RileyLewis wrote: Not to be a Debbie Downer, but this is said before every single album.
I'd argue that we have hard evidence from Trusty's clips that the music OLP is creating for this record is indeed some of their most impressive work ever, or at least in very many years. I have very high hopes for this album, and I trust that the boys are increasingly realizing their potential and ability as artists; they understand the hard work that is needed from them to make this 8th album live up to their ass-kicking back catalog.
Strong Alibi wrote: Sounds a lot like a "modern rock" song to me, even though Raine has kept saying "R.I.P. Modern Rock" in all his tweets about the album. Not that I don't like it, it's definitely catchy.
What is modern rock anyway?
When Raine refers to it I am thinking he means mainstream rock of the generic, "catchy", vacuous, Nickelbackey, uninspired variety. Something with no real soul that any plastic corporate-puppet band could write and perform; nothing special. One could argue that TEIWWB and possibly AYDWSML (the Burn Burn singles, not coincidentally) fell into that category. It's something OLP seems to have started experimenting with in Somewhere Out There.
(Not saying those OLP songs are bad... all OLP songs are good )
Really hope Album 8 has more songs in the vein of The Wolf... While a lot of these songs are sounding great, a big problem with Burn Burn was that everything was too ballad-y and there wasn't enough energy. Not even mid-tempo rockers, which the band has had plenty of great ones before.
MindsOnLoan wrote:Really hope Album 8 has more songs in the vein of The Wolf... While a lot of these songs are sounding great, a big problem with Burn Burn was that everything was too ballad-y and there wasn't enough energy. Not even mid-tempo rockers, which the band has had plenty of great ones before.
I agree. Don't get me wrong. I really like Burn Burn but the only non bonus album track that was high energy was a song about butterflies.. hee hee
“Music doesn’t have the power to change the world. What music does is it changes people, & that changes the world, so to say that music doesn’t change people anymore is just ridiculous. It does everyday. It doesn’t have to be on a political or social level. You could be feeling shitty & it makes you happy & if that’s all it does, it’s changing the world. It’s making it a better place.” ~ Raine Maida
Sincerely, C.H.
“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”
“It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously.” ~ Oscar Wilde
I bought Burn Burn by OLP and Vancouver my Matt Good around the same time. Here's the track length:
OLP:
10 songs, 38 minutes.
MG:
10 songs, 57 minutes.
57 minutes may be too long for some (though one song was almost 10 minutes so that raises the average), but some songs on Burn Burn barely made 3 minutes.
When every song is just verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, it goes by really quickly. Heck, most of those Matt Good songs only have 2 choruses!
Each band is different, but if you're only putting 10 songs on an album (I think 11 or 12 is the sweet spot), then they can't be over too fast.
I want a 45 minute album again!
Naveed: 47 min
Clumsy: 45 min
Happiness: 43 min
Spiritual: 40 min (just the actual music)
Gravity: 41 min
Healthy: 45 min
Burn Burn: 38 min
I forgot to mention one other thing: Intros and outros are not your enemy! It's ok to have no vocals for the first 30-60 seconds sometimes! It adds to the emotional depth of a song to just have the instruments playing.
I've always felt that if a record dares to venture over the 40 minute mark, you'd better have something important to say. Quality always trumps quantity.
Last edited by Matt. on 5/7/2011, 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RileyLewis wrote:I forgot to mention one other thing: Intros and outros are not your enemy! It's ok to have no vocals for the first 30-60 seconds sometimes! It adds to the emotional depth of a song to just have the instruments playing.
I like this idea.
Feel free to throw out an instrumental track or two out there.
"I wasn't sure if you were a crazy ax murdering pshyco or not when I first met you" -- Megan
I expected the dog to piss on Duncan since the video is called "An Accident" lol. But I dig that snippet! I could kinda see it going into something kinda like Kiss on the Mouth and eventually exploding towards the end.
RileyLewis wrote:I bought Burn Burn by OLP and Vancouver my Matt Good around the same time. Here's the track length:
OLP: 10 songs, 38 minutes.
MG: 10 songs, 57 minutes.
57 minutes may be too long for some (though one song was almost 10 minutes so that raises the average), but some songs on Burn Burn barely made 3 minutes.
When every song is just verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, it goes by really quickly. Heck, most of those Matt Good songs only have 2 choruses!
Each band is different, but if you're only putting 10 songs on an album (I think 11 or 12 is the sweet spot), then they can't be over too fast.
I want a 45 minute album again!
Naveed: 47 min Clumsy: 45 min Happiness: 43 min Spiritual: 40 min (just the actual music) Gravity: 41 min Healthy: 45 min Burn Burn: 38 min
I forgot to mention one other thing: Intros and outros are not your enemy! It's ok to have no vocals for the first 30-60 seconds sometimes! It adds to the emotional depth of a song to just have the instruments playing.
Vancouver = Terrible album. 57 minutes of bullshit music and Matt Good crying about how he hates his city. At least he got smart and moved out. This won a Juno because his record company didn't have anybody else to buy one for.
<nam_kablam> I'll be naked holding a ":O" sign while pumping their door
It wasn't his best work, but it had some really great tracks on it: Last Parade, Great Whales of the Sea, Empty's Theme Park.
But even taking that one away, look at arguably his best album, Avalanche. That was 69 minutes, 13 tracks.
I agree that you can't just have length, you need quality. But Burn Burn lacked both. It had some good songs, but was a little too short and simple for me.
I like that they are putting more thought into this one. 4 guys in a room may work to produce songs that are easy to play live, but CDs aren't live.
Playing live you can afford to lose a few subtleties, since the experience of a live band makes up for it. But on a CD, you want things to be a bit more complicated so that it remains enjoyable over longer periods.
)
