None, I don’t think. It’s hard to say really because you have to imagine what another album’s worth of material would have been like if it had come from that artist at that time. Bit of a silly question really.
King of Limbs
Never Mind The Bullocks by The Wurzels
Mars Volta - Frances The Mute with the title track
Definitely maybe and Morning glory, supposedly. People say the b-sides are as strong as the albumn tracks, so in theory would make decent double albums. I wouldn’t know though I havent listened to them because oasis are wank
Converge had so much good material for Dusk In Us (including Eve, an amazing track, as well as the solid Beautiful Ruin EP) that they could have easily made it a double album.
As it is, it’s a perfectly structured single album, so I’m glad they kept the discipline and kept it to a single.
Zeitgeist by The Smashing Pumpkins
So much great material from that time period that went unreleased. I’ve worked out various tracklistings, a bunch of them work really well for an amazing Disc 2.
Something like this:
7 Shades of Black
Bleeding the Orchid
That’s the Way
Bring the Light
Come On Let’s Go
For God and Country
Pomp and Circumstance
Really sad this doesn’t exist. Some truly ambitious and furious and beautiful stuff in there.
Think we’ll all mostly agree on this. Even if an argument can be made that a band had a lot of great b-side material or later-released whatever from the era, double albums are inferior (fact) and adding on more material would only reduce the overall quality.
Single albums that should be double albums - none of them
Double albums that should be single albums - all of them
Boy do I disagree with this.