album 6??

areusad831 · Post by **areusad831** » 1/23/2004, 11:53 am

starseed_10 wrote:i think they should stick to a lower number... 11 or 12
and concentrate on making them perfect with layers and whatnot.

and matt, i think i heard that too. i thought i remember them saying they wanted 12 for the cd.

they dont do layers, they do it one take now remember?

Post by **saman** » 1/23/2004, 12:02 pm

i remember when 11 used to be the magic olp number. naveed = 11. clumsy = 11. happiness = 11. and then sm came along and screwed it all up.

i hope there's more than 10 songs on it. i like hearing more olp songs.

Baby Thief · Post by **Baby Thief** » 1/23/2004, 12:38 pm

sm was going to have 11 songs...

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 1/23/2004, 1:33 pm

Why did they have to take it out....

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 1/23/2004, 1:34 pm

Though I'm usually for more songs on an album... I've gotta say... SM is absolutely perfect the way it is. :drool:

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 1/23/2004, 1:35 pm

Agreed, but i'd still love to hear the missing track from SM, simply because it probably would sound a lot like the other material on that album.

neoncrossing · Post by **neoncrossing** » 1/23/2004, 4:26 pm

Our Time is Fading was gonna be on Gravity too, but it was left off because it didnt fit with the rest of the songs...they have a lot of unreleased stuff from every recording session they do....

***waits for olp to put out a triple disc of unreleased songs***
***dies waiting for it to happen***

liam · Post by **liam** » 1/25/2004, 7:39 am

**dying with ^^**

we definitely need a rarities CD or something

and to keep us from completely killing ourselves waiting, Album Six would be nice.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 1/25/2004, 10:45 am

Never going to happen. We will never get a cd of previously unreleased material. Simply put, if they didn't want us to hear it the first time, why would they want to release a whole album of songs that are crap in their opinion? There's a reason why they didn't make the cd's. Maybe they didn't fit, sure, but odds are most of it was crap.

InUnison · Post by **InUnison** » 1/25/2004, 11:31 am

A more likely explination is not that is sucked but it didn't feel as if it belonged on the album. If it doesn't fit the 'flow' they wont put it on. It doesn't make it a bad song.

Furious George · Post by **Furious George** » 1/25/2004, 11:56 am

It's funny, the first time I heard "Ordinary" I thought it was ridiculous that OLP didn't release it, I honestly thought that it could even best out something like "one man army"...

but after a few listens it sort of wears down...a lot faster than other olp songs, I wonder if my thought process is the same as olp when they decided not to release it..

For other rarities though, olp has sinned not to have released them

liam · Post by **liam** » 1/25/2004, 3:19 pm

i would love a studio version of Trapeze or Home, especially Trapeze though, i loved listening to that song, even though i don't have it anymore...

ihatethunderbay · Post by **ihatethunderbay** » 1/25/2004, 4:15 pm

i would give both my arms for a studio version of 'yourself'.

hell, i'd throw in a leg, too.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 1/25/2004, 4:17 pm

InUnison wrote:A more likely explination is not that is sucked but it didn't feel as if it belonged on the album. If it doesn't fit the 'flow' they wont put it on. It doesn't make it a bad song.

I doubt it. It would be naive to think that everything they make is gold. Of course it could be that "every song was so amazing that it was just so hard to choose so we went with what flowed well" but I'm not going to believe it.

This isn't a diss towards OLP, I'm just saying that to think that everything that make is pure genious is oftly naive.

Baby Thief · Post by **Baby Thief** » 1/25/2004, 7:42 pm

For SM, it could absolutely be because of the flow. They could have taken the song out because it didn't sound right with the rest of the cd. When I look at SM, i don't look at it as a bunch of songs, i look at it as a whole. I think that is what they were going for, what with the interludish things. If one song didn't fit they took it out.

hpdfk · Post by **hpdfk** » 1/25/2004, 7:56 pm

Baby Thief wrote:For SM, it could absolutely be because of the flow. They could have taken the song out because it didn't sound right with the rest of the cd. When I look at SM, i don't look at it as a bunch of songs, i look at it as a whole. I think that is what they were going for, what with the interludish things. If one song didn't fit they took it out.

Agreed. That's what I love about SM. It was made to be listened to from beginning to end. Not just musically either. If you ever read Ray's book, the point of the album flows really well to, starting with the consequences of technology and ending with how it will ultimately benefit us. It's such a unique album. I like every song on it too.

clumsychild_ · Post by **clumsychild_** » 1/25/2004, 7:57 pm

I really must read that book.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 1/25/2004, 7:59 pm

I read it twice, and loved every minute of it. My philosophy teacher thinks Kurzweil's a genius (and rightly so). :nod:

starseed_10 · Post by **starseed_10** » 1/25/2004, 10:59 pm

areusad831 wrote:
starseed_10 wrote:i think they should stick to a lower number... 11 or 12
and concentrate on making them perfect with layers and whatnot.

and matt, i think i heard that too. i thought i remember them saying they wanted 12 for the cd.

they dont do layers, they do it one take now remember?

yes.

fuck fuck fuck fuck. :uh:

Xavier870 · Post by **Xavier870** » 1/25/2004, 11:37 pm

To all the people who were speaking of Raine and Chantal's baby.... Don't you read Rich and Shelley? This was news on January 21st.

According to a fan that met up with Jeremy and Steve at the NAMM show. Raine and Chantal are now proud parents of a little boy named Rowan. Congratulations! We are sure he will be the best looking, most talented, baby in the hospital nursery.

Thanks to the unnamed fan for the email.