>song is a prequel to a previous song

File: 1496250550756.jpg (27KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x400px

Tenacious D?

>>73234888
>album is the part two for a previous song

>first album is s/t
>s/t song appears on the 2nd album

>>73235106
Name ONE band that did this.

File: The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses.jpg (156KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 600x600px

>>73234888
only example of this i can think of is on this album.

Waterfall --> Don't Stop

i find the whole thing really cringe.

>>73235106
>band releases their s/t a few albums into their discog

>artist's name is an unwritable symbol

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-07 at 4.49.47 PM.png (70KB, 170x184px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 170x184px

>>73235558
>band releases a few s/t albums

>album literally named 's/t'

what is s/t
sans title?

>>73235689
self titled

>>73235689
>being this guy

>>73235662
>band is named s/t

File: turns on computer.png (366KB, 673x697px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 673x697px

>band makes a new album to be played with an older album
>when alternating each track between the old and new, a new listening experience is created

when will this trend die out?

File: StealThisAlbum.png (33KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x300px

>>73234888

>>73236660
>band makes a sequel or a homage to their previous album
>it actually sounds and feels nothing like that first album

>>73234888
Just about one of the most embarrassing things an artist can do.

>>73236672
Fuck, I thought you said sequel.

>>73236660
never bothered to listen to 01 and 10.
should I?

>>73234888
>Starless and Bible Black
Starless and Bible Black
>Red
Starless