Perhaps. But consider- if you bought a 10-song new Oasis album with 8 really standout tracks, you'd be happy, critics would be happy, oasis would have a successful album. if you bought a 20-song double release with, say, 12 strong songs, wouldn't you feel a bit ripped-off from paying for a double album with one CD's worth of good tracks? Critics, too, would likely, well, criticize that move, and oasis would have a just-ok double release with just-ok sales. I say give me an album with the ten best and save the rest for the next b-sides release so that bigger fans can take their chances/increase their collection, and the rest of the consumers out there can get more for their money (CDs aren't cheap, you know?) OR, harking back to the old debate on singles, save a few songs for singles so that they become really worth the cash. (if i see another interpol single with pathetic 'demo' cuts as the b-side, i'm going to scream.) And: tom waits is a genius. He could release five albums at once and i'd buy them all. However, notice that he didn't combine the records; he released them seperately. They were conceptually very different, and while i bought Alice and listen to it constantly, Blood Money is simply too much maniacal-carnival music for me, and i haven't bought it. If they'd been released together i would have, but i like that i got to choose...

I agree with qorian on this - far better to have ten good songs on a single album than a twenty track album with a bunch of mediocre fillers. Especially since Oasis haven't released a decent album since "Morning Glory".

That is a fair point. But maybe they could release another 'Masterplan' full of bsides as alot of their previous best were bsides. I'm just hyped up about hearing new Oasis album after hearing the two new tracks.

Will any Oasis album offer eight, or even four, memorable songs? I wouldn't hold my breath. That's an interesting view on Alice, though, qorian. I've listened to both those recordings a lot, and I find that Alice is still a little too tied to the narritive of the play. Tracks on the album have significances that are not fully explained by the lyrics alone..there seems to be more to them than meets the ear. The progression for Waits seems to lie in Blood Money, and I imagine that this September's new album will sound very much like it. Personally I think the carnival effects stuff he's one since Swordfishtrombones has been of much greater interest than what preceded it...

I would never discourage an artist for trying to reinvent their sound and break away from whatever mould is cased upon them. But 'Blood Money' is Waits' worst album, in my opinion. It's weird for the sake of being wierd. There are about three songs at the most which I would listen to but other than that, it is a poor album from someone as talented as Waits. 'Alice' is different aswell. While it contains some magical moments, it too sways toward the wierd a bit too much. I'm a big big Tom Waits fan and don't expect him to produce another 'Closing Time' or 'Heart Of Saturday Night' but hopefully his new album will concentrate more on what made Waits such a standout talent---simply produced songs that get better and better with each listen. His writing needs to stay away from 'Blood Money' type in order for his new album to be great. And hopefully he will come to Dublin sometime. It would be such a treat to see him play in a venue like Vicar Street.

"Weird for the sake of being weird" is possibly the worst turn of phrase ever invented by anyone anywhere. It doesn't make any sense and is generally used by people who have missed a point or two somewhere along the line.

Ok then, I'll simplify it for you. 'Blood Money' is s**t---is that a more clearer way to describe it for you?

Who the hell cares? Just don't hide behind terms such as "weird for weirds sake".

Speaking of double album releases has anyone seen the new merged album of Ryan Adams love is hell? it has parts 1 & 2 on one album. Now that was a rip off releasing 2 albums on the same day and a third a month later, now I think it's fairly well known he had record company wranglings and love is hell was the album he wanted to release and I think rock and roll is more his idea of a joke on the record company but why was love is hell released in two parts? so the guts of the story is I paid 60 odd euro for three albums that you can now get for 40 euro. s**t.

are the new oasis songs any good?

Erm. I care? Even as someone who doesn't own Blood Money, i appreciate the album, the direction Waits has now turned fully towards, and the likelihood that his fall release will take similar experimental turns. And i don't think it's weird for the sake of being weird. There are simply times when Waits's music gets actively abrasive, that's part of what's so flooringly amazing about it, Blood Money was just a little too much for me. But songs like "The Earth Died Screaming" (which i love, and starts Bone Machine, my favorite Waits album) is Blood Money-esque in its delivery. And while i love Alice for its (mostly) return to his old ballad beauty, southern gothic, songs about trains and lovers etc, I love that he and his family now play a zillion instruments, that they're NOT simply going back to the tried and true simple formula. So while Blood Money is something i haven't spent my money on, (though after this i just might have to revisit it,) it hasn't changed my feeling on Waits, and won't change the fact that i'll buy his next one before i hear a single note of it. As for poor little ryan adams, i thought i'd share a couple links. There's info on why Love is Hell got split, as well as conflicting opinions on the album itself: positive-ish review: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDSUB040406300043472249&sql=A9cem97bdkrht negative review: http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/a/adams_ryan/love-is-hell.shtml and a HILARIOUS interview where a writer for pitchforkmedia (the site that panned love is hell and RnR) asks such straight-up questions as "is there any point where you say 'this is what i sound like' and 'this is me just f*cking around'?" : http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/interviews/a/adams_ryan-04/

does anybody really expecting much from Oasis anymore? I saw them performing in Glastonbury on TV at the weekend and they sounded pretty bad. Liam's voice sounded knackered and they just looked like they were going through the motions. Considering that Glastonbury was their big come back gig you'd expect a bit of effort. Maybe I'm just being too critical but they did strike me as a band that were in dire need of a whole new approach to their chosen profession. Having said that I haven't heard any of their new stuff so I'll hope against hope that they can come out of their ten year decline, afterall the reason I initially took up the guitar all thoase years ago was Oasis. I'm not holding my breath though. I would definitely agree that a ten track album with a consistently high standard of tunes is a far better idea than releasing a double album that is hit and miss

an hour is long enough for an oasis cd! haha, only kiddin,

Why does every1 feel the need to attack Oasis and U2, when they are probably the two bands that have not! and will not! sell their musical integrity down the river of jealous pop-rock culture big brother watching nerds,,, long live real music... Pace. P.

Because they make pompous overblown nonesense music with all the artistic ambition of Justin Barret.