[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: warning: semi-long news item! sloan considers releasing

>I'll take the opposite stance.  Especially in the day of the 
>78minute CD I feel ripped off to buy albums that clock in at less 
>than 40 minutes, especially given that the length of a single-disc 
>recording has little effect on its end price.   I think that 18 
>songs isn't excessive and that 60 minutes or more of any good band 
>isn't a bad thing.  You expect that much when you see them live, why 
>not when you buy the album?

I agree with you. I don't see how anyone can say they woudldn't want
more songs... It just... doesn't make sense.

>However, I think that releasing a two-disc set with less than 40 
>minutes on each 9-song disc is just going to inflate the price and 
>would be pointless.

Well, yes, again I guess you're right, but I just like the idea of
a double album, for some reason...

>The next best thing is two albums in less than a year (like any band 
>did in the 60's and 70's).  Given the short life expectancy of bands 
>these days, you might as well be prolific.

This would be good, although I'd rather have a double album. Then again,
maybe not...

>They've already gotten away with the bonus party disc, which I 
>really think could have been pressed on the main disc for less money.

But then we would've lost out on the cool packaging (although it sucks
that it won't fit in a standard CD rack).

>As to the flow of 18 songs, does anyone really put tons of thought 
>into what order in which the songs fall, apart from what strong 
>tunes to start and end on?  Unless it's some sort of concept album, 
>and I even know cases where those weren't in the right order 
>(The Elder by KISS).

The flow of songs doesn't usually mean much to me either, although
sometimes, some songs just *have* to be in a certain order. take
tracks 2, 3 and 4 from Radiohead's "OK Computer". They're sort of
like a trilogy...

>I'm trying to think of a lengthy release of new music to use as an 
>example and can't.  I'm sure I have a Rush album somewhere that 
>clocks in that long, or an Iron Maiden with lots of 12-minute 
>opusses (opae? opi? opiae?) on it.  I suppose some of the post-ET 
>releases are pretty long too.

Well, my all-time favorite band, Smashing Pumpkins, did pretty well
with "Mellon Collie & the Infinite Sadness". It had over 60 minutes
of music on each disc, so that's over 120 minutes of music for
one album... Come to think of it, "Gish" is 10 songs, 45 minutes,
"Siamese Dream" is 13 songs, over 60 minutes, "Pisces Iscariot"
is 14 songs, and around an hour. Hell, even their singles are 
huge. The "Zero" single was 40:23 long... Anyway, all I'm saying
is that a long double-album can still do well commercially, although
I admit, unless Sloan turn out a super-radio-friendly single, and
have it picked up by the media as if they were Our Lady Peace or Moist,
well, there probably won't be as many 'new' fans picking up the
album because of it's costs. But I'm sure everyone else on here
who's hooked will buy it. Probably the day it comes out, too...

chris taylor