For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
KRiffhardQuote
JordyLicks96
I'd cut 2 songs from B2B (Might As Well Get Juiced, Thief In The Night):
[...]
Run Time [51:49]
I'd do the same for VL & ABB. Make them shorter. I'd love for the new album to be 12 songs, 45-50 minutes with 2-3 songs as bonus tracks for various releases.
This is the perfect BTB
Without the usless and boring Thief in the Night.
[...]
Quote
liddas
Have been listening to a lot of "recent" (VL + B2B + Lost Licks) outtakes recently.
Most of the songs that didn't make the final set published on the album have at least one equivalent song in style that was published. Which one is better or worse is a matter of taste, but this is not the point.
What strikes me is how many songs they have cut that are far away form the stereotyped stones' format we all expect, and how almost all of these have been discarded.
Voodoo is extremely conventional, so are the released Licks tracks. Bridges has Juiced. Bang has Rain falls down that is somehow newish in their canon (not in Jagger's though). Doom and Gloom and Ghost Town are somehow diverse.
Prisoners of a formula when it comes to choose what gets published?
Tend to think so
C
Quote
Jimmy C
Keith just posted on social media a belated Happy New Year to everyone and said new music is coming. And hopefully fingers crossed they will see everyone this year.
Quote
doitywoikQuote
Jimmy C
Keith just posted on social media a belated Happy New Year to everyone and said new music is coming. And hopefully fingers crossed they will see everyone this year.
Doesn't Keith has people to take care of this? I mean, in time and not two weeks later ...)
Quote
angeeQuote
doitywoikQuote
Jimmy C
Keith just posted on social media a belated Happy New Year to everyone and said new music is coming. And hopefully fingers crossed they will see everyone this year.
Doesn't Keith has people to take care of this? I mean, in time and not two weeks later ...)
He forgot to fax his people on it earlier.
Quote
Rockman
surely he knows a Jamaican Lines man ...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
liddas
Have been listening to a lot of "recent" (VL + B2B + Lost Licks) outtakes recently.
Most of the songs that didn't make the final set published on the album have at least one equivalent song in style that was published. Which one is better or worse is a matter of taste, but this is not the point.
What strikes me is how many songs they have cut that are far away form the stereotyped stones' format we all expect, and how almost all of these have been discarded.
Voodoo is extremely conventional, so are the released Licks tracks. Bridges has Juiced. Bang has Rain falls down that is somehow newish in their canon (not in Jagger's though). Doom and Gloom and Ghost Town are somehow diverse.
Prisoners of a formula when it comes to choose what gets published?
Tend to think so
C
I agree, but Sweethearts Together, New Faces, Moon Is Up and Thru And Thru are hardly conventional.
Quote
Rockman
surely he knows a Jamaican Lines man ...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
liddas
Have been listening to a lot of "recent" (VL + B2B + Lost Licks) outtakes recently.
Most of the songs that didn't make the final set published on the album have at least one equivalent song in style that was published. Which one is better or worse is a matter of taste, but this is not the point.
What strikes me is how many songs they have cut that are far away form the stereotyped stones' format we all expect, and how almost all of these have been discarded.
Voodoo is extremely conventional, so are the released Licks tracks. Bridges has Juiced. Bang has Rain falls down that is somehow newish in their canon (not in Jagger's though). Doom and Gloom and Ghost Town are somehow diverse.
Prisoners of a formula when it comes to choose what gets published?
Tend to think so
C
I agree, but Sweethearts Together, New Faces, Moon Is Up and Thru And Thru are hardly conventional.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
The only problem is that probably not two people here on IORR would cut the very same tracks so how could we demand from the band doing the "right" track selection decisions?
Furthermore, if we think in terms of "standing the test of time" in general one needs to think outside our hardcore fan base box, what could ultimately lead to tough decisions not all people here would like. For example, for the general public 3 Keith lead vocal tracks are probably a bit hard to stomach...
\Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
The only problem is that probably not two people here on IORR would cut the very same tracks so how could we demand from the band doing the "right" track selection decisions?
Furthermore, if we think in terms of "standing the test of time" in general one needs to think outside our hardcore fan base box, what could ultimately lead to tough decisions not all people here would like. For example, for the general public 3 Keith lead vocal tracks are probably a bit hard to stomach...
you're probably right.
Sometimes it makes sense not to go for what nowadays is considered to be a full album length (60+ minutes) and instead release a bunch of good songs on a 40min album (cutting down Bigger Bang to ten (or even less) songs would've been an improvent)
\Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
The only problem is that probably not two people here on IORR would cut the very same tracks so how could we demand from the band doing the "right" track selection decisions?
Furthermore, if we think in terms of "standing the test of time" in general one needs to think outside our hardcore fan base box, what could ultimately lead to tough decisions not all people here would like. For example, for the general public 3 Keith lead vocal tracks are probably a bit hard to stomach...
you're probably right.
Sometimes it makes sense not to go for what nowadays is considered to be a full album length (60+ minutes) and instead release a bunch of good songs on a 40min album (cutting down Bigger Bang to ten (or even less) songs would've been an improvent)
Quote
treaclefingers\Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
The only problem is that probably not two people here on IORR would cut the very same tracks so how could we demand from the band doing the "right" track selection decisions?
Furthermore, if we think in terms of "standing the test of time" in general one needs to think outside our hardcore fan base box, what could ultimately lead to tough decisions not all people here would like. For example, for the general public 3 Keith lead vocal tracks are probably a bit hard to stomach...
you're probably right.
Sometimes it makes sense not to go for what nowadays is considered to be a full album length (60+ minutes) and instead release a bunch of good songs on a 40min album (cutting down Bigger Bang to ten (or even less) songs would've been an improvent)
While I agree (ironically) that we won't all agree on which songs to choose, thankfully we're not in that position and I'd be comfortable that the band could make those decisions...it's resulted in some of my favourite albums of all time and I think it's worth the 'risk'.
Quote
Hairball
Someone had mentioned a while back somewhere in this lengthy thread (almost 600 pages now!!!) that maybe the best route for the band to have taken was to continue to release singles.
Quote
Hairball
Someone had mentioned a while back somewhere in this lengthy thread (almost 600 pages now!!!) that maybe the best route for the band to have taken was to continue to release singles.
Might have been around the time that Ghost Town was released, and it could have been the right thing to do satisfy some of us fans, not to mention poor album sales in general these days.
That said, I'd think most of us would want a unique album of original new Stones material (of any length) vs. the band spitting out the occasional single....especially given the fact they've been talking about this for eons!!!
I have a feeling it will be worth the wait...18 years...can't imagine being a young fan and not knowing what it's like to experience a new original Stones release - the wait might be almost over! Maybe. Hopefully!
Quote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingers\Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
The only problem is that probably not two people here on IORR would cut the very same tracks so how could we demand from the band doing the "right" track selection decisions?
Furthermore, if we think in terms of "standing the test of time" in general one needs to think outside our hardcore fan base box, what could ultimately lead to tough decisions not all people here would like. For example, for the general public 3 Keith lead vocal tracks are probably a bit hard to stomach...
you're probably right.
Sometimes it makes sense not to go for what nowadays is considered to be a full album length (60+ minutes) and instead release a bunch of good songs on a 40min album (cutting down Bigger Bang to ten (or even less) songs would've been an improvent)
While I agree (ironically) that we won't all agree on which songs to choose, thankfully we're not in that position and I'd be comfortable that the band could make those decisions...it's resulted in some of my favourite albums of all time and I think it's worth the 'risk'.
Another thing is how theoretical an ideal album (you know, the whole thing being coherent, not too many fillers, etc) is for die-hards who, pragmatically speaking, would die for any release by this band. You know, any leaked studio sketch will do. Our objective judgment to evaluate that this or that track shouldn't'been released is questionable...
Let's be honest. If Mick and Keith would ask from us, 'hey, would you prefer the album to consist of 12 great tracks or those plus 8 not so great tracks?'. How many us would take the first option, knowing that those 8 tracks would be lost for good? Probably the principle of 'quantity over quality' is for us 'curiosity over quality'...
I hope I made myself clear why I claim this issue being not that practical but theoretical for us die-hards... Besides that of speculating afterwards what tracks should not have made, say, BRIDGES TO BABYLON for it being a 'better' album is a part of fun. Like speculating how much stronger, say, BLACK AND BLUE had been if there'd been, say, "Worried About You" and "Slave...
- Doxa
Quote
Rockman
surely he knows a Jamaican Lines man ...
Quote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
The only problem is that probably not two people here on IORR would cut the very same tracks so how could we demand from the band doing the "right" track selection decisions?
Furthermore, if we think in terms of "standing the test of time" in general one needs to think outside our hardcore fan base box, what could ultimately lead to tough decisions not all people here would like. For example, for the general public 3 Keith lead vocal tracks are probably a bit hard to stomach...
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingers\Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
The only problem is that probably not two people here on IORR would cut the very same tracks so how could we demand from the band doing the "right" track selection decisions?
Furthermore, if we think in terms of "standing the test of time" in general one needs to think outside our hardcore fan base box, what could ultimately lead to tough decisions not all people here would like. For example, for the general public 3 Keith lead vocal tracks are probably a bit hard to stomach...
you're probably right.
Sometimes it makes sense not to go for what nowadays is considered to be a full album length (60+ minutes) and instead release a bunch of good songs on a 40min album (cutting down Bigger Bang to ten (or even less) songs would've been an improvent)
While I agree (ironically) that we won't all agree on which songs to choose, thankfully we're not in that position and I'd be comfortable that the band could make those decisions...it's resulted in some of my favourite albums of all time and I think it's worth the 'risk'.
Another thing is how theoretical an ideal album (you know, the whole thing being coherent, not too many fillers, etc) is for die-hards who, pragmatically speaking, would die for any release by this band. You know, any leaked studio sketch will do. Our objective judgment to evaluate that this or that track shouldn't'been released is questionable...
Let's be honest. If Mick and Keith would ask from us, 'hey, would you prefer the album to consist of 12 great tracks or those plus 8 not so great tracks?'. How many us would take the first option, knowing that those 8 tracks would be lost for good? Probably the principle of 'quantity over quality' is for us 'curiosity over quality'...
I hope I made myself clear why I claim this issue being not that practical but theoretical for us die-hards... Besides that of speculating afterwards what tracks should not have made, say, BRIDGES TO BABYLON for it being a 'better' album is a part of fun. Like speculating how much stronger, say, BLACK AND BLUE had been if there'd been, say, "Worried About You" and "Slave...
- Doxa
For me, I'd disagree. I didn't love Bridges but for a few songs when it was released, and because of that it still isn't an album I ever reach out for. Even without Worried About You and Slave, Black and Blue is a great album I do listen to. But here you've picked one with only 8 songs, feels a bit light, in which they really should/could have added a couple of additional tracks.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingers\Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowderman
Gunface is the only track I would have cut off the album. Horrible track.
I'd additionally remove Already Over Me and Always Suffering.
Every album since Steel Wheels would have benefited from some judicious editing.
Sure we can 'edit' ourselves but in terms of standing the 'test of time' having records out there will lesser content just diminishes the later catalogue unnecessarily.
The only problem is that probably not two people here on IORR would cut the very same tracks so how could we demand from the band doing the "right" track selection decisions?
Furthermore, if we think in terms of "standing the test of time" in general one needs to think outside our hardcore fan base box, what could ultimately lead to tough decisions not all people here would like. For example, for the general public 3 Keith lead vocal tracks are probably a bit hard to stomach...
you're probably right.
Sometimes it makes sense not to go for what nowadays is considered to be a full album length (60+ minutes) and instead release a bunch of good songs on a 40min album (cutting down Bigger Bang to ten (or even less) songs would've been an improvent)
While I agree (ironically) that we won't all agree on which songs to choose, thankfully we're not in that position and I'd be comfortable that the band could make those decisions...it's resulted in some of my favourite albums of all time and I think it's worth the 'risk'.
Another thing is how theoretical an ideal album (you know, the whole thing being coherent, not too many fillers, etc) is for die-hards who, pragmatically speaking, would die for any release by this band. You know, any leaked studio sketch will do. Our objective judgment to evaluate that this or that track shouldn't'been released is questionable...
Let's be honest. If Mick and Keith would ask from us, 'hey, would you prefer the album to consist of 12 great tracks or those plus 8 not so great tracks?'. How many us would take the first option, knowing that those 8 tracks would be lost for good? Probably the principle of 'quantity over quality' is for us 'curiosity over quality'...
I hope I made myself clear why I claim this issue being not that practical but theoretical for us die-hards... Besides that of speculating afterwards what tracks should not have made, say, BRIDGES TO BABYLON for it being a 'better' album is a part of fun. Like speculating how much stronger, say, BLACK AND BLUE had been if there'd been, say, "Worried About You" and "Slave...
- Doxa
For me, I'd disagree. I didn't love Bridges but for a few songs when it was released, and because of that it still isn't an album I ever reach out for. Even without Worried About You and Slave, Black and Blue is a great album I do listen to. But here you've picked one with only 8 songs, feels a bit light, in which they really should/could have added a couple of additional tracks.
It's running time is longer than SOME GIRS, which has two more songs on it!