the_escapist Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 awesome find! thanks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aschall Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 i love this length (thats what she said:wink3:) but seriously though, i love short albums. they sound like one master of a song rather than a long album like X & Y which just feels like a big copilation of singles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prospector Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Glad to know it's not long, when I saw those 14 tracks I got a little disappointed. I was affraid of the X&Y syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew42LP5 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Too short. Way too short. How are we supposed to enjoy songs that are just :30 seconds? Mylo Xyloto(song) is fine the way it is, but I think ONE less than a minute song is fine but not three. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdplayingfromKansas Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 U.F.O. 2:18.... an acoustic one so maybe the new Don't Panic?:D (which is 2:19) U.F.O. would have to be a freakin' amazing song to be compared to Don't Panic :wacky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kover Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I wanted Mylo Xyloto to be a full song with lyrics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc90 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Would've liked the songs themselves to be longer; not necessarily the whole album, to be clear. Iunno, I look at the classic Coldplay tunes like Clocks, Politik and The Scientist (sorry they happen to be from AROBTTH) and they're 5 minutes deep. I realize that length may not be a prerequisite to quality but I can see myself getting lost early in a song, the song ends and i'm going "is that it?". Quick math suggests an average song is 3:10 (Sleeping Sun is about that long) (I considered that a short song before doing this). And as with Sleeping Sun I liked where the song was going but then it ended much too early for my liking. A followup excluding the 3 undoubtedly short songs (MX, MMIX and AHT) equates an average of 3:39 (think Crest of Waves or Lost?) which is a better for sure and more like my ideal length of ~4:30+. I'm seeing a lot of suggestions that shorter is better than longer and that this was what brought down X & Y. To be honest, I wasn't so much hung up on that than I was on the songs themselves. To me it sounded rushed and over reliant on old tricks. Like, I hear the intro to What If and i'm blown away. Then the song turns into a over complicated mess when it perhaps would have been better staying in the same mellow atmosphere it created for itself. But enough about X & Y. It's over and done with just like this album and the track lengths (assuming they are accurate). Bottom line though, obviously there is nothing I can do or could have done. I'm also certain that they aren't the type of band to say, "let's throw in a solo to add some time to the album, it's too short". The two songs that I like the most this era are HLH and MM and they are 'short' so I guess anything's possible. Heck, older songs like Don't Panic (as mentioned) are short too and they still blow me away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxwatcher Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Great find! I've already updated my iTunes library to have songs exactly those lengths replace the unheard songs we haven't heard. And 44:09 sounds good to me. The only thing I don't like is the fact that we've already heard 9 of the 14 songs, and 3 of the 5 unheard songs are less than 3:00. In one way it makes me lose some excitement of hearing the album because there are only a few new tracks. But in another way I love all the songs I've heard so far so hearing the studio versions and the album as a whole will be a whole new experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackjays Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 This whole "play new songs at concerts" thing is what bands are doing nowadays. They test the songs out and gauge the crowds reaction. Heck, some bands are debuting songs live before they even record them in the studio, to get some work into the tracks and build momentum. If you want songs you haven't heard on the album, don't be youtubing the performances. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admnistramation Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 It's not an entirely new thing to perform songs live and then go back and record them. Radiohead had Nude for almost an entire decade before that made its way onto In Rainbows. Feist has had songs for some ten to fifteen years that are just making their way onto her albums. Anti-Pioneer is ancient. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxwatcher Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 This whole "play new songs at concerts" thing is what bands are doing nowadays. They test the songs out and gauge the crowds reaction. Heck, some bands are debuting songs live before they even record them in the studio, to get some work into the tracks and build momentum. If you want songs you haven't heard on the album, don't be youtubing the performances. Simple as that. I think for a devoted Coldplay fan, anything new in their world usually HAS to become part of our world. So I don't think many of us could keep away from it. I still don't care that I already know what the songs sound like. That just means I know the album will be fantastic. I'm telling you, listening to the album will be much different than the live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y3110w Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I don't mind the length of the album but I do wish they'd have a song or two that is as long as Amsterdam or A Rush of Blood To The Head. Those two just have a really great spacy sound to them and the build up is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y3110w Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 DP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas.paul Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 I'm sorry honestly, because I don't want to sound/be mean, but either you don't know how to add time or you made a really careless mistake. Because I just re-added the numbers. This is what you get 37 minutes- from just the minutes column 429 seconds- from just the seconds column So it seems as though you made 429 seconds into 4 minutes and 29 seconds, added 37, and got 41:29 which is incorrect. There are 60 seconds (not 100) in a minute, so the seconds column actually comes out to 7 minutes and 9 seconds when calculated correctly. This leaves the real track time at 44:09. While two and a half minutes might not make a difference to some people, they really do to me. And that's also probably why he said it was just under 45 minutes and not closer to 40. So yeah. Hope that clears some things up. Oops! You are so right! My mistake! I'm sorry guys :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para-para-parrotdies Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 This whole "play new songs at concerts" thing is what bands are doing nowadays. They test the songs out and gauge the crowds reaction. Heck, some bands are debuting songs live before they even record them in the studio, to get some work into the tracks and build momentum. It's not that there's anything wrong with playing new songs at concerts + festivals. It's the fact that they have played a majority of the songs on the upcoming album, meaning we have a good guess of what the new record is going to sound like. For people who have been disappointed with recent songs, it is now highly unlikely that our opinions will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel_94 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 We have now managed to squeeze an extra 2.5 minutes out of the album aha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel_94 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 We have now managed to squeeze an extra 2.5 minutes out of the album aha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel_94 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 We have now managed to squeeze an extra 2.5 minutes out of the album aha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odvan Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Oops! You are so right! My mistake! I'm sorry guys :P Be kind, correct the length in the thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odvan Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 No one mentioned that AROBTTH is 55 minutes long? Must be a crappy album based on opinions there. Jeez. We need divide forum for two parts - for under 18 and for over 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chechoouu Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Great info, thank you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdplayingfromKansas Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 No one mentioned that AROBTTH is 55 minutes long? Must be a crappy album based on opinions there. Jeez. We need divide forum for two parts - for under 18 and for over 18. I think the reason no one mentioned that was because ARoBttH had a very good flow to it--not as good as Viva, obviously, but better than X&Y and Parachutes IMHO. Whereas with X&Y the way the songs were fit together made it seem a lot clunkier. I think a slight change in the tracklisting and swapping out a few of the weaker songs for Gravity and How You See The World would have made it seem smoother. I'm under 18 :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxeh Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 The Lenght makes sense. The Girl from the review also said "U.F.O." is a Song and "A Hopeful Transmission" an Instrumental. But didnt say they it's like 45 Minutes Long? Would mean at least 1 Hidden Track? It's space for 3 Minutes. And you guys remember the Fotoshoot in Japan? Infront of the Car, maybe thats the Hidden Track for Japan. Also known as "Car Kids". Correct me if im wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Nip 2 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 about song legnth, Beatles songs are usually about 3 minutes. Doesn't have to be a certain length to be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiotFever Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 We have now managed to squeeze an extra 2.5 minutes out of the album aha! We have now managed to squeeze an extra 2.5 minutes out of the album aha! We have now managed to squeeze an extra 2.5 minutes out of the album aha! Triple Post :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now