Official Queensryche Thread - NEW ALBUM INFO. p. 30

[Zook]

[Mister Gold]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CXL6XP0/ref=sr_1_album_1_rd?ie=UTF8&child=B00CXL716A&qid=1369227091&sr=1-1

Amazon's got song samples for the whole album online now. Open Road sounds amazing.

1. X2 1:09
2. Where Dreams Go To Die 4:25
3. Spore 3:25
4. In This Light 3:23
5. Redemption 4:16
6. Vindication 3:26
7. Midnight Lullaby 0:55
8. A World Without 4:11
9. Don't Look Back 3:13
10. Fallout 2:46
11. Open Road 3:54

[KevShmev]

Wait, so the CD is only 33 minutes long or so?  I thought they had all of this creativity that was waiting to burst out all of those years Tate suppressed them?  Only 33 minutes worth??

[fibreoptix]

The real crazy thing is (although I'm really trying not to put too much stock into small samples) that this band might actually be on track to save their reputation. This stuff is sounding really good.

And if I'm honest, I'd rather 33 minutes of this than however much longer that Tate dross is going to be.

[KevShmev]

Well, sure, quality over quantity is always key, but still, 33 minutes is tragically short, especially by today's standards.  Hell, it was a bit on the short side by 30 years ago standards.

[The King in Crimson]

It is a bit short but some great albums sit within the realm of being 30 to 40 minutes in length. So I'm not going to prejudge on that factor. 33 minutes is a bit short though.

Honestly some bands could definitely benefit from realizing that you don't need to use every iota of space on a CD in order to make a good or even great album.

[TAC]

Wait, so the CD is only 33 minutes long or so?  I thought they had all of this creativity that was waiting to burst out all of those years Tate suppressed them?  Only 33 minutes worth??

No kidding. This might be shorter than those early Van Halen albums!

[bosk1]

Well, sure, quality over quantity is always key, but still, 33 minutes is tragically short, especially by today's standards.  Hell, it was a bit on the short side by 30 years ago standards.

Just over 35 minutes, actually.  But, yeah, I feel the same way.  The upside is that from what I've heard, it's a VERY solid 35 minutes.  But still, yeah, the album length feels short, and with a couple of exceptions, the tracks themselves are on the short side as well, which I generally don't like. 

But, yeah, sounds like 35 minutes of pretty solid material.  And let's not forget, the album also includes the following:
1. Queen Of The Reich (live)
2. En Force (live)
3. Prophecy (live)
4. Eyes Of A Stranger (live) - Japanese Bonus Track only

[abydos]

Damn, I was expecting at least one 7-8 minute song. Something like Torre's contribution to Crimson Glory in Garden of Shadows.

[bosk1]

Initially, I was as well.  But once the album length was leaked a few weeks ago, simply math dictated that that wasn't going to be a likely possibility.

[abydos]

On the plus side, if they decide to go and record a live dvd they could play the entire album and still have a lot of time for the classics. I'm still hoping for a good live recording of Promised Land.

[bosk1]

I personally don't think they'll play the entire album live (unless it's for a one-off or a small string of shows).  But it DOES enable them to play a larger number of new songs than they otherwise might.

[Jaq]

That is a short album, though. Like Rush in the late 70s short.  Quality over quantity, though, so if it's 35 awesome minutes, it's all good. Besides which, epics were largely the exception to the rule with Queensryche-they did far more songs in the 4-6 minute range than they did the 7-10, so the lengths of the songs aren't really an issue.

Still. Pretty damn short.

[jingle.boy]

I'll definitely take quality over quantity, but this is Eat 'em and Smile short.  Not bothered, because we also get 3-4 live tracks.  Overall, I'm cool with this.

[Lowdz]

I thought with the emphasis on The Warning in the live show they may have done a Roads To Madness/No Sanctuary style epic to close the album. Ahh well. I'll take  30 odd minutes of great music over three hours of Tate-wreck any day.

[wolfking]

I'm completely fine with a 35 minute album.

[Dark Castle]

I'm completely fine with a 35 minute album.

[ZKX-2099]

I'm completely fine with a 35 minute album.

Yes. Fine. Not much else. Definitely not what they need. They need a great album. Ones that short are rarely great.

But we'll see.

[Dark Castle]

I'd love to hear you try and prove that. I have many great albums in the 30-40 minute range

[Nick]

Considering music is subjective I can't imagine how asking him to prove it could possibly go wrong.

[Zook]

My favorite band used to be The Offspring, who had barely 30 minute albums most of the time. Although I am a tad disappointed since Queensryche is a metal band, and my prog fan-ness wants more. Nemesea's In control is like 35-40 minutes, and I love that album so we'll see.

[ZKX-2099]

I'd love to hear you try and prove that. I have many great albums in the 30-40 minute range

I apologize. Who am I to post my opinion...

[Orbert]

It seems a bizarre and patently baseless thing to say.  "Ones that short" used to be the normal length for an album.  Nothing prior to 1975 or so is great?

[jammindude]

Reign in Blood is often heralded as the greatest thrash album ever made...and it's LESS than 30 min.

Another classic less than a half hour, S.O.D. Speak English or Die. Fantastic album.

[Dark Castle]

The past few posts is all I'm getting at, length shouldn't be an indication of greatness

[bosk1]

Reign in Blood is often heralded as the greatest thrash album ever made...and it's LESS than 30 min.

Another classic less than a half hour, S.O.D. Speak English or Die. Fantastic album.

Um...you're not helping your case. 

The past few posts is all I'm getting at, length shouldn't be an indication of greatness

In the abstract, I agree.  But in this day and age, it is a factor.  It's easy to overlook 20 or 30 years ago when the media for albums didn't not support longer albums and when the time and expense of making albums was more prohibitive.  But in this day and age, expectations are different.  I'll admit that while I am still very optimistic, I also feel a bit short-changed.  Now if the shorter album means that we will be getting more frequent albums than the norm to make up for it, I will completely change my tune. 

[The King in Crimson]

I'm completely fine with a 35 minute album.

Yes. Fine. Not much else. Definitely not what they need. They need a great album. Ones that short are rarely great.

But we'll see.

The 70's disagree with you.

[Dark Castle]

Reign in Blood is often heralded as the greatest thrash album ever made...and it's LESS than 30 min.

Another classic less than a half hour, S.O.D. Speak English or Die. Fantastic album.

Um...you're not helping your case. 

The past few posts is all I'm getting at, length shouldn't be an indication of greatness

In the abstract, I agree.  But in this day and age, it is a factor.  It's easy to overlook 20 or 30 years ago when the media for albums didn't not support longer albums and when the time and expense of making albums was more prohibitive.  But in this day and age, expectations are different.  I'll admit that while I am still very optimistic, I also feel a bit short-changed.  Now if the shorter album means that we will be getting more frequent albums than the norm to make up for it, I will completely change my tune.

Bands aren't obligated to write longer albums just because the technology allows it. I'd rather get a kickass punch in the gut of an album instead of an album with way too much fluff. Shorter albums are just fine.

[Mister Gold]

Reign in Blood is often heralded as the greatest thrash album ever made...and it's LESS than 30 min.

Another classic less than a half hour, S.O.D. Speak English or Die. Fantastic album.

Um...you're not helping your case. 

The past few posts is all I'm getting at, length shouldn't be an indication of greatness

In the abstract, I agree.  But in this day and age, it is a factor.  It's easy to overlook 20 or 30 years ago when the media for albums didn't not support longer albums and when the time and expense of making albums was more prohibitive.  But in this day and age, expectations are different.  I'll admit that while I am still very optimistic, I also feel a bit short-changed.  Now if the shorter album means that we will be getting more frequent albums than the norm to make up for it, I will completely change my tune.

While I love me my lengthy albums, I do have to say that I think the band made a smart move in going with a shorter and more compact album. A majority of Queensryche's best songs from the classic line-up range from being three-to-five minutes long. While I'd love to see them write another amazing epic like Anybody Listening? or Promised Land, I'd rather have three shorter amazing songs with a really epic vibe to them all than one six minutes-plus long epic that drags on purely as a means for the band to make a song that lasts longer than the others.

[Nick]

Reign in Blood is often heralded as the greatest thrash album ever made...and it's LESS than 30 min.

Another classic less than a half hour, S.O.D. Speak English or Die. Fantastic album.

Um...you're not helping your case. 

The past few posts is all I'm getting at, length shouldn't be an indication of greatness

In the abstract, I agree.  But in this day and age, it is a factor.  It's easy to overlook 20 or 30 years ago when the media for albums didn't not support longer albums and when the time and expense of making albums was more prohibitive.  But in this day and age, expectations are different.  I'll admit that while I am still very optimistic, I also feel a bit short-changed.  Now if the shorter album means that we will be getting more frequent albums than the norm to make up for it, I will completely change my tune.

Bands aren't obligated to write longer albums just because the technology allows it. I'd rather get a kickass punch in the gut of an album instead of an album with way too much fluff. Shorter albums are just fine.

I would rather have an album that is 35m killer than an album that is 35m killer and 35m filler as you've suggested. However taking it a step farther I'd rather have an album that is 70m killer than one that's 35m killer.

[millahh]

I have no problem with a 35 minute album.  Ghost's Opus Eponymous (released in 2011) is ~34 minutes, and it's glorious.  It arrives, kicks ass, and leaves before it has a chance to overstay it's welcome...and it has no weak tracks.

[Dark Castle]

Reign in Blood is often heralded as the greatest thrash album ever made...and it's LESS than 30 min.

Another classic less than a half hour, S.O.D. Speak English or Die. Fantastic album.

Um...you're not helping your case. 

The past few posts is all I'm getting at, length shouldn't be an indication of greatness

In the abstract, I agree.  But in this day and age, it is a factor.  It's easy to overlook 20 or 30 years ago when the media for albums didn't not support longer albums and when the time and expense of making albums was more prohibitive.  But in this day and age, expectations are different.  I'll admit that while I am still very optimistic, I also feel a bit short-changed.  Now if the shorter album means that we will be getting more frequent albums than the norm to make up for it, I will completely change my tune.

Bands aren't obligated to write longer albums just because the technology allows it. I'd rather get a kickass punch in the gut of an album instead of an album with way too much fluff. Shorter albums are just fine.

I would rather have an album that is 35m killer than an album that is 35m killer and 35m filler as you've suggested. However taking it a step farther I'd rather have an album that is 70m killer than one that's 35m killer.

You can't force a song to be longer than it needs to be. Besides, 70m is quite the stretch for any band.

[ZKX-2099]

Reign in Blood is often heralded as the greatest thrash album ever made...and it's LESS than 30 min.

Another classic less than a half hour, S.O.D. Speak English or Die. Fantastic album.

Um...you're not helping your case. 

The past few posts is all I'm getting at, length shouldn't be an indication of greatness

In the abstract, I agree.  But in this day and age, it is a factor.  It's easy to overlook 20 or 30 years ago when the media for albums didn't not support longer albums and when the time and expense of making albums was more prohibitive.  But in this day and age, expectations are different.  I'll admit that while I am still very optimistic, I also feel a bit short-changed.  Now if the shorter album means that we will be getting more frequent albums than the norm to make up for it, I will completely change my tune.

Bands aren't obligated to write longer albums just because the technology allows it. I'd rather get a kickass punch in the gut of an album instead of an album with way too much fluff. Shorter albums are just fine.

I would rather have an album that is 35m killer than an album that is 35m killer and 35m filler as you've suggested. However taking it a step farther I'd rather have an album that is 70m killer than one that's 35m killer.

You can't force a song to be longer than it needs to be. Besides, 70m is quite the stretch for any band.

Yeah. It would be silly to try for more. Half assing it always works out well.

Bands should just release singles anyway. 

[KevShmev]

I'd love to hear you try and prove that. I have many great albums in the 30-40 minute range

I apologize. Who am I to post my opinion...

Yeah. It would be silly to try for more. Half assing it always works out well.

Bands should just release singles anyway. 

You don't handle opposing views well, do you?

[PowerSlave]

I'll admit that I'm in the camp of people that was hoping/expecting a longer album. However, it's absolutely silly to judge the merits of the album on the length of the songs alone. It's quite possible that they decided to take steps to trim the fat so to speak and are trying to give us their strongest effort possible. If that's true then there is no way to fault them in my opinion.