i admit this is very subjective and possibly contentious but what the hell it may stimulate some debate. It seems after a degree of success some bands will seek to show of their prowess with a magnum opus. Yes a double album showing how very talented they are. I suspect that at times they may have overruled their managers advice and said, well, stuff it, we know best!
A case in point being "Tusk" by Fleetwood Mac.
it was released in 1979 following 2 all time great and highly selling albums "Fleetwood Mac " and "Rumours".
This album did not sell so well as the previous 2 albums perhaps because they had simply peaked, but also more importantly being a double album it was more expensive.
IMHO it is actually an excellent single album, if you got rid of the experimental filler contributed by Linsay Buckingham. I suspect if they had released it as a single album with the best 11 or 12 tracks it would have sold a lot better and kept their enormous momentum going.
Specificaly the tracks that should have been on the definitive single disc are:
Over and over
Think about me
Sara
Storms
Not that funny
Sisters of the moon
Angel
Brown eyes
Honey Hi
Beautiful child
Tusk
Now get me into theTardis and I'll let them know what I think and make them another $10million, would take a Statement as payment!
Does anyone else have thoughts on what would have made a much better single album than the filler filled double albums from other bands?
Posted on: 23 May 2015 by Bert Schurink
There are two versions of this topic.
1. The second album contains good stuff - but not connected to the main album and it then get's lost in the flow of the main album. This happens quite often in progressive rock especially when it's called bonus disc.
2. Quite often the second part is just so far off from the first part. So there it would have been better to avoid packaging it. Also enough examples of that.
in general I think there is the topic of how long can you contain interest of the listener and keep it as one unit I. Which the listener also doesn't need to step out because of biological reasons. I belief 80 minutes is the max to have a rounded experience. Everything above is more difficult to keep the exitement.
Posted on: 23 May 2015 by Kevin-W
For me the issue isn't necessarily about length, but about intent. Some doubles work because they were conceived as BIG statements.
Think about the Beatles' White Album - as far as I'm concerned it's inconceivable that it could ever be a single LP, regardless of the quality or "listenability" of many of the tracks. What gives the albums its character - and, as far as I'm concerned, its reason for being - is its sprawl, its fragmentary character, its inconsistency. This is why I only ever listen to it from beginning to end.
The same is true of The Wall, Tago Mago, Daydream Nation, Electric Ladyland, Aerial, Zen Arcade or Physical Graffiti or any other classic doubles you can name by the likes of Dylan, Who, Clash etc.
Oddly enough there is one really acclaimed double which in my opinion could do with some judicious pruning, and that's the Stones' most overrated album, Exile on Main Street. Prince's Sign o The Times would also be a much better album if it were cut in half.
Posted on: 23 May 2015 by winkyincanada
Originally Posted by Kiwi cat:
i admit this is very subjective and possibly contentious but what the hell it may stimulate some debate. It seems after a degree of success some bands will seek to show of their prowess with a magnum opus. Yes a double album showing how very talented they are. I suspect that at times they may have overruled their managers advice and said, well, stuff it, we know best!
A case in point being "Tusk" by Fleetwood Mac.
it was released in 1979 following 2 all time great and highly selling albums "Fleetwood Mac " and "Rumours".
This album did not sell so well as the previous 2 albums perhaps because they had simply peaked, but also more importantly being a double album it was more expensive.
IMHO it is actually an excellent single album, if you got rid of the experimental filler contributed by Linsay Buckingham. I suspect if they had released it as a single album with the best 11 or 12 tracks it would have sold a lot better and kept their enormous momentum going.
Specificaly the tracks that should have been on the definitive single disc are:
Over and over
Think about me
Sara
Storms
Not that funny
Sisters of the moon
Angel
Brown eyes
Honey Hi
Beautiful child
Tusk
Now get me into theTardis and I'll let them know what I think and make them another $10million, would take a Statement as payment!
Does anyone else have thoughts on what would have made a much better single album than the filler filled double albums from other bands?
Disagree with you on Tusk. The whole album works for me. In hindsight it doesn't seem anywhere as experimental or edgy as how it was received at the time.
Agree with Kevin on the White album. Perhaps easy in hindsight, with decades of familiarisation in my brain, but I love all of it and I can't imagine it any other way.
Posted on: 23 May 2015 by Jeff Anderson
Originally Posted by Kiwi cat:
A case in point being "Tusk" by Fleetwood Mac.
Specificaly the tracks that should have been on the definitive single disc are:
Over and over
Think about me
Sara
Storms
Not that funny
Sisters of the moon
Angel
Brown eyes
Honey Hi
Beautiful child
Tusk
Made this into a playlist for listening later today. I enjoy the whole album but could see how a shortened version might work better, depending on mood.
Jeff A
Posted on: 23 May 2015 by karlosTT
Its an interesting topic. Times have changed anyhow, as a full CD length album today is nearly the same as, or even equal to, a double album on vinyl in the old says - so we became used to a longer listen. Or at least we did till streaming came along.....
I agree with points above about where there was a whole concept to deliver, it made sense. But just because there was a vast pile of recordings, it didn't. Case in point being Sandinista. Oh hang on, that was a TRIPLE ! ;-)
Posted on: 23 May 2015 by matt podniesinski
Originally Posted by karlosTT:
Its an interesting topic. Times have changed anyhow, as a full CD length album today is nearly the same as, or even equal to, a double album on vinyl in the old says - so we became used to a longer listen. Or at least we did till streaming came along.....
I agree with points above about where there was a whole concept to deliver, it made sense. But just because there was a vast pile of recordings, it didn't. Case in point being Sandinista. Oh hang on, that was a TRIPLE ! ;-)
Sandinista indeed! Somewhere in there lies a great single LP. Or maybe they should have just made the sampler LP Sandinista Now! the main release.
Posted on: 23 May 2015 by karlosTT
Sandinista indeed! Somewhere in there lies a great single LP. Or maybe they should have just made the sampler LP Sandinista Now! the main release.
That could possibly work very well as a re-release today, Matt :-)
Posted on: 23 May 2015 by Philip Tate
I knew this thread would wind me up just from the title.
Every album mentioned so far would suffer from having a single second removed from it.
And don't say "Revolution 9". That could be twice as long as far as I'm concerned.
Phil
Posted on: 24 May 2015 by FangfossFlyer
But better than cramming 60 minutes designed for the old CD technology onto two slides of 30 minutes each. Better to have 3 x 20 minutes sides?
What I don't like is the fourth side having some fancy etching on it for which you pay a premium!
Richard
