Official Queensryche Thread - NEW ALBUM INFO. p. 30

[abydos]

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?

You forgot to use a rolling eyes emote to further demonstrate your superiority, wit and having the right opinion.

But yeah, after the initial "shock" of the album being so short I am now completely fine with it and looking forward to hearing it and hopefully enjoying it immensely.

[Ruba]

I have no problem with the length. Usually the longer album gets, the more filler it has. Permanent Waves by Rush is only circa 2 minutes longer and it is killer throughout, for example.

[bosk1]

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.

Of course they're not obligated to write longer albums just because technology allows them to.  That's not the point.  If you are happy with a shorter album, great.  But I know that as a fan, *I* kind of feel ripped off.  Great if it's a solid 35 minutes.  But if they could do a solid 35 minutes, then they could do a solid 45, or a solid 45 with an extra pretty good 10 minutes tacked on. 

I really like the clips I've heard so far.  But those are only clips.  Given that there are a bunch of sub-3:30 songs, I'm guessing that as complete songs, some are going to feel underdeveloped.  And that's a shame because it shouldn't be hard to think a bit more about whether a solo can be lengthened just a bit to add more build and flow, or whether a short intro can be added to set the mood for a song, or whether the outro can be extended just a bit so the listener doesn't feel like the song cuts off prematurely, or whether a short bridge might be a nice transition somewhere in the song.  If they do a few of those things and take just a bit more time to do one more "pretty good" song, they silence the criticism by having an album that at least is over 45 minutes.  But, again, putting out a 35 minute album just does not feel like enough effort was made, and it foolishly opens them up for the criticism that they really can't write a full album's worth of material without Tate.  Yeah, it's a dumb criticism on a lot of levels, but it's out there and it would have been SO easy to avoid had they taken the time to try to avoid it.

If the album ends up being just great from start to finish, cool.  If it feels underdeveloped and feels like the songs are too short, I'm not going to be happy, and I'm not sure I'll devote much attention to the band going forward if the trend continues.  There are very few albums of that lenght containing songs of that length that have really had any kind of long-lasting impact, and I can't really think of any off the top of my head that have come out in the last 10-15 years.  Maybe as the clips might indicate, this is one of those exceptional albums that does the trick despite being so short.  I hope so.  But we'll see come release date.

[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...

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?

I'm used to opposing views. I enjoyed Lulu. Those who enable mediocrity by being "fine" with it annoy me.

Nobody goes to a baseball game to see a bunt.

 

[bosk1]

Those who enable mediocrity by being "fine" with it annoy me.

Nobody goes to a baseball game to see a bunt.

I get your point, and I somewhat agree.  But I also think "enabling mediocrity" isn't really the issue.  (not to mention that the baseball analogy doesn't really fit)  To me, I think it's more about not delivering a product that feels like it is complete.  To use what in my opinion is a more fitting sports analogy, it is more like a football or basketball game where you pay a lot of money to go and see a hopefully good game and see your favorite players go out there and play for a full game, but the coach decides midway through the 3rd quarter to pull all the starters and rest them for a "more important" game down the road.  Yeah, you got to see your favorite players play hard for 2 1/2 quarters, and you may even feel good about your team coming away with the win, which is the bottom line.  But as a fan who paid for a product, you also may very validly feel short-changed at the same time.  That's kind of where I'm at.

[Nick]

While I agree with about 81% of what you said, I think things could definitely have been improved if you had switched from a sports analogy to a marriage one.

[bosk1]

But anyway, back to the album, while I am disappointed by the song lengths and album length, I'm still very excited about the album.  Based on what I've heard so far, I am tentatively expecting it to be the best of the post-DeGarmo albums, and hopefully on par with some of the earlier material.  From the full songs I've heard, I think it will be.  But it's still a shame that when I am comparing it to other albums released this year, I can already forsee saying something along the lines of, "I'd put Queensryche on par with album X in terms of quality.  But if I had to pick which is the better album, I'm going to have to go with album X because it just gave me more quality music."  While there are still some good albums coming down the pike later this year, it looks like Dream Theater is EASILY going to have the album of the year for 2013 without any serious competition whatsoever.

[Nick]

From the 3 songs and samples, I'd say it could very well be their best since Promised Land.

That said, from what I've heard, I think it's a real stretch to say the stuff heard so far could be on par with the older material. EP-Promised Land was an absolutely mind-blowingly great stretch of music, and while good the stuff so far just doesn't reach that level.

[The King in Crimson]

While there are still some good albums coming down the pike later this year, it looks like Dream Theater is EASILY going to have the album of the year for 2013 without any serious competition whatsoever.

So how is the album then and can I borrow your time machine?

[jingle.boy]

While there are still some good albums coming down the pike later this year, it looks like Dream Theater is EASILY going to have the album of the year for 2013 without any serious competition whatsoever.

You have very narrow musical horizon if you think there's no serious competition.  Notwithstanding those that I mentioned already, there's pending releases from Frost*, Seventh Wonder, Amadeus Awad (quite a heavy list of contributors) and possibly Flying Colors.  Then there are the lesser known gems in the works - Epysode, Flaming Row, Eden's Curse, and Neonfly (whose previously releases were all dynamite).  DT 11 COULD be AOTY, but I'd hardly say it's a foregone conclusion.

[bosk1]

Hey, that's cool if you like some other bands as much and have confidence that they may put out something you like as much as DT.  But given DT's past track record, and looking at the albums that are coming out this year and how much *I* like them in relation to DT, I personally am not expecting any serious competition.  Your mileage may vary based on what you like, and that's fine.  Your list does nothing to make me change my opinion, but that's okay too.  It doesn't have to.

But back to Queensryche...

[Nel]

That and the shit ton of fantastic debut albums by these little indie bands this year. A bunch of bands I first heard on Sirius last year have been showing up en masse on the regular radio stations, and I've been finding their albums to be really, really good. It's nice to have so much fresh blood and have it be great. (Plus, finally, a break from these folksy bands that have taken over. lol)

As for the album's length, it is kind of perplexing. I thought they said they had written enough material for two albums, but I can't recall which interview that was. But I just want it to be good more than anything.

[Jaq]

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.

"Ones that short are rarely great".

Boston, S/T: 37:41
Rush, Hemispheres: 36:14
Styx, The Grand Illusion: 38:49
Van Halen, s/t: 35:13
Thin Lizzy, Jailbreak 35:52

Want me to continue? 

[TAC]

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.

"Ones that short are rarely great".

Boston, S/T: 37:41
Rush, Hemispheres: 36:14
Styx, The Grand Illusion: 38:49
Van Halen, s/t: 35:13
Thin Lizzy, Jailbreak 35:52

Want me to continue? 

Yes, please! Love the list so far!

[bosk1]

I love how these lists of supposedly truly great short albums:
1.  Typically don't list even a single album that I would consider "great" and
2.  Typically don't list even a single album that came out within the last 20 years

[Dark Castle]

I could list many recent albums, but they're from genres you don't give a shit about and I think we're all wasting our time to change the adamant opinion of a few who feel albums should be longer than 30-40 minutes

[TAC]

Hey, in the end it's gonna be what it is. As long as what makes the album is good, no one will care.

[bosk1]

I could list many recent albums, but they're from genres you don't give a shit about and I think we're all wasting our time to change the adamant opinion of a few who feel albums should be longer than 30-40 minutes

Quite possibly.  But, again, whatever. 

I was wracking my brain trying to come up with a sub-45 minute album of short songs in recent years that has been pretty good, and I finally thought of one.  Flyleaf's debut album is just under 35 minutes.  And with one exception, all songs are under 3:30.  That's a pretty rare exception of an album I like, but that album was pretty good (not great, but pretty good).  It can work.  And it works for that genre of music.  But, again, for the type of music I like, and the type of music that Queenryche is known for, it generally doesn't.

[KevShmev]

Radiohead's In Rainbows is a little under 43 minutes and is one of the best albums ever.

Also, while it is technically an EP, PT's Nil Recurring is 29 minutes and is fantastic, too.

[abydos]

Sad Wings of Destiny and Defenders of the Faith are also below 40 minutes in length.

[bosk1]

Yeah...still not helping. 

[abydos]

Well, it is a matter of taste mostly. For great albums under 40 minutes I'd also list Death's Human and Individual Thought Patterns but that isn't music for most people. Point is, you can make great music and not be 60 minutes.

Although, I prefer great 60 minute albums over great 30 minute ones in general . More awesome > less awesome.

[jjrock88]

I absolutely couldn't care less about the length of the album. As long as I enjoy the disc, that's what matters. I'm just glad there is this version of Queensryche to listen to, even if its shorter then the norm.

[Mladen]

Time for a pointless post, since I know I'm not helping too much, but man, that's one helluva short album by 2013 standards, or standards in the last 20 years for that matter.

Still, this way I might check it out, since there won't be too much music in there to digest. 

[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.

"Ones that short are rarely great".

Boston, S/T: 37:41
Rush, Hemispheres: 36:14
Styx, The Grand Illusion: 38:49
Van Halen, s/t: 35:13
Thin Lizzy, Jailbreak 35:52

Want me to continue? 

I guess I should clarify.

Queensryche needs a great album. After the last year they had. The last few albums as well. And the need to make an album better than FU. They need a home run. And a 35 minute release ain't helping their case.

[Jaq]

I guess I should clarify.

SHORT ALBUMS CAN BE GOOD. EVEN ONES BY QUEENSRYCHE.

You're just being silly.

[Vivace]

I tend to agree with the assessment that short albums today pretty much mean they are irrelevant or should be seen as not as good as they could have been. The way I see it, take any recent album, how about Dream Theater's last album. Let's remove Build Me Up, Break Me Down, Beneath the Surface and Outcry. Would this make the album lesser in quality? I think quality is in the music itself regardless of length.

Now to talk about those clips! They are awesome sounding. I am VERY intrigued to hear the full album. 

[bosk1]

I guess I should clarify.

SHORT ALBUMS CAN BE GOOD. EVEN ONES BY QUEENSRYCHE.

Yeah, that's a good way of putting it, and I agree.  But the flipside, which I also agree with is:

They need a home run. And a 35 minute release ain't helping their case.

That's a good way of putting it.  It's not that they have to put out a long album.  But given everything that's been going on, them putting out what is an abnormally short album in the metal world in this day and age (regardless whether some short albums can be good) isn't helping their cause.

[jingle.boy]

It's like craving an awesome burger from your favorite joint that went to shit over the years because the owner lost it, and then when they re-vamp the menu, all they have is sliders.

Look, it's gonna be a great slider, but musicians have always written to the media they can deliver on.  Albums in the 70s and 80s were written that length because they didn't have a medium that would allow anything greater.  From the late 80s until present, it's been 75 minutes-ish because that's what CD's can hold.  So, that's what we're accustomed to.

I for one will take quality over quantity.  But it still feels like a slider, and I'm likely still gonna be hungry no matter how good it is.

[TAC]

I guess I should clarify.

SHORT ALBUMS CAN BE GOOD. EVEN ONES BY QUEENSRYCHE.

Yeah, that's a good way of putting it, and I agree.  But the flipside, which I also agree with is:

They need a home run. And a 35 minute release ain't helping their case.

That's a good way of putting it.  It's not that they have to put out a long album.  But given everything that's been going on, them putting out what is an abnormally short album in the metal world in this day and age (regardless whether some short albums can be good) isn't helping their cause.

If its 35 minutes of kickass, then fine. But this band has a lot to prove. They've made some shitty albums over the last decade or so. Blame it ALL on Tate? Where was this bands' backbone?

[Nel]

Guys, you're already getting two Queensryche albums this year. Don't you think you're getting greedy?   

[bosk1]

Guys, you're already getting two Queensryche albums this year. Don't you think you're getting greedy?   

[Zook]

Take Hold of the Flame side stage footage by Matt Barlow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vab3-svOnXo

Awesome performance.



Yes, that Matt Barlow.

[Mister Gold]

My thoughts on the matter: most of Queensryche's classic material are shorter and more compact songs. My three favorite QR albums (The Warning, Rage for Order and Promised Land) are all somewhere in the forty minute long range. Say what you will, but Operation: Mindcrime drags for me at times, especially on both Suite Sister Mary and Eyes of a Stranger. Mind you, Queensryche did some wonderful epics in the classic era such as Roads to Madness, Anybody Listening? and Promised Land. But generally speaking, the band is at their best with shorter songs that explode with progressive musical ideas like Screaming In Digital, The Needle Lies, One More Time and En Force.

This is also the first true Queensryche album since Tribe, and the first release from QR that wasn't affected by Tate's issues since Promised Land or possibly even Empire. Despite the fact that the band members have written musical material in outside projects during the Tateryche era, it's been awhile since these guys have really gotten to write new material for the true vision of Queensryche, and there's also Todd and Parker to consider too.

This is a band that's re-establishing themselves musically, but they also have to put out a great album. So I can see why the band would focus on writing shorter songs, since that's always been Queensryche's strong point. I would rather wait for the band to make an epic like RtM or PL until they are absolutely confident that it is top notch and a worthy addition to the album than just lop on a song to bump up the album length to forty five minutes. Similarly, I also wouldn't want them to over-saturate the album with a handful of other shorter songs of lesser quality to reach the forty-five minute mark.

I do think the next album will probably be a little longer though. Once the band has completely gelled together as a musical entity in terms of songwriting with both the original members dusting off the rust and Parker and Todd developing more experience as songwriters, I think we'll see them expand on their horizons with varying song lengths. I'd be very surprised if there isn't at least one song on the next album that's over five minutes long.

My .02 cents.

[Ben_Jamin]

I love the preconceived ideas floating about when the album hasn't been released yet. I personally won't say what I think until I've heard the album and looked through the linear notes.

Even though it looks short doesn't mean it'll suck. I can't help but think of More by Devin Townsend, everyone wants more. More isn't necessarily good either. But it all depends on the quality of the songs and package. Who knows they might release another album shortly after this one, it's that these songs all flowed well and anything added wouldve killed the vibe.