I'm tired of (most) 79 minute albums!

Personally, I am in the "more music for my buck" the better faction.  In most instances what is released is either pretty high quality or at the very least serves a purpose.  A song might suck but they were trying to experiment with a new sound.  Or more likely, if we don't include at least one song written and sung by the bass player or drummer they will be unhappy and make our lives miserable so here it is. 

Edited by rushfan4 - November 23 2007 at 11:16

The T wrote: Yes. I am.

You should try Steve Roach's Darkest Before Dawn or Philip Glass's Music With Changing Parts.  Those would really drive you up the wall.

Depending on the album, I may be able to tolerate a little extra length... but something also found in vinyl albums, naturally, is 2 sides per album-- maybe partially what's so unlikeable is that there's no "break", or naturally ending/beginning whatever have you, between the 2 parts of a really long album.

I'm amazed to think that so many people believe that bands sit down and write filler, or deliberately load-up an album with worthless, throw away, second-rate songs just to make it longer. That's such a bizzare attitude, sure, Top-40 one-hit wonders produced by Simon Cowell would probably do that since most of their sales are singles-based and albums are of secondary importance, but no one in the album-based Prog world would do that, it doesn't make sense.

What are you going to think when we consistently get albums that are 10 hours long because the new medium allows for it?

Hm...something just came up my mind...

Edited by clarke2001 - November 23 2007 at 03:06

This is an interesting topic.  On one hand, it can seem pretentious if a band puts 80 minutes on an album- it's as if they're saying "we have all of this great music that's worth releasing."  But today, it can seem just as pretentious to release a 40-minute album- it's like saying "you album buyers should be happy with just 40 minutes of our wonderful material."

Of course another important thing is how good the music actually is, but this is a lot more subjective than people in the 79-minute-album debate often realize.  People always seem to say, for example, that The Lamb would have been a great single album but is a weak double album.  But when pressed on what would be cut, everyone has different opinions.  If Foxtrot and SEBTP had come out together as a double album, I'm sure people would have said the same thing.  Even 40-50 minute albums have their weak points, but they don't feel as much like "filler" since they're on shorter albums.

10 years ago, I preferred buying longer albums, but since there's so much more great music so easily available now, I think artists sort of owe it to people to trim their albums a little bit so that the listener doesn't have to devote 80 minutes of time to an album to give it a fair evaluation.

Of course, this is coming from someone who is about to release a 70-minute album, so I'm not exactly practicing what I preach.

I  don't think 80 minute long albums are that bad. Like KingCrimson776 said, you don't have to sit through the whole album in one listen.

I bought  Neal Morse - Sola Scriptura awhile ago.  I was luckily able to get a couple of listens to it uninterrupted.  Aside from those instances where I have lots of free time, I usual only listen to it in parts (in this case song by song). Mostly I get used to the album by playing it while working at my desk or other lengthy activities that require long hours of sitting. and doing work. I  end up listening to the good parts and drowning out filler.


And I also prefer some short albums as well. I'd take 30-50 and 60+

I think that the issue is highly subjective but I agree that some astists do overdo the length just for the sake of it.  However, not really that many do - I can't say that I have too many albums exceding 60 minutes and even fewer that I am bored with. 

I think that when it's a conceptual album 80+ minutes work. Lamb lies down, The Wall,Tommy and Quadaphenia those are all great albums.