Red Mosquito

stip wrote:This board is a much better place for the merging of threads. Apologize to no one, Ruddo

Brett wrote:Again, LV beats me to the punch, but yeah, nobody's saying you're wrong for disliking the songs. That's fine. What's being called into question is your use of dubious terms and ideas like "filler" and "radio friendly" and whether or not songs are complete enough or have the requisite amount of energy.

You said yourself that in the making of an album there will be some songs that aren't as strong as others, but that doesn't make the lesser ones filler. They're not necessarily there just to pad the length. If you had concrete evidence that somebody said, "Hey, this Ten album is too short, how about we put that cute little "Garden" song on there?", then you would have a point.

mikejasond wrote:

Brett wrote:Again, LV beats me to the punch, but yeah, nobody's saying you're wrong for disliking the songs. That's fine. What's being called into question is your use of dubious terms and ideas like "filler" and "radio friendly" and whether or not songs are complete enough or have the requisite amount of energy.

You said yourself that in the making of an album there will be some songs that aren't as strong as others, but that doesn't make the lesser ones filler. They're not necessarily there just to pad the length. If you had concrete evidence that somebody said, "Hey, this Ten album is too short, how about we put that cute little "Garden" song on there?", then you would have a point.

That may not always be the case, but they have to make a full album, and I get the feeling that these tracks were not the ones they first picked out to say like "Ok we must make an album and put this on it"

wease wrote:

mikejasond wrote:

Brett wrote:Again, LV beats me to the punch, but yeah, nobody's saying you're wrong for disliking the songs. That's fine. What's being called into question is your use of dubious terms and ideas like "filler" and "radio friendly" and whether or not songs are complete enough or have the requisite amount of energy.

You said yourself that in the making of an album there will be some songs that aren't as strong as others, but that doesn't make the lesser ones filler. They're not necessarily there just to pad the length. If you had concrete evidence that somebody said, "Hey, this Ten album is too short, how about we put that cute little "Garden" song on there?", then you would have a point.

That may not always be the case, but they have to make a full album, and I get the feeling that these tracks were not the ones they first picked out to say like "Ok we must make an album and put this on it"

But only the band decides how many or what songs make "a full album." If they want Ten to only have 9 songs on it, that would be a full album. You seem think "a full album" is some set number of tracks each album must have. This band is very particular about what songs make it on each album. While you may consider some tracks you don't like filler, there's no way I can see this band thinking of any song on any of their albums as filler.




Except Nothing as it Seems, of course...

Kevin Davis wrote:I wish I would have thought to say "your mom is really frontloaded" before now.

Strat wrote:Binarual is just....the best. Front to back.

evenslow wrote:

Strat wrote:Binarual is just....the best. Front to back.

which do you prefer - released or unreleased tracklist?