psycosquirrel789 wrote:
^ "Cut the songs THEY think..." Well, why would anyone cut a song they liked? lol
Obviously, that's the point - when people say they want a shorter album, they're assuming the album will be made shorter by removing the stuff they don't like, when in fact that's probably not what the band would do. That's why a bunch of people can say "I wish AB III was shorter" and it seems like they're all in agreement, but if you actually asked them what they think the tracklist should be you might find they're not in agreement at all because they all think different songs are the "filler".
psycosquirrel789 wrote:The general reason for less songs, is the hope for better quality songs. Quality instead of quantity in a sense.
It would be good if it worked out like that, but in that case I'd say it's not really an album being too long or having too many songs, just that some of the songs aren't that good. 11 great songs over 14 not so great ones I can get on board with, but 11 great songs over 14 great songs just so that the tracklist is shorter I can't!
psycosquirrel789 wrote:You like the longer tracklists, some people don't - no big deal. Not sure why that would be so hard to understand.
I know. I don't think I said that it was a big deal (and my post was specifically about the fact that some people like shorter albums at the expense of not getting to hear potentially good songs, while I prefer getting as many good songs as possible at the expense of having access to potentially weaker songs too).
Some people think we are like the band's managers or something... the band will never read any of this. We make none of the decisions. People just throw things out there. A criticism isn't a personal insult to the band.
Hopefully that wasn't inspired by my post - I don't see how what I said in any way implied I thought people complaining on this board had any impact on what that band do or that I thought (or cared if) people were personally insulting the band by saying they wish AB III was shorter. Apologies if I somehow came across as thinking that.
I'd rather have an album with 2 songs I dislike than an album with 4 songs I dislike..
Yeah, this is where the argument loses me (me only - in case anyone is confused and thinks I don't think other people have or should have different opinions or preferences on this!). Ideally there'd be no tracks on an album I don't like and if it works well as an experience from beginning to end then that's a huge plus, but I don't find it that important that I listen to every track in order every time I want to hear a song (after all, what's the connection between Still Remains and Wonderful Life, other than the fact they were recorded at the same time?).
Let's say I think Blackbird is an amazing song and I dislike Before Tomorrow Comes. I'd rather have the Blackbird album as it is (12 songs I like and 1 I dislike) than have Blackbird minus the title track and Before Tomorrow Comes (11 songs I like, zero I dislike). It's cool that you'd prefer the latter to the former because 0 < 1. I'd rather have an album with 2 songs I disliked than one with 4 songs I disliked too, I just don't consider # of songs I dislike to be the absolutely most important criteria. and would be willing to have that number increase if it meant an increase in good songs. I understand that you wouldn't. And I understand that's one of the main reasons people are more in favour of shorter albums (even if, as I said, making the album shorter wouldn't guarantee the songs you don't like weren't on it) and I'm not. So I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with you having different opinions or priorities for albums than me
. But I don't see what's wrong with explaining why I think one thing as opposed to another.