Can albums be too long ?? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Luca Pacchiarini View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 08 2009
Location: home
Status: Offline
Points: 530

Posted: July 23 2009 at 16:43

progrules wrote:

Can albums be too long?

Of course, every Dream Theater album which is longer than 3 seconds bores me to death

Vompatti

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67458

Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:29

Long albums, even the ones with practically no weak songs on them, are often either repetitive or incoherent. (Most Tori Amos albums seem to be both. Sleepy

) I'd rather buy a 30-minute album than an 80-minute album I will never listen to.

harmonium.ro View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989

Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:28

Definitely. Check the Mars Volta albums no.3 and 4 to see why. LOL

Blacksword View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130

Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:17

progrules wrote:

I have read this so many times last few months and I can hardly believe it when I see it in reviews. Many reviewers claim that over 70 minute albums (or doublers) are way too long and it annoys them Confused

An often mentioned argument is that in the seventies there were just vinyls and they had the perfect length (40 minutes).

Personally I don't get this criticism. To me an album can't be long enough, especially if all the music is worthwhile (which is for instance the case with Martigan's Vision lasting 79 terrific minutes). And also simple maths speak in the advantage of long albums. I rather pay $ 20 for 80 minutes than for 40 minutes of music. So that's why I don't understand the criticism. Do you ? Please give sensible arguments.

Yes, an album can be too long if the music isn't all worthwhile, but I guess it's subjective whether the music is worthwhile. As an example I think Frances the Mute by TMV could be shorter, and have less 'filler' in the form of noise, but that's just my opinion..

I'd rather an album clock in around 40 - 45mins, and be comprised of all memorable music. Thankfully most CD's I buy or albums I download are all pretty cheap anyway, so I rarely feel short changed.

The Sleepwalker View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 03 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 15141

Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:13

In most cases, I don't mind it if an album is lengthy, a good example of this are Tool's albums. Their albums got as many minutes of music on them as the disc can hold (somewhere between 70 and 80). Also, on some fantastic albums, like Porcupine Tree's FOABP (that lasts only 50 minutes) I wish there was more music on the album. For songs comparable to the songs on FOABP I now have to buy the Nil recurring EP, that contains only 30 minutes of music and costs only €3 less than FOABP (FOABP €19.99 and Nil Recurring €16.99)... I guess that's marketing... However, in some cases an album is good enough being not too long. For example Pink Floyd's WYWH, I don't think an extra song would do the album much good, as it is perfect as it now is. The same thing is with other albums, Foxtrot, DSOTM, Pawn Hearts, etc. Also, I think it's pretty annoying if an album is too long and that's affecting you listening the album. the Lamb, for example, contains lots of songs meant to tell the story if the album, but are musically very weak. This way I have to skip through the story of the album, making the emotion of the album fade away a bit. Same thing with The Wall.

Moogtron III View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 26 2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 10616

Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:10

I remember Genesis got some critique (this time I mean outside PA) for Calling All Stations, that there were some fillers on it. Phil Collins defended the album by saying that these days there's more music on a cd than on an album in the early days.So I think Epignosis has a point.

But there are two sides to it. You can use the skip button, of course. Choose what you like from the abundance of songs on an album. But let at least 45 minutes of your album be quite good. Does this sound satisfying? Not completely to me. So I think in the end I agree with Epignosis. Artists, learn to edit, and bring quality instead of quantity. If you have 45 minutes of brilliant material, leave it with that. If you have 80 minutes of material, so much the better.

I'm still surprised that quite some of my favourite Italian albums are only around 30 minutes. They don't sound like they do!

Funny, I remember someone from Yes (Jon Anderson) say that Tales would have been better made if cd was the standard in those days: the album could have been like 50 or 60 minutes. And then people wouldn't complain about the album being to stretched out. (To be honest: I like Tales as it is). So in that case the cd would have been ideal.

CPicard

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841

Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:06

I think that the genre can play a little part: the history of punk and hardcore are full of great LPs, but a lot of people prefer to stick to the singles. Some bands can turn really annoying from a certain length (I never could stand the Ramones' albums!)
Now, to answer to the topic, are 70 minutes too long? It can be and it depends of various things: your tastes (of course), how you feel today, etc. For me, some 40 minutes long album can be really too long to listen to!

lazland

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13800

Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:03

I can see where Robert is coming from, but, to my mind, it's not really a question of whether it is too long, just whether it is good. TFTO is not too long, but I don't rate sides two & three, so would have preferred a single album with Revealing & Ritual. I am really enjoying the Flower Kings at the moment, so I don't really consider the length.

Edited by lazland - July 23 2009 at 14:13

Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553

Posted: July 23 2009 at 13:57

Yes, an album can too long, just the same as a novel can be too long. I say trim the fat of both.

The Flower Kings are notorious for this (to me- others will disagree, and that's fine of course). Albums with more than an hour's worth of music ask a lot of a listener (who listens to albums, not songs). Paradox Hotel kills me. I absolutely love about five or seven tracks on that album, but it's a double disc loaded with stuff that really should've hit the cutting room floor ("Bavarian Skies?" Really?).

Part of being an artist I think comes from know what to cut. For my album, I must have written over two hours worth of stuff over the course of years. Had I thrown all of that onto one album, it would've been a mess. Instead, I carefully considered what belonged and what didn't. That doesn't mean I can't save some of this music for another release (indeed I aim to), but cramming everything you did onto one disc just because you can usually leads to a crappy result.

Not in every case though...my favorite album is Tales from Topographic Oceans.

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

progrules

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 14 2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 958

Posted: July 23 2009 at 13:48

I have read this so many times last few months and I can hardly believe it when I see it in reviews. Many reviewers claim that over 70 minute albums (or doublers) are way too long and it annoys them Confused

An often mentioned argument is that in the seventies there were just vinyls and they had the perfect length (40 minutes).

A day without prog is a wasted day