10th album anniversary- double treat?

Message

alig · #1 Post by **alig** » Wed 31 May 2006, 5:55 am

how about they knock off a double cd to celebrate their 10th studio album release? 20 songs
to swoon over.....

the title would be "double" or "doubly?"

if the chili peppers can release a double album why not the pets, too?

retrofuturist · #2 Post by **retrofuturist** » Wed 31 May 2006, 6:17 am

Because every single "double album" of original material that has ever been produced should have been culled back to "one album" full of decent songs, and a bucketload of mediocre out-takes.

Relentless is of course a legitimate album in its own right

daveid · #3 Post by **daveid** » Wed 31 May 2006, 6:41 am

Hadn't PopArt originally been planned as a collevtion of their own faves, regardless of whether they were singles. That would've been good.

retrofuturist · #4 Post by **retrofuturist** » Wed 31 May 2006, 6:52 am

daveid wrote:Hadn't PopArt originally been planned as a collevtion of their own faves, regardless of whether they were singles. That would've been good.

Funny you say that but (inspired by the New Order Retro box set) I created my own "Fan" disc to put in the box along with Pop Art & Mix. How nerdy is that?!

Flaffer · #5 Post by **Flaffer** » Wed 31 May 2006, 8:12 am

daveid wrote:Hadn't PopArt originally been planned as a collevtion of their own faves, regardless of whether they were singles. That would've been good.

as far as I am aware PopArt was always gonna be a singles collection, originally planned to be a single disc though

Eldritch · #6 Post by **Eldritch** » Wed 31 May 2006, 8:45 am

retrofuturist wrote:Because every single "double album" of original material that has ever been produced should have been culled back to "one album" full of decent songs, and a bucketload of mediocre out-takes.

But on the other hands most albums would have made a superior ep, so I don't really subscribe to the conventional wisdom in the double album arguments. Sure, double albums are self-indulgent and usually too long, but making a double is a statement in itself, and everyone can make his or her compilation of the album anyway.

Besides, one of my fave albums ever is a triple: 69 Love Songs by Magnetic Fields is an album that would have been vastly inferior if it had been cut down to a single (or even a double) disc.

joeythecat · #7 Post by **joeythecat** » Wed 31 May 2006, 9:40 am

Overall, a double album is better for live recordings or classical type music. But, as most albums are over 60 minutes, most albums would have qualified as double albums in the past.

Twoism · #8 Post by **Twoism** » Wed 31 May 2006, 11:57 am

A double album of rarities please

Monty-- · #9 Post by **Monty--** » Wed 31 May 2006, 6:33 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Because every single "double album" of original material that has ever been produced should have been culled back to "one album" full of decent songs, and a bucketload of mediocre out-takes.

Relentless is of course a legitimate album in its own right

You've got a point there. I never thought of it like that before.

Sjòn · #10 Post by **Sjòn** » Wed 31 May 2006, 6:42 pm

Eldritch wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Because every single "double album" of original material that has ever been produced should have been culled back to "one album" full of decent songs, and a bucketload of mediocre out-takes.
But on the other hands most albums would have made a superior ep, so I don't really subscribe to the conventional wisdom in the double album arguments. Sure, double albums are self-indulgent and usually too long, but making a double is a statement in itself, and everyone can make his or her compilation of the album anyway.

Besides, one of my fave albums ever is a triple: 69 Love Songs by Magnetic Fields is an album that would have been vastly inferior if it had been cut down to a single (or even a double) disc.

The Magnetic Fields are terrific! I missed their lost concert in Barcelona because I was ill in bed... damn!