able to or no longer want to do that, then why release an 'album' at all? Just release songs as they write and record them digitally?

And maybe that's the best way to have their music out more often so we don't have to wait until they have collected a bunch that sound good to their ears?

There are some difficulties.

Stonesfans are from several rock generations and have become widely diverse in tastes and opinions.

Rock music is past its defining phase and easily continued innovative state.

The Rolling Stones themselves have had their thread of development, during which they continually explored music, cut off. I suggest in the middle of the '80s.

As a consequence of all this, what is quality or even artistic statements in the context of creating Rolling Stones music now or during the later decades, will be much contested. There are quite opposite evaluations regarding which songs are, let us say, good or not so good. Such an observation must have some importance for these exchanges of views.

Quote
Witness

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rocky Dijon
This is all silliness. An album had ten tracks because that's what fit the format for vinyl, comfortably. A CD had 15 tracks because the CD-R created a value awareness of what the format could deliver in terms of running time. It's a collection of songs. Everyone has favorites and least favorites. During the streaming era, it's easier than ever to sample and only stream what you like and ignore the rest. If I buy every album by an artist, I also buy the non-album tracks. I prefer they all be lumped together. It doesn't make me cry that the album is now bloated and uneven. In the current era, it's likely it will be 12 tracks and you'll need to pick up vinyl, Target CD, Japanese import, and streaming exclusives to get all the tracks.

OK, I totally hear that logic. However, as an artistic statement, and as a listening experience, 40 minutes or so has proven to be a really good way for someone to delve into a musician's music for the moment in time they created it. I hear what you're saying that it was due to the limitations of the format. However before 12" vinyl, they used to group shellac into 'albums' (as you know, hence the term 'album' for records) because people didn't just want the song, they wanted more. It just so happens that a 12" vinyl record was more or less perfect for that listening experience. And for an artist, to get a great 10 songs or so wasn't easy, but for a few truly great bands.

Going to 75 minutes with CD led to a lot of uninteresting material released, with some exceptions because bands felt they had to fill up the disc. (EDIT - because - at the time - CDs were really expensive compared to vinyl/cassettes, so I believe it was at least partly to justify this new higher cost of the new format - "LOOK, YOU GET MORE!").

Yes we can accomplish all of this through playlists. What I want is the bands best songs, as a true artistic statement...if they're not able to or no longer want to do that, then why release an 'album' at all? Just release songs as they write and record them digitally?

And maybe that's the best way to have their music out more often so we don't have to wait until they have collected a bunch that sound good to their ears?

There are some difficulties.

Stonesfans are from several rock generations and have become widely diverse in tastes and opinions.

Rock music is past its defining phase and easily continued innovative state.

The Rolling Stones themselves have had their thread of development, during which they continually explored music, cut off. I suggest in the middle of the '80s.

As a consequence of all this, what is quality or even artistic statements in the context of creating Rolling Stones music now or during the later decades, will be much contested. There are quite opposite evaluations regarding which songs are, let us say, good or not so good. Such an observation must have some importance for these exchanges of views.

Well we're going to have our opinions, but I'm not trusting on your or my or consensus opinion for what the album should be. What I'm saying is that I've followed and trusted this bands judgement for over 40 years of my life...I don't want to see their albums as 'everything but the kitchen sink' releases.

Give us the best songs THEY like and are proud of in an album. If they want to release everything else to pacify the diehards (like Voodoo...and ok, me too) do that separately like Sucking In The 70s, or Rarities, or the Beatles 90s vault clear out.

It's taken them this long to put out an album, we hear, because they can't agree on the songs, or they're not happy with them. That's great in a way because it means they care. So I'll obviously be happy with anything, but I'd rather get a 10 or 11 track bulletproof Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, Tattoo YOu, Undercover than a 15-16 song extravaganza like Voodoo, B2B or ABB.

"bulletproof" ? Not sure about that, when they released a 10 track LP it was every 1 to 2 years vs 8 or 18 (and counting) so inspiration being equal there would be more "fillers" back in the day, except for the "best" albums.

As for releasing songs here and there, it would make sense in a way but I'm not sure that's a good idea. Look at Sheryl Crow who said "Threads" was her last album...but that she would still be releasing new music. I think she's actually released a couple of tracks since but unless you're a die-hard what are the chances you'll be able to keep track ? Who remembers GAG, EL, LIAGT or ES outside of here ? Well LIAGT likely a bit more ;-)

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
gotdablouse
"bulletproof" ? Not sure about that, when they released a 10 track LP it was every 1 to 2 years vs 8 or 18 (and counting) so inspiration being equal there would be more "fillers" back in the day, except for the "best" albums.

As for releasing songs here and there, it would make sense in a way but I'm not sure that's a good idea. Look at Sheryl Crow who said "Threads" was her last album...but that she would still be releasing new music. I think she's actually released a couple of tracks since but unless you're a die-hard what are the chances you'll be able to keep track ? Who remembers GAG, EL, LIAGT or ES outside of here ? Well LIAGT likely a bit more ;-)

Is "Where The Boys Go", or "Slave", or "Lies" or "Too Tough" filler...sure, like extra heaps of "cinnamoned apple chunks" in an apple pie. I'll take it please.

What I don't want is hair in my apple pie, so no "Infamy", or "Look What The Cat Dragged In" (indeed, look what it dragged in!), "Gunface", "Already Over Me", "Always Suffering" (a convenient metaphor the XL album).

I understand we'll disagree what is agreeable and filler and what isn't, I'm asking Mick and Keith to be judicious and I'll trust the outcome.

As for releasing stuff willy-nilly and digitally...at this point in history, I'll take anything. A cool physical EP to accompany the 3-4 track digital release would be just fine as well.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Witness

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rocky Dijon
This is all silliness. An album had ten tracks because that's what fit the format for vinyl, comfortably. A CD had 15 tracks because the CD-R created a value awareness of what the format could deliver in terms of running time. It's a collection of songs. Everyone has favorites and least favorites. During the streaming era, it's easier than ever to sample and only stream what you like and ignore the rest. If I buy every album by an artist, I also buy the non-album tracks. I prefer they all be lumped together. It doesn't make me cry that the album is now bloated and uneven. In the current era, it's likely it will be 12 tracks and you'll need to pick up vinyl, Target CD, Japanese import, and streaming exclusives to get all the tracks.

OK, I totally hear that logic. However, as an artistic statement, and as a listening experience, 40 minutes or so has proven to be a really good way for someone to delve into a musician's music for the moment in time they created it. I hear what you're saying that it was due to the limitations of the format. However before 12" vinyl, they used to group shellac into 'albums' (as you know, hence the term 'album' for records) because people didn't just want the song, they wanted more. It just so happens that a 12" vinyl record was more or less perfect for that listening experience. And for an artist, to get a great 10 songs or so wasn't easy, but for a few truly great bands.

Going to 75 minutes with CD led to a lot of uninteresting material released, with some exceptions because bands felt they had to fill up the disc. (EDIT - because - at the time - CDs were really expensive compared to vinyl/cassettes, so I believe it was at least partly to justify this new higher cost of the new format - "LOOK, YOU GET MORE!").

Yes we can accomplish all of this through playlists. What I want is the bands best songs, as a true artistic statement...if they're not able to or no longer want to do that, then why release an 'album' at all? Just release songs as they write and record them digitally?

And maybe that's the best way to have their music out more often so we don't have to wait until they have collected a bunch that sound good to their ears?

There are some difficulties.

Stonesfans are from several rock generations and have become widely diverse in tastes and opinions.

Rock music is past its defining phase and easily continued innovative state.

The Rolling Stones themselves have had their thread of development, during which they continually explored music, cut off. I suggest in the middle of the '80s.

As a consequence of all this, what is quality or even artistic statements in the context of creating Rolling Stones music now or during the later decades, will be much contested. There are quite opposite evaluations regarding which songs are, let us say, good or not so good. Such an observation must have some importance for these exchanges of views.

Well we're going to have our opinions, but I'm not trusting on your or my or consensus opinion for what the album should be. What I'm saying is that I've followed and trusted this bands judgement for over 40 years of my life...I don't want to see their albums as 'everything but the kitchen sink' releases.

Give us the best songs THEY like and are proud of in an album. If they want to release everything else to pacify the diehards (like Voodoo...and ok, me too) do that separately like Sucking In The 70s, or Rarities, or the Beatles 90s vault clear out.

It's taken them this long to put out an album, we hear, because they can't agree on the songs, or they're not happy with them. That's great in a way because it means they care. So I'll obviously be happy with anything, but I'd rather get a 10 or 11 track bulletproof Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, Tattoo YOu, Undercover than a 15-16 song extravaganza like Voodoo, B2B or ABB.

According to this Mick Jagger quote that I (before me lem motlow as my source) have hinted to from RS magazine in 1995, he considered the featured songs on VOODOO LOUNGE as a mistake. Allegedly, songs that were omitted, were "groove songs, African influences and things like that". Apparently, ( this I don't know for sure) Mick must have been overruled by Don Was and Keith. To me this was all the more sad, as this could have contributed to the possibility of the Stones taking up their broken thread of musical innovation up to and including UNDERCOVER. Again, if that is correct, it really would have been a sadly missed opportunity.

The case with VOODOO LOUNGE was one bad choice made. Then it was somewhat similiar when A BIGGER BANG later was not rerecorded, according to Mick's wish, but released in a comparatively rawer state.

These two instances mean that in addition to what I said in the post above, there is also the disagreement as to what kind of music the Stones can agree to release. Add to that, that an album does not necessarily consist of the best 10 to 14 songs, but the combination that suits its various possible songs best.

With all the other complications, it is less probable than earlier in their career that the Stones can be as clever as in the more distant past to come up with a set of songs in your bulletproof album form that best represents their available totality of songs and song ideas from now.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ProfessorWolf
i'd add more songs not take em' away

have them polish up and finish some of the outtakes and turn each of those albums into double (cd) albums

Dunno about that. Some of the greatest bands/musicians in history have only ever released one double album...if it was easy to have so much great material I think you'd see more.

Blonde on Blonde, The White Album, Exile on Main Street, A Bigger Bang.

Which of those is not like the others?

So if you have enough material for a great double album, go for it, but if not, for the love of god edit it! Then release all the 'not-quite-up-to-snuff' material, if the diehards REALLY want it, as an 'odd and sods', 'Sucking in the 70s/RARITIES' type release.

it's not about them releasing a fantastic album at this point to me it's about its been nearly 2 decades and this is very likely the end and i want as much great and filler as they'll allow

i don't understand why someone at this point wouldn't just want everything they can give since it's not gonna happen again

really and ep?

i say give us the best tracks in a basic 10 song lp and a super deluxe with 30 more tracks that's should make everyone happy

right?

I think the Professor is schooling us all. Mick and Keef please take note! I'd line up for both options, as well as 3 or 4 colored, multi-coloured variants!!!! And an 8-track for Rockee!!!!

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ProfessorWolf
i'd add more songs not take em' away

have them polish up and finish some of the outtakes and turn each of those albums into double (cd) albums

Dunno about that. Some of the greatest bands/musicians in history have only ever released one double album...if it was easy to have so much great material I think you'd see more.

Blonde on Blonde, The White Album, Exile on Main Street, A Bigger Bang.

Which of those is not like the others?

So if you have enough material for a great double album, go for it, but if not, for the love of god edit it! Then release all the 'not-quite-up-to-snuff' material, if the diehards REALLY want it, as an 'odd and sods', 'Sucking in the 70s/RARITIES' type release.

it's not about them releasing a fantastic album at this point to me it's about its been nearly 2 decades and this is very likely the end and i want as much great and filler as they'll allow

i don't understand why someone at this point wouldn't just want everything they can give since it's not gonna happen again

really and ep?

i say give us the best tracks in a basic 10 song lp and a super deluxe with 30 more tracks that's should make everyone happy

right?

I think the Professor is schooling us all. Mick and Keef please take note! I'd line up for both options, as well as 3 or 4 colored, multi-coloured variants!!!! And an 8-track for Rockee!!!!

hey i'll take the 8-track too

had to make my own for blue and lonesome

be nice to have a official one this time

Quote
VoodooLounge13
And Fkin A, I'm listening to Bridges right now, and I stand by my belief that this is a friggin modern-day classic. Absolutely luuuuuuuuuuv this album!!!!

I told you! We need a super deluxe of it!!!!

Anything and EVERYTHING. That’s what I want. I’ll pick and choose the stuff to play. It’s not going to happen again. Why record, say, 20 tracks, Mick and Keith and Was argue endlessly about the 12-15 to release, and put the other 5-8 tracks on the shelf? The shelf life OF The Stones and us, let’s face it, is pretty short now.

Imagine if Jeff Beck instead of Ronnie Wood had got the gig after the Black and Blue sessions. TWO of the core of the Stones would now be gone.

Rod

Quote
donvis

Quote
VoodooLounge13
And Fkin A, I'm listening to Bridges right now, and I stand by my belief that this is a friggin modern-day classic. Absolutely luuuuuuuuuuv this album!!!!

I told you! We need a super deluxe of it!!!!

To be fair, I didn’t need much convincing as Bridges has always been one of my favorite albums of theirs. It’s probably in my Top 10 of their albums.

You are all aware that while we discuss the pros and cons of album formatting and express our personal preferences behind the scenes all the major decisions concerning the new album have most likely been already made, right?

You are all aware that while we discuss the pros and cons of album formatting and express our personal preferences behind the scenes they don't give a rat's behind about our personal preferences, right?

Quote
keefmick
You are all aware that while we discuss the pros and cons of album formatting and express our personal preferences behind the scenes they don't give a rat's behind about our personal preferences, right?

Yes, we're aware. Mick sent me a terse text about all of this, this morning.

Quote
retired_dog
You are all aware that while we discuss the pros and cons of album formatting and express our personal preferences behind the scenes all the major decisions concerning the new album have most likely been already made, right?

well duh

but the one us whose most on the mark about what actually gets released wins the million dollar cash prize

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
retired_dog
You are all aware that while we discuss the pros and cons of album formatting and express our personal preferences behind the scenes all the major decisions concerning the new album have most likely been already made, right?

well duh

but the one us whose most on the mark about what actually gets released wins the million dollar cash prize

Considering the age and length of this thread, everybody and nobody will win at the same time ...

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
donvis

Quote
VoodooLounge13
And Fkin A, I'm listening to Bridges right now, and I stand by my belief that this is a friggin modern-day classic. Absolutely luuuuuuuuuuv this album!!!!

I told you! We need a super deluxe of it!!!!

To be fair, I didn’t need much convincing as Bridges has always been one of my favorite albums of theirs. It’s probably in my Top 10 of their albums.

Yes, it's one of their real good ones. For me it's a classic and I still listen to it.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
keefmick
You are all aware that while we discuss the pros and cons of album formatting and express our personal preferences behind the scenes they don't give a rat's behind about our personal preferences, right?

Yes, we're aware. Mick sent me a terse text about all of this, this morning.

Best post since the last news update.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
keefmick
You are all aware that while we discuss the pros and cons of album formatting and express our personal preferences behind the scenes they don't give a rat's behind about our personal preferences, right?

Yes, we're aware. Mick sent me a terse text about all of this, this morning.

I've always assumed that certain discussions here upset our heroes, but this is downright frightening. I'll try to contact Mick today to calm things down... Will get back to you asap!

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
keefmick
You are all aware that while we discuss the pros and cons of album formatting and express our personal preferences behind the scenes they don't give a rat's behind about our personal preferences, right?

Yes, we're aware. Mick sent me a terse text about all of this, this morning.

I've always assumed that certain discussions here upset our heroes, but this is downright frightening. I'll try to contact Mick today to calm things down... Will get back to you asap!

Keith still hasn't figured out his login on IORR, so don't worry about him.