| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Scrub 
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 28
|
 Topic: 79 minute albums...What do you think?
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  ...
|
 |
el böthy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 27 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
|
Posted: May 14 2007 at 14:44 |
THEY ARE TOOOOOOOOOOOO LONG... but Lateralus is a total masterpice... 
|
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
|
Bj-1
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 04 2005
Location: No(r)Way
Status: Offline
Points: 31318
|
Posted: May 14 2007 at 14:30 |
 stonebeard wrote:
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. |
Spot on!
|
|
RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on!
|
|
Abstrakt
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 18 2005
Location: Soundgarden
Status: Offline
Points: 18292
|
Posted: May 14 2007 at 10:07 |
martinn wrote:
I find even 60 minutes Albums way to long...the perfect range is 35 to 50 minutes IMO. |
I agree, if the album isn't fantastic.
|
|
Birdman
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 15 2007
Location: Québec, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 106
|
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)
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
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.
|
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
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
|
|
ozzy_tom
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 15 2006
Location: China/Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 754
|
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.
|
|
|
|
darksideof
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 22 2007
Location: Newark N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 2318
|
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!!!
Edited by darksideof - May 13 2007 at 13:30
|
|
http://darksideofcollages.blogspot.com/
http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Darksideof-Collages/
|
|
martinn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 09 2006
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 360
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Mikerinos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Planet Gong
Status: Offline
Points: 8890
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 22:25 |
coleio wrote:
I guess I'm too used to progressive metal...
|
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...
|
|
|
|
Ghandi 2
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 17 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1494
|
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.
|
|
Hyperborea
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 234
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 20:03 |
|
I personally have never heard 80 minutes of excellent material on one cd.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Hyperborea
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 234
|
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.
Edited by Hyperborea - May 12 2007 at 20:01
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
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.
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
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.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 07:19 |
Similar thread of mine....
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21143
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 07:08 |
rileydog22 wrote:
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.
|
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).
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 12 2007 at 07:08
|
|
|
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 31 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5964
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 06:44 |
rileydog22 wrote:
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.
|
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!
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
79 minute albums...What do you think?
