NEW ALBUM ALL SONGS LISTED in GERMANY´s VISIONS MAGAZIN

ScottandPearlJam

Either way I could careless Just give me the album NOW.
I can't wait.....oh yea..... I am sure all these songs will sound great at the SPECTRUM

Scott

acutejam

Jeremys Spoken wrote:

8. supersonic
9. speed of sound

Maybe these give a clue of how fast the fucking album goes by.
:P

Not to mention those two seem a bit redundant, no?

Human Tide

...

drsluggo

Plankton wrote:

Avocado is 37 minutes long and 11 songs if you cut Come Back and Inside Job.

Yield is 38 minutes and 11 songs if you cut Push Me Pull Me and All Those Yesterdays.

My guess is this album would be 25 minutes if you cut out the two longest songs as well, so that game really doesn't cover the fact that if this is actually true its a very, very short album.

CROJAM95

short n sweet works for me

long and drawn out can be boring in the long haul


Exciting

motorcitymadman

36 min sends up a bs flag. That is beyond short, even coming off ITW.

OffHeGoes132

I will admit that I was also hoping for a bit longer of an album, but as another poster already noted - quality over quantity is key. Also keep in mind that there's always the possibility of a bside or two to drop after the album's release (I seem to recall them having way more than 12 songs done). However, we didn't get any bsides from Avocado...

They may also add another song to the tracklisting once everything is said and done - probably still too early to tell yet.

Regardless, this is fantastic news and I'm excited as hell!

UpSideDown

motorcitymadman wrote:

36 min sends up a bs flag. That is beyond short, even coming off ITW.

I agree

3 years of waiting = 36 minutes of music?

Also nobody else seems to notice the review doesn't match up to the existing review out there?.....# of songs, order, etc....

primussucks

I don't know. The mods always delete fake postings that people try to pass off as truth. The fact that this one seems to be staying leads me to think this is legit. Can someone please post the entire article. Even if it is in german. Also is there a pic? Who's on the magazine cover?

UpSideDown

primussucks wrote:

I don't know. The mods always delete fake postings that people try to pass off as truth. The fact that this one seems to be staying leads me to think this is legit. Can someone please post the entire article. Even if it is in german. Also is there a pic? Who's on the magazine cover?

well, it is a saturday morning. don't know many mods are patrolling right now.

I would like to see a copy of the full article myself

Weird that PJ would break album news in a German magazine though....

cutuphalfdead

Drop The Leash 10 wrote:

Jeremys Spoken wrote:

Drop The Leash 10 wrote:

its only 10 minutes shorter than vs.

That can be like.. 2 songs.

who cares? since when has pj really really let us down.

Um, self titled?

cutuphalfdead

Plankton wrote:

Avocado is 37 minutes long and 11 songs if you cut Come Back and Inside Job.

Yield is 38 minutes and 11 songs if you cut Push Me Pull Me and All Those Yesterdays.

But if you cut those two songs you don't have Yield. Plus you have to include the length of Hummus for Yield (not the length of the space between ATY and hummus, but you have to include hummus!)

primussucks

UpSideDown wrote:

primussucks wrote:

I don't know. The mods always delete fake postings that people try to pass off as truth. The fact that this one seems to be staying leads me to think this is legit. Can someone please post the entire article. Even if it is in german. Also is there a pic? Who's on the magazine cover?[/qu

Weird that PJ would break album news in a German magazine though....

Not really. That NME reporter got to hear the record a few weeks ago for a future article. He also interviewed the band about the record. I doubt the band set up that session just for him. I'm sure it was a full media day for the album. Probably did interviews all day for a tone of different magazines. So this is just the first one to get the article published.

DiRtyFranK38

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Drop The Leash 10 wrote:

cares? since when has pj really really let us down.

Um, self titled?

that's a great album

MayDay10

I think absolutely nothing can be determined at this point. We will see how the album SOUNDS... A lot of tracks on Into the Wild are very short and they are all dynamite. we are also likely 3 months out. This may not be a final list.

cutuphalfdead

DiRtyFranK38 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Drop The Leash 10 wrote:

cares? since when has pj really really let us down.

Um, self titled?

that's a great album

By contemporary rock standards, yes. By pearl jam standards, no.

S/T suffers from over compression on the production side, and generic sound on the writing/performance sound.

Though I think a lot of the latter could be fixed by the former.

LikeAnOcean

cutuphalfdead wrote:

By contemporary rock standards, yes. By pearl jam standards, no.

S/T suffers from over compression on the production side, and generic sound on the writing/performance sound.

Though I think a lot of the latter could be fixed by the former.

What exactly are Pearl Jam standards? They have standards now that are expected to be met?

too many snobs here.. sorry.

cutuphalfdead

LikeAnOcean wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

By contemporary rock standards, yes. By pearl jam standards, no.

S/T suffers from over compression on the production side, and generic sound on the writing/performance sound.

Though I think a lot of the latter could be fixed by the former.

What exactly are Pearl Jam standards? They have standards now that are expected to be met?

too many snobs here.. sorry.

I'm not trying to be a snob, but why can't I not like something the band did? I'm a huge pearl jam fan, my all time favorite band, but I'm still allowed to listen to them critically. What I meant by Pearl Jam standards was the album is only lacking when you hold it next to the other ones in the catelog. And I feel like most of what's wrong with s/t is on the production end. Take your copy of S/T and extract the WAV files and open them up in Audacity or Adobe Audition and look at the wave. It looks like a solid block, the wave constantly hits the 100% threshold and thus "flatlines" at it's decibal peaks. Waves naturally never flatline, and when they do as a result of compression you have a "louder" album but an album that sounds less realistic and the intruments have less clarity. All the sounds end up being jumbled together and you feel like you're listening to a barage of noise in your face instead of hearing the intricacies of individual instruments.

To each it's own though, I'm not saying people can't like S/T. I like S/T, I just think it's the worst of all the albums PJ has put out.

And if that makes me a snob, well, I'd rather be a snob than someone who automatically likes anything the band puts out regardless of how it actually sounds.

LikeAnOcean

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

By contemporary rock standards, yes. By pearl jam standards, no.

S/T suffers from over compression on the production side, and generic sound on the writing/performance sound.

Though I think a lot of the latter could be fixed by the former.

What exactly are Pearl Jam standards? They have standards now that are expected to be met?

too many snobs here.. sorry.

I'm not trying to be a snob, but why can't I not like something the band did? I'm a huge pearl jam fan, my all time favorite band, but I'm still allowed to listen to them critically. What I meant by Pearl Jam standards was the album is only lacking when you hold it next to the other ones in the catelog. And I feel like most of what's wrong with s/t is on the production end. Take your copy of S/T and extract the WAV files and open them up in Audacity or Adobe Audition and look at the wave. It looks like a solid block, the wave constantly hits the 100% threshold and thus "flatlines" at it's decibal peaks. Waves naturally never flatline, and when they do as a result of compression you have a "louder" album but an album that sounds less realistic and the intruments have less clarity. All the sounds end up being jumbled together and you feel like you're listening to a barage of noise in your face instead of hearing the intricacies of individual instruments.

To each it's own though, I'm not saying people can't like S/T. I like S/T, I just think it's the worst of all the albums PJ has put out.

And if that makes me a snob, well, I'd rather be a snob than someone who automatically likes anything the band puts out regardless of how it actually sounds.

The production on Avocado did kind of suck, and they didn't really stretch into new territory as far as writing style, but its a very strong album. There's only so far they can push the music without alienating 90% of us.. they only albums they really pushed it with were No Code and Binaural. If thats what you want, I can understand that. I do want something new sounding, although most here will reject it at first.

Plankton

drsluggo wrote:

Plankton wrote:

Avocado is 37 minutes long and 11 songs if you cut Come Back and Inside Job.

Yield is 38 minutes and 11 songs if you cut Push Me Pull Me and All Those Yesterdays.

My guess is this album would be 25 minutes if you cut out the two longest songs as well, so that game really doesn't cover the fact that if this is actually true its a very, very short album.

I wasn't trying to suggest it's not that short, but rather to give a tangible idea of how long the 36 minutes is, and to also show it's not necessarily a sign that we're going to have especially short songs.