How long does an album need to take?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Music and Musicians Exchange
Forum Description: Talk with and get feedback from other musicians on the site
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=53552
Printed Date: February 24 2025 at 14:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How long does an album need to take?
Posted By: TDW
Subject: How long does an album need to take?
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 05:20
|
I know by now that there's a bunch of musicians and music lovers with a sense of musicianship around here and I was just wondering how long does an album need to take for you to remain interesting in terms of length? I am curious about this because I am at the moment working on a double album with 21 songs worth of new prog material and I am already past the 100 minute mark and therefore a bit worried that it might scare people off  So what are your thoughts about it? ------------- http://www.tdwmusic.com"> 
...Scoring emotions by the day... |
Replies:
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 08:06
|
There is no exact answer as it depends on the music. Personally I like long albums for that 'total immersion effect' (Therion's Gothic Kabbalah and Tool's 10,000 Days being examples of that for me) but other's can leave me cold (Marillion's Marbles is great as a single album, but the double CD version is just too much). On the flip-side, there are short albums that are too long for me to listen to (eg HIM's Love Metal)
Music fans can have a limited attention-span and this also extends to Prog fans, this is not jut a modern trend - Tales From Topographic Oceans was criticised in the 70s for being too long (among other things
 ), yet I can listen to it on repeat if necessary. NIN's The Downward Spiral is a long, intense album that I really love, but at 65 minutes it leaves me mentally exhausted on a single listen and will often only play one of the LPs at a time.I think Quality Control is the key - some judicial editing and cutting of "weaker" tracks can improve a over-long album, but there needs to be some variety to maintain interest over a prolonged period of listening - this is where an external Producer can be of benefit - taking a dispassionate view of the album as a whole and separating the necessary segue tracks that bridge between stronger thematic tracks from the unnecessary 'filler' that serve no real purpose other than increasing the album length. Here the question is, would the album be improved or weakened by removing a track?
On the otherhand, if you are into making self-indulgent music for your own pleasure - then there are no rules - I have made three tripple CD albums with 3 hours of music in each set for my own satisifaction - then I'm not really interested in whether anyone else listens or even likes what I make
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 08:09
|
I prefer around 32-50 minutes, Depends on the music. 60-80 minute albums can also be good, but they require more patience and time... |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 11:58
|
100 minutes? Well, take 50 minutes for one album, so you will have enough material for the second one. If not satisfied with all these songs, you also have a lot of likely b-sides. More seriously, I will go with Dean: it's nice to have two hours of music ready to be released, but you have to be honest with yourself and wonder if ALL the songs are so good that they all deserve to be on an album. |
Posted By: TDW
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 12:09
|
Thanks for the replies guys, it's always good to hear other people's opinion's on stuff like this! (And more opinions are always welcome of course!) I do have to admit however that I did not share one very important detail, (which I did not add on purpose btw ) the next record is not going to be written by me alone, because I know for fact that I will never be able to write so much music on my own! (The thought alone makes me laugh and gives me the creeps at the same time  )It just so happens that on this record I have purposely tried to write the music with 8 totally different musicians which all provided me with riffs and song idea's which I could turn into songs. so basically I write 2 songs with each musician resulting in 16 new tracks which all have a different vibe and feel to it and then there is 2 covers and 2 instrumentals I wrote myself next to that as well, which makes 20 new tracks. The double album format was just something that seemed logical so that each disc could contain one song written by each person. (therefore giving everyone enough scope and playing time) But beside from the above information, more opinions and tips are always welcome! ------------- http://www.tdwmusic.com">
...Scoring emotions by the day... |
Posted By: AdamHearst
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 11:45
Hmm, that's an interesting approach i think... should result in a very diverse, interesting listening experience. I must say though, having never heard your music, my unbiased opinion is it sounds like it could be overkill... giving too much for people to digest at once. Personally i believe over-long albums are worse than too-short albums.... it's probably best to leave people wanting more after listening than totally overloading them. So, my suggestion would be to keep the good idea for the album... work with the 8 different people, but only choose the 1 best song collaboration with that person... editing the album down to the strongest 8 songs. Then you could include just one of your instrumentals, whichever one you believe to be the strongest.... or both instrumentals if the play-time isn't already over an hour. Then, i believe you would have a stronger offering that would better hold people's attention... plus a lot of extra tracks you could use for a second album later on... or use as bonus tracks you could post online or put on an EP or something. That's just my opinion... less is sometimes more. ------------- I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity... |
TDW wrote:Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 12:04
|
whatever happened to albums being released with 4 tracks, 2 being more than 10 minutes, the other 2 within reasonable amounts of time?? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 12:23
|
45-50 minutes. If you have a lot of interesting material, make it a double album ... but be prepared for listeners to be much more sensitive to "filler" songs. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 15:24
I agree. About 45 minutes is somehow an ideal time span, I don't know why. Maybe because I've been brought up with lp's, which were mostly between 35 - 55 minutes, but then again... maybe it's in our biorhythm
 |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 16:02
| I prefer them under 50 minutes. |