79 minute albums...What do you think?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37852
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 00:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 79 minute albums...What do you think?
Posted By: The T
Subject: 79 minute albums...What do you think?
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 13:28
I've reached the conclusion that, 8 times out of 10, a 79-minute album is just TOO long. There are cases of masterpieces that last that long and that make full use of the minutes, making those near 80 minutes seem like 40, but in general, I think the proper length for a record is around the 55-60 minute mark. Many 75+ albums are filled with meaningless noises or segues or just minutes of empty silence, or, even worse, weak, boring songs. I can think of many examples but one that strikes me is The Mars Volta. De-Loused is the only album by then that I think deserves to last more than 70 minutes, but Amputechture and Frances, they're too long, with lots of wasted minutes, with a few weak songs, and, specially Frances (the other I just don't like) could've been very good (IMHO! ) with a trimming job. The same with cd's by band that I love like TFK. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: ColdScratch
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 13:48
|
How about Tool's Lateralus?
That clocks at over 78 min if I remember correctly and its one of the greatest albums of the last 15 years. However, it is true that perhaps removing one or two tracks (ticks & leeches really sucks!) may have made this record much stronger..
|
Posted By: Marcos
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 13:58
|
Now, I remember some albums... I think "Scenes From a Memory" (DT),... some Neal Morse's albums too... but i'm not sure. It's true. There are many 79-minute albums ------------- www.postmortemweb.com.ar |
Posted By: Ed_The_Dead
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 14:05
|
Lateralus is jut perfect the way it is. So is Terria by Devin Townsend.
I love a good +70 minute album.
Of course the length does not matter.
I think length should come naturally. The songwriter gets more skilled at writing long stuff further in his carrier. Notice most debut albums are shorter than other releases.
And I love double albums. The Human Equation is well over 100 minutes and I love every second of it
 If your good at it, you can write lengthy compositions. Never enough of great music.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ed_the_dead/?chartstyle=asimpleblue5"> 
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 14:06
|
I like albums around the 35 to 45 minute range so to me, a 79 minute album is actually a double album =P
------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 15:45
|
There are albums with every second of those 70+ minutes being masterliness... Frances The Mute, Amputechture, Dead Again, AEnima, etc... so I don't think it's too much, depends on the music. Some like Tago Mago could really help being 40 minutes shorter.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 16:08
I hope this isn't a thread about Klaus Schulze, cause he is simply masterliness...and 79 minutes worthwhile.  
------------- 
|
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:06
Wow do you listen to prog? Awful ------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
laplace wrote:Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:08
Yes. What? ;P ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:09
|
35 minutes is what's awful, even 45 might be just about okay.
------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:10
|
You're babbling man, snap out of it.
------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:12
|
Wow the epitome of an inteliigent reply...
------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:14
|
Well, when your whole case is "Awful", it's ample. ;P What's so awful about concise albums, as you'd put it?
------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:16
|
It depends on the quality of the album. I love listening to DT's Scenes from a Memory, but I find Ayreon's The Human Equation difficult to sit through, even though it is good (I know, it's over 100 minutes). I was just listening to dredg's Leitmotif while driving. And that's roughly 47 minutes (the 17 minutes of the last song don't count to me). But I find it to be a wonderful album to listen to. |
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:16
|
My response to your liking of 35 minute albums was ineffable, explaining my lack of rationale. It isn't really concise, just short I think it would always feel it was missing something, especially in prog. I mean there are probably Girls Aloud albums that are longer than that... I had finished listening to Dream Theaters new album today, and that's over an hour long and I felt it was short, maybe it's just me... ------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:17
Well, let's keep the discussion CIVIL or the thread will be spoiled forever. Thanks!  ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:18
|
I'm with laplace here, colelo. What on earth is un-proggy about listening to 35-45 minute albums? With only a handful exceptions that is the amount of music you could comfortably FIT on an LP. Anything more than that and you were indeed into double-album territory.
Gentle Giant never really went over 40 minutes on their studio releases and they were all the better for it. Every note MATTERED. |
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:19
|
I guess I'm too used to progressive metal...
------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:21
So you're not actually making examples of bad albums that last less than forty minutes, but incredibly, just stating that short albums are awful? At least if you'd stated an opinion such as "artists don't have sufficient time to vary their themes over such a short duration" or even "CDs that hold less than an hour's worth of music are overpriced" I'd care, but either way, the band themselves decided on the album's length so it's a complete work of art as given. So as it is... you're babbling, man, snap out of it. =P ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:22
|
Rush albums were never longer than 38 minutes in the 70's-early 80's, and even those albums (bar a couple exceptions) had a lot of fillers (IMHO).
Length is no problem when the quality goes with it... But I've heard too many 75+ cds that really are too long....
If there's one "pretentious" thing about prog it's the length of many of today's (mostly) albums.... -------------
|
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:23
|
Or not, I just can't be arsed through tiredness to explain myself, resulting in me 'babbling'. ------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:26
I find it's best to refrain from posting in a thread if you can't be arsed to explain yourself. It's asking for trouble, really. 
|
Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:28
|
Very wise, with that I take my leave
------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
Posted By: Witchwoodhermit
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 19:23
|
Being born into the vinyl generation, my ears are well tuned to 45 minutes of music.
Anything else just seems overdone.
When it comes to double albums, I set aside that amount of time. Otherwise I may play just one disc, or not at all. ------------- Here I'm shadowed by a dragon fig tree's fan ringed by ants and musing over man. |
Posted By: con safo
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 20:28
|
I personally find 79 minute albums too long, with a few exceptions. I usually like to listen to my cd's on the way to work, or walking to whereever i need to be, and rarely do i ever finish a 79 minute album, i most of the time listen in sections, or one part of the album is rarely listened to. I think 40-60 minutes is just fine for an album ------------- 
|
Posted By: greenback
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 20:51
|
the best ultra long album:
iq - subterranea ------------- [HEADPINS - LINE OF FIRE: THE RECORD HAVING THE MOST POWERFUL GUITAR SOUND IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF MUSIC!> |
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 22:41
|
45 minutes is the ideal length for a non-concept album. Live albums, however, are best when in a triple-CD digipack. |
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 22:42
| I don't care, but the Tangent's album last year was grand, along with some other albums. |
Posted By: memowakeman
Date Posted: May 11 2007 at 23:33
|
If you ask me, i prefer those 40 - 50 minute albums, but anyway i think that no matter the lenght, an album is good if it keeps you hooked the whole time, i love very short albums like Goblin`s Profondo Rosso, or Amarok by Oldfield which is very long. So surely there are great and horrible 79 minute albums.
------------- Follow me on twitter @memowakeman |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 00:03
|
I'm with the majority here. I like shorter albums (short IMO are 50 minutes and lower). 60 minute are gladly welcomed too, but 70 and 80 minute albums need to have better material to keep me tuned in. An example is Oceanzise - Effloresce. A wonderful album, but it's too long and quickly looses its interest after the 60 minute mark. ------------- 
|
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 00:58
|
If you have 79 minutes of solid material, a 79 minute album is great. If you have 40 minutes of solid material, a 40 minute album is great. If you have 20 minutes of solid material, by all means a 20 minute EP is great. Album length doesn't matter so long as the music is good. On a related note, why do people get so harsh on albums about a "filler" track? There's two possibilities: 1. You can't stand the song; you skip it. No problem for you at all. 2. You like it to some extent. It increases your enjoyment of the album. Either way, you the album doesn't get worse for the inclusion of a weak track. -------------   |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 06:44
I must disagree with you there, riley. If I hear an album which has about 40 minutes worth of utter brilliance coupled with fifteen minutes of dull filler material my appreciation of that album is naturally decreased. Instead of the album being a start-to-finish burst of glory it is merely a good album with too much flab, to my ears. I don't WANT to skip tracks on an album - it should be a complete and balanced work in its own right. If an artist can't seperate their weak material from their stronger stuff then why should I have to? Skipping tracks breaks the flow of an album, and thus naturally decreases one's appreciation of the listening experience. It is a last resort. Filler be damned! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 07:08
I tend to agree ... but it also depends on whether the filler tracks are an integral part of the album concept. For example I can tolerate fillers on most TFK double albums ... Flower Power is a very good album for the 60 minutes of Garden of Dreams alone, the second disc is a bonus and as such should have no influence on the rating of the album (or at least not a big influence). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 07:19
|
Similar thread of mine....
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5784&KW - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5784&KW = ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 14:23
|
I'm lazy. An 80 minute CD means I don't have to get up for something like an hour & some minutes. Hey, wait, I have a 5 disc player. I can stay seated for up to 400 minutes .... ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 15:08
| I prefer my albums to be around 40 minutes. Up to 50 is okay depending on what music's on there, but after that I tend to get bored. There are exceptions of course. |
Posted By: Hyperborea
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 19:48
|
I come from a time when approx 40 minutes was the norm, rarely did it exceed (with the exception of the excellent KS). An awful lot of the 79 minutes stuff has filler time on it, but that shouldn't detract from the good music on it. I prefer vinyl to cd anyway, much easier to read the foot notes on the sleeves. As the writing on cd's means i have to borrow the hubble telescope to read them. ------------- As i race o'er this beautiful sphere, Like a dog who is chasing his..... |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 19:53
|
Hey--80 minutes of excellent material is better than 40 minutes of excellent material. However, bands that can pull of 80 minutes of excellent material are rare, if existent. 40-60 minutes is ideal for me, but it depends on the material and the band, of course.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Hyperborea
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 20:03
|
I personally have never heard 80 minutes of excellent material on one cd. ------------- As i race o'er this beautiful sphere, Like a dog who is chasing his..... |
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 22:25
There are plenty of '70s albums that are under 35 minutes... I've even seen some around 30 minutes and under. I'd rather have 30 minutes of excellent music than 60 minutes of music that's only good, but that's just me... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 22:25
|
Me neither.
I don't like super long albums that much because I like to listen to the whole album and I cannot listen to 80 minutes of music in one sitting; and then that break interrupts the continuity of the album. |
Posted By: martinn
Date Posted: May 12 2007 at 22:27
|
I find even 60 minutes Albums way to long...the perfect range is 35 to 50 minutes IMO.
------------- 
|
Posted By: darksideof
Date Posted: May 13 2007 at 13:02
I wsh albums were more that 80 minutes that means to me that I'll save money on the long run. It is 2 albums on one. remmeber the 70's vinils? 35 minutes that was painful. we are bless that today recording top more that 60 minutes we shouldn't complaint at all. We aren't force to listen to a whole full album all in one shot. It is not like in a religious ceremony. come on!!!
 ------------- http://darksideofcollages.blogspot.com/ http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Darksideof-Collages/ |
Posted By: ozzy_tom
Date Posted: May 13 2007 at 16:20
|
Wicked Minds - "Witchflower" is 79+ album and I really like it. If album is good it can be as long as it's possible and it won't be anything wrong. -------------  
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 13 2007 at 17:35
|
I cant actually think of a single disc album that gets to 75+ minutes without having some duff songs on their. For instance, I could have done without Faaip De Oid(sp?) and Virginti Trees on Tools Lateralus and 10 000 Days. Some bands could do with really being more strict in what they keep for an album and what they get rid of. In actual fact, Dream Theaters Scens From a Memory is the only 75+ minute album that I can think of that doesnt have a single week moment on it. As for the question as to how long an album should be, the answer is simple, as long as the band can write good music for it, whether thats 35 or 75 minutes doesnt matter. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: May 13 2007 at 22:39
|
I'm with you 100% here T, there are so many long albums that are crying out for an editing job. In many cases these could be great works if they were half as long but I sense that these days the length allowances of CDs have brought about egos whereas folks think every release must now fill the disc. Not so. |
Posted By: Birdman
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 09:59
|
I do believe that earlier prog albums were written and recorded with the technology and logistics of that period in mind; before the invention of the compact disc, long albums were just impossible to reproduce on vinyls with its limitations that we all know. The apparition of the CD changed all that and therefore changed the way songs were written. A lot of recordings produced in the vinyls-era must have had 50-60+min. at the creation stage but were chopped or simply rewritten before the actual recording. Double albums were, of course, a possibility but you just couldn't put out double albums all the time ! Today, 60-70+min. albums is nothing out of the ordinary because there's almost no limitations on time (well, there is but you know...). The artists just take advantage of what's available for them. ------------- Et je ferme les yeux Puis je croise les doigts Pour empêcher Les souvenirs de fuir. (KERMESS - Atome d'existence) |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 10:07
I agree, if the album isn't fantastic.
|
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 14:30
Spot on!
------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: May 14 2007 at 14:44
THEY ARE TOOOOOOOOOOOO LONG... but Lateralus is a total masterpice...
------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: Scrub
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 15:04
|
The big album that jumped into my head as soon as I read the topic was Dream Theater's Scenes From A Memory. I love the album, but if they had shortened some of the instrumental w**king around the end of the album, it would have been even better! It doesn't distract too much from the album overall though, and I still love it. I like albums that stay within the 45-60 minute range. If they get much shorter, I feel kinda ripped for my money. But at the same time, I'd rather have less of better quality than more of lesser quality  ... |