Red Hot Chili Peppers new album

Cols

No, not Unlimited Love.

They’re putting out another one in October, just 6 months since the last one.  Daring.

https://pitchfork.com/news/red-hot-chili-peppers-announce-new-album-return-of-the-dream-canteen/

Philly_Q

Well, I've got a pretty good idea what it'll sound like...

Pjon

The last one is so long that I think I've only listened all the way through a couple of times.

Philly_Q

Pjon said:

The last one is so long that I think I've only listened all the way through a couple of times.

Well, there's barely been enough time....

ICBM

The cover looks like a Roger Dean Yes album...

Bungle1

The last one was so mediocre to me, I really hope this next one is a step up. 

I might be in the minority but I liked some of the experimentation the band did while Frusciante was out of the band. The drum work on I'm With You is really cool and interesting. I was hoping that Unlimited Love would carry on with some of that  experimentation.

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

The cover looks like a Roger Dean Yes album...

Or a very poor attempt at replicating one.

It also made me think of this, although there's no real resemblance:

prowla

ICBM said:

The cover looks like a Roger Dean Yes album...

Philly_Q said:

ICBM said:

The cover looks like a Roger Dean Yes album...

Or a very poor attempt at replicating one.

It also made me think of this, although there's no real resemblance:

My thoughts too - give a kid a paint set...

West, Bruce & Laing - a great band!

stickyfiddle

They've always lacked for quality control imo. Californication is their only album that doesn't need to shed 2 or 3 songs.

Has anyone ever released multiple 12+ track albums in a single year (or a double album once) that wouldn't have been better as one tightly-edited record. 

I'm struggling to think of more than a handful of exceptions

Cols

stickyfiddle said:

They've always lacked for quality control imo. Californication is their only album that doesn't need to shed 2 or 3 songs.

Personally, I thought Californication sounded like they'd just recorded the bare minimum number of songs to make an album and then called it a day.  Whereas Blood Sugar Sex Magick managed 17 killer songs and enough leftover material for an album's worth of excellent B sides.

Philly_Q

stickyfiddle said:

They've always lacked for quality control imo. Californication is their only album that doesn't need to shed 2 or 3 songs.

I have a generally-positive mental impression of everything from Mother's Milk to By The Way.  I'm not saying there weren't any duff tracks, but they don't stick in my mind.  It was only on Stadium Arcadium that the excess and boredom really set in.

(I didn't bother with the Klinghoffer albums, and although I've got one or two of the pre-Frusciante albums, I've never listened to them much.)

stickyfiddle said:

Has anyone ever released multiple 12+ track albums in a single year (or a double album once) that wouldn't have been better as one tightly-edited record. 

I'm struggling to think of more than a handful of exceptions

Good question!  I think you're right that most double albums - and a lot of single albums, since the days of CDs allowing up to 78 minutes - are excessively long. 

And in terms of the timeframe, it was common for bands to issue an album, or maybe even two, within a year back in the '60s and '70s... but they were pretty short albums and nearly always had some "filler" tracks.

I've mentioned it before, but I've never forgotten a Billy Corgan interview where he compared someone else's album with Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, and said how much better-produced this other album sounded.  "But we didn't have time to make ours sound like that, because we had so many songs to record in the time available", he said.  And I thought well, you should've just left some of those crappy songs out, you twat.

Pjon

Philly_Q said:

stickyfiddle said:

They've always lacked for quality control imo. Californication is their only album that doesn't need to shed 2 or 3 songs.

I have a generally-positive mental impression of everything from Mother's Milk to By The Way.  I'm not saying there weren't any duff tracks, but they don't stick in my mind.  It was only on Stadium Arcadium that the excess and boredom really set in.

(I didn't bother with the Klinghoffer albums, and although I've got one or two of the pre-Frusciante albums, I've never listened to them much.)

stickyfiddle said:

Has anyone ever released multiple 12+ track albums in a single year (or a double album once) that wouldn't have been better as one tightly-edited record. 

I'm struggling to think of more than a handful of exceptions

Good question!  I think you're right that most double albums - and a lot of single albums, since the days of CDs allowing up to 78 minutes - are excessively long. 

And in terms of the timeframe, it was common for bands to issue an album, or maybe even two, within a year back in the '60s and '70s... but they were pretty short albums and nearly always had some "filler" tracks.

I've mentioned it before, but I've never forgotten a Billy Corgan interview where he compared someone else's album with Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, and said how much better-produced this other album sounded.  "But we didn't have time to make ours sound like that, because we had so many songs to record in the time available", he said.  And I thought well, you should've just left some of those crappy songs out, you twat.

I loved Billy C's appearance in The Simpsons:

At Lollapalooza, iirc.

Billy C : Hi, I'm Billy, Smashing Pumpkins
Homer : 9awkward pause) Homer Simpson, smiling politely.

It's a line I'd love to use but will never be in the right situation.  

ICBM

stickyfiddle said:

They've always lacked for quality control imo. Californication is their only album that doesn't need to shed 2 or 3 songs.

I think By The Way is their best album. I can't think of any bad tracks on it either.

I also think Stadium Arcadium is underrated - it *is* too long, but it would be difficult to cut enough to make a great single album without losing some good songs.

stickyfiddle said:

Has anyone ever released multiple 12+ track albums in a single year (or a double album once) that wouldn't have been better as one tightly-edited record.

The Beatles. Three times... two each in 1963, 1964 and (in particular) 1965, all with at least 13 tracks - all 14 in fact, apart from A Hard Day's Night.

rze99

I've only every listened to own compilation of a few tracks. They've always needed a real songwriter.

Octahedron

IMHO, RHCP struggled to stay relevant without Frusciante. However, even he doesn't seem able to revive the "magic". 

Unlimited Love just didn't click with me so this album will have to do something special.

Stadium Arcadium suffers from a lot of filler. There's some decent tracks though. Arguably the decent tracks (most of anyway) were the singles. 

Californication, BSSM, By The Way - these are arguably RHCP at their most potent.

I don't mind One Hot Minute, The Red Hot Chili Peppers and The Uplift Mofo Party Plan though. Some gems in there for sure. Always been a fan of the stuff like Fight Like A Brave, True Men Don't Kill Coyotes etc

mburekenge

Considering Rick Rubin is renowned for a 'less is more' approach, he doesn't apply it to RHCP.

Stadium arcadium would have been an awesome single album... Just too many similar tempo/vibe tunes and filler. Same with the last one.

Say this as a big peppers fan.