Ever wish for more bang for the buck?

[Zoots]

Is there a reason why they always stick to only 11 or 12 songs for an album? Ever wish they made longer ones with, say 14 or 16 songs? It's not like they don't have enough material. This time they had Mercy, Fast Cars, Smile etc....

Of course, I'm all for quality over quantity!

 

[financeguy]

Some of my favourite albums only have 10 tracks on them. I tend to think, less is more.

 

[typhoon]

But just think of how much more more would be.

 

[miss becky]

I love the fact that All I Want Is You is track 17. I like long albums, and I certainly wouldn't complain if U2 had more tracks on their albums.

That said, I agree that I would prefer quality over quantity. I'd rather listen to 11 great songs than 16 mediocre ones.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Could care less. It is what it is.

Howeve, if "Are You Going to Wait Forever" and Mercy were added to the album and NOT redone, the quality of the album would go down for me to be honest.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

if i wanted more bang for my buck, i'd go to bally's casino.

as long as there's 11 tracks on a cd i'm pleased. older cds are allowed to have less though.

 

[Zoots]

It was just a thought. I'm happy with the albums as they are. I was just thinking about the Beatles who've clearly influenced U2 a lot. They had at least 14 tracks on many of their albums. Plus they put out double albums, unreleased tracks (Past Masters & Anthologies) etc. That's what set me thinking.

 

[indra]

I tend to like long albums. But I don't like every long album, and I don't hate every short album. But if an artist can come up with nearly 80 minutes of good songs to go on an album, I'm sure as hell not going to complain.

 

[jick]

Bono has said too much of a good thing is a bad thing. He doesn't want the album to have to many fillers. Alanis Morissette's sophomore effort had 17 songs, full of fillers, and it's no surprise that it sold poorly.

U2 made a wise decision to exclude Mercy. Mercy is already contained in other portions of the album:

It has the line "I feel nothing /Fee-ee-ee-ee-eel!" which closely resembled Vertigo's "I can feeeeel" a lot.

Mercy also has the line "I am alive/ Baby I'm born again, and again/ And again and again /Again. . ." which is not too far removed from All Because Of You's "I’m alive/ I’m being born".

Considering Mercy is a very long song (clocks in at 6 minutes if I remember it well) with a monotonish melody and a chorus that is just the same-old same-old metaphors about love that boybands love to cover ("love puts the blue back into my eye") and lines that already appear elsewhere in the album in better forms and contexts, it is definitely an intelligent omission on U2's part to exclude Mercy.

U2 are about quality and not quantity. And Mercy just doesn't cut it quality-wise.

Cheers,

J

 

[U2DMfan]

It's a pop mentality, to not exceed 45 or 50 mintues as to not lose the average listener because of attention span.

It's an outdated premise with most rock bands, who don't really care to reach the top 40 audience, but U2 do. It's troublesome, but it has to be worthwhile to them, as they say.

 

[Nerfherder]

U2 are about quality and not quantity. And Mercy just doesn't cut it quality-wise.

I do agree that it's biggest problem is the length... But, IMO, if Mercy was polished up, shortened and re-done it would be absolutely amazing.

 

[jick]

I do agree that it's biggest problem is the length... But, IMO, if Mercy was polished up, shortened and re-done it would be absolutely amazing.

To get a more in-depth accout of Mercy's shortcomings by me, please check:

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113094&pagenumber=3

Thanks.

Cheers,

J

 

[bathiu]

That said, I agree that I would prefer quality over quantity. I'd rather listen to 11 great songs than 16 mediocre ones.

Why it has to be that way.
11 great songs + 5 mediocre ones

 

[D'oh!]

I think 10-12 songs is perfect for an album. anymore than that would be a bit of a stretch......

 

[Popmartijn]

Some of my favourite albums only have 10 tracks on them. I tend to think, less is more.

Same here.
45 - 50 Minutes (or 10 - 14 songs, whichever is first) is still the ideal time to me for an album. For most artists it's already difficult to get enough quality songs for that one. It's not really a pop-mentality as it is a question of people not being able to keep concentrated for much longer. And artists do want to have full attention from the listener.


I also prefer an album with 11 great songs to one with 11 great songs and 5 mediocre ones. Those mediocre songs then drag the album down (a bit). By The Way from the Red Hot Chili Peppers is such an example. A good album, but it is 3 or 4 songs too long. I still go for the album experience and don't want to push the forward button/use the random function. Editing is everything here.

And Zootlesque, with your Beatles example, yes they did release many 14-song albums. But the running time of those was always less than 40 minutes (averaging about 35 minutes). So you also had the less-is-more phenomenon at work here.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Ellay]

By cutting back on the tracks we definitely get quality over quantity on the albums in terms of the completed product. (although sometimes I'm surprised which songs make it, and which ones get dropped)

Plus, as fans, we get the added buzz when we manage to get hold of tracks that the general public haven't heard at all!!!!