|
Post by zealous on Feb 6, 2016 13:34:44 GMT -5
I get what people are saying here about it cheapening the charts. But the charts aren't what they used to be and those in the top positions aren't there because of their amazing musical talent (there are a few exceptions but this is true in general).
It's helpful for the band to be listed in these charts since they get very little airplay for their new material. It's just another place for people to notice they HAVE new material and maybe check it out.
I completely agree that it sucks for those of us who've already purchased 1 or more of the album, especially since it's not even the deluxe version.
|
|
|
Post by math on Feb 7, 2016 6:42:25 GMT -5
The charts don't matter. How ever many people bought it you can double with those that have heard it either by free download or on you tube. Im impressed with the exposure of this album. I would be gutted if I had bought the album and got sent another copy when I bought a ticket. Be interesting to know the total tickets roughly sold for the US tour???
|
|
|
Post by math on Feb 7, 2016 10:43:48 GMT -5
When AYNIN came out they traded on the fact it made iTunes no1 in 15 countries. With PG they went on top 10 UK and USA. I think considering the age of the band and the fact a lot of people of a certain age know how to get a free copy they did pretty good. But I agree the promo machine has died. Yet at this stage with the tour going ahead do WB push for a few more copies on what they have put out or just cash in on a higher capita per ticket sold / t-shirts - book etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 10:54:11 GMT -5
I think it's a great album but you can hear the work in it as JT says and maybe that's not always such a good thing. When you're waiting 5 years for new material can anything live up to expectation, especially when everyone's expectations are so different. Some people state their opinion of the album like its fact. It's just an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by math on Feb 7, 2016 12:30:06 GMT -5
begs the thought- first 3 albums done and dusted in 3/4 years - this one took 5 and it was not a patch on either on them in my O. But i gets 35 years on, lots of £££, lots of awards etc finding new material thats valid must be hard. In the bands defence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 12:46:53 GMT -5
begs the thought- first 3 albums done and dusted in 3/4 years - this one took 5 and it was not a patch on either on them in my O. But i gets 35 years on, lots of £££, lots of awards etc finding new material thats valid must be hard. In the bands defence. I think it is more of an example of how the music industry has changed. When duran duran were releasing albums 1,2, & 3 it was customary for bands to put out 8-10 track albums with 2-3 singles b-sides a year. If you think about the number of songs released by the band in those 3 years the churn-out rate is not actually that different: 14 in 1981, 8 in 1982 ( My Own Way & Like an Angel came out in 1981), and 11 in 1983. Considering that the first album inevitably has more songs ready for it since they were written in the period before being signed, it actually isn't that many songs written per-year. These days bands are expected to deliver 17-18 songs per release if one includes bonus/deluxe edition songs. That is equivalent to 2-3 albums (including b-sides) for bands in the 80s. So the fact that we are getting 18 or so songs every 4 years isn't that different than getting 9 or so a year. You just get a LOT LESS artwork and actual physical product, both of which have been devalued the the majority of music consumers. If you go back even further, some bands in the early 70s were on a 6 month release schedule!
|
|
|
Post by coolbarn on Feb 7, 2016 13:06:57 GMT -5
In theory it makes sense to delay an album if a band aren't 100% happy with it. But there is delay, and there is DELAY !!! I mean 70 iterations of one track which ends up being a divisive one and not overly popular anyway is ridiculous. That was months wasted.
Get the song written, get it recorded, and get onto the next one. Spending years polishing and tweaking and changing something when the end result is no better (and often worse - give me real, raw, rock music over perfect, polished, pop any day!) is not time or money well spent.
Paper Gods is a good album, and I love having new Duran Duran music! But for me there probably just aren't enough "WOW" moments, and a few misfires. In a perfect world (or in my head at least) a re-recorded version containing all bass guitar and acoustic drums, with a couple of the longer songs cut in half, plus the inclusion of Cinderella Ride, Northern Lights, and Valentine Stones at the expense of the three weakest tracks, and you have a much better album.
Whether Warner would have warmly received such a version of the album is up to debate. Probably not.
But I definitely would have with open arms, and I doubt that I'm alone.
|
|
|
Post by poptrash on Feb 7, 2016 14:08:00 GMT -5
In theory it makes sense to delay an album if a band aren't 100% happy with it. But there is delay, and there is DELAY !!! I mean 70 iterations of one track which ends up being a divisive one and not overly popular anyway is ridiculous. That was months wasted. Get the song written, get it recorded, and get onto the next one. Spending years polishing and tweaking and changing something when the end result is no better (and often worse - give me real, raw, rock music over perfect, polished, pop any day!) is not time or money well spent. Paper Gods is a good album, and I love having new Duran Duran music! But for me there probably just aren't enough "WOW" moments, and a few misfires. In a perfect world (or in my head at least) a re-recorded version containing all bass guitar and acoustic drums, with a couple of the longer songs cut in half, plus the inclusion of Cinderella Ride, Northern Lights, and Valentine Stones at the expense of the three weakest tracks, and you have a much better album. Whether Warner would have warmly received such a version of the album is up to debate. Probably not. But I definitely would have with open arms, and I doubt that I'm alone. I am with you on this one. I see the 15-track as the album and not the 12-track one. But if i had to choose 12-tracks then 4 bonus tracks will be on it at the expense of Butterfly Girl, Change the Skyline, Sunset Garage and Dancephobia.
|
|
|
Post by coolbarn on Feb 7, 2016 14:12:44 GMT -5
I'm a little surprised at the lack of Butterfly Girl love over the last couple of pages To me it is easily one of the strongest tracks on the album. (But then again what do I know? I regard You Kill Me With Silence as the most boring song the band have released since the reunion, but it seems to be very popular around here )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 16:00:45 GMT -5
I'm a little surprised at the lack of Butterfly Girl love over the last couple of pages To me it is easily one of the strongest tracks on the album. (But then again what do I know? I regard You Kill Me With Silence as the most boring song the band have released since the reunion, but it seems to be very popular around here ) I'd love your acoustic drum and bass redo and YKMWS is a skipper in our house...even the kids don't like it lol! But then again the mtv unplugged wasn't their finest hour IMO so there's something to be says for not going too far in other direction. Not a fan of shamir's latest offering either.
|
|