| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Logos 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 2383
|
 Topic: 40 or 80?
Posted: May 07 2005 at 16:54 |
It really depends on what album you're listening to.
For example, Frances the Mute and Shpongle's debut album both last
around 75 minutes, but I never get bored listening to them. And then
there are those damn ELP albums. Tarkus and Brain Salad Surgery are
both around 40-45 minutes, but both have at least 2-3 fillers.. 
|
 |
Tony
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 01 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 108
|
Posted: May 07 2005 at 13:51 |
|
40-50 minutes is just the right. Below 40 it's too short and over it *can* kinda drag and be filled with... filler.
There are exceptions though. The new TMV lasts around 91 minutes
(including the title track) and it never drags on. Tool's Lateralus
lasts like 79:50 and it's great from start to finish.
|
|
Man With Hat
Collaborator
Jazz-Rock/Fusion/Canterbury Team
Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166178
|
Posted: May 07 2005 at 11:48 |
|
I do enjoy the 40-50 minuet CDs most often. But there are times, where i want to listen to someting longer. I don't know why. Also, with longer stuff you get more songs (for the most part). I like that as well. But i have nothing agenst the 45 min. album. All the best ones were that long.
|
|
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
|
|
goose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
|
Posted: May 07 2005 at 10:03 |
Anything less than an hour seems to end too soon - I guess I'm just too used to long CDs/bootlegs.
|
|
Yams
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 16 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 198
|
Posted: May 06 2005 at 19:03 |
|
40-50 minutes is good. 60 minutes is too much, but anything less than 35 minutes is too little.
|
|
Arsillus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7374
|
Posted: May 06 2005 at 18:54 |
The 40 minute album had it right. It just seems to me, that "prog" albums these days, that are 60+ mintues, just seem to have too much filler material. Whether that be in mediocre songs or passages of particular songs that could be omitted, it doesn't matter. It just seems to me that with the 40 minute album, you get the best of the best of what the band had to offer- because they only had 40 minutes.
|
|
Reed Lover
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
|
Posted: May 06 2005 at 15:50 |
 gdub411 wrote:
Reed Lover wrote:
gdub411 wrote:
Give me quantity. Thats what the skip button is for if ya don't care for a song.
|
So my friend,are we to believe that with you only length matters?
|
I like to get a full mouthful...err I mean earful, yes.
|
I'm not swallowing that!
|
|
|
|
gdub411
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3484
|
Posted: May 06 2005 at 15:45 |
Reed Lover wrote:
gdub411 wrote:
Give me quantity. Thats what the skip button is for if ya don't care for a song.
|
So my friend,are we to believe that with you only length matters?
|
I like to get a full mouthful...err I mean earful, yes.
|
|
Reed Lover
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
|
Posted: May 06 2005 at 15:41 |
gdub411 wrote:
Give me quantity. Thats what the skip button is for if ya don't care for a song.
|
So my friend,are we to believe that with you only length matters?
|
|
|
|
gdub411
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3484
|
Posted: May 06 2005 at 15:36 |
Give me quantity. Thats what the skip button is for if ya don't care for a song.
|
|
JMCecil
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 210
|
Posted: May 06 2005 at 15:04 |
|
I have yet to hear anything that merits the extra 20+ minutes. I also think there was something much more involving about listening to records. Everything from the artwork, to the liner notes, cleaning them before and after play, buying special protectors for them all the way through the process of getting up to turn the disc over. It made it much more a personal process. I think a lot of the attention to details has gone away in favor of attention to more stuff. I don't see many people sitting down in front of the stereo with a beer and just listening to an album for an evening. And if they do they f**king talk the entire time. STFU and listen damn it!!!
|
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
|
Posted: May 06 2005 at 14:53 |
|
The problem with 40s was that they were two 20s. Just as you were settling down and relaxing, you had to get up and turn the damn thing over!
|
|
Jim Prog Wizard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 23 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 134
|
Posted: May 05 2005 at 08:07 |
I think that shorter, 40-minute vinyls were good in the sense that they forced bands to pick their best material for an album, thus jettisoning any filler (in theory). The flip-side of that argument is that one man's filler can be another man's great tune, so potentially some good material was kept off albums due to time constraints.
In terms of how long an album should be, it really depends on the music. I can listen to an 80 minute album just as easily as a 40 minute one, provided the material on it is good enough to warrant lasting that long. Examples of great 70+ min albums being "Space Revolver" by TFK, and "One" by Neal Morse. If, however, an artist runs out of ideas around the 35 min mark, they shouldn't feel obligated to write a load of filler, just to make up the CD running time.
|
|
"Progressive Rock is the ultimate form of music" (Mikael Akerfeldt, 2003)
|
|
Velvetclown
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 8548
|
Posted: May 05 2005 at 07:40 |
I´m only 53 
|
|
Jools
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 159
|
Posted: May 05 2005 at 07:32 |
|
I agree, most of my fave albums are around the 40 minutes mark and I do have the attention span (I can listen to Brave in one sitting) but it just seems shorter albums tend to have more consistent material. A good example is Moving Pictures which is about 39 minutes, any more or any less just wouldn't have been right.
|
|
Ridicule is the burden of genius.
|
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 31 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5964
|
Posted: May 05 2005 at 07:31 |
If an album is more than 50 minutes then it usually loses a lot of its punch, I find. Anything over that and I feel you're almost destined to enter into the realms of filler. Just ocassionally you'll get an 80 minute or so album that feels genuinely worthwhile (a few double albums from the 70s, at least) but even then I can't listen to it all in one go. It's wearisome, and I'll want a change of style. Bands shouldn't feel pressurised into filling up a CD - just make the music you want to make and storage capacity be damned!
No one should ever charge more than six pounds for a CD though. And four of those should go directly to the artist's pockets.
|
|
radiognome3
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 92
|
Posted: May 05 2005 at 07:04 |
For me it has to do with what format I happen to be listening to. 40-45 minutes is great for vinyl because that is the limit, but I have gotten to the point that if a CD is less than at least 60 minutes, I feel cheated.
If a CD can have up to 80 minutes of music, bring it on. If I can't listen to the whole thing in one go, then I will listen to the rest, or en toto, later. I bought the digipack reissue of The Dead's Aoxomoxa the other day, and was happy to see a running time of, I think, 78 minutes or so. And what bonus material!
But, be that as it may, I really do feel ripped off these days if the running time of a CD is 60 miutes or less. Oh, and I am talking about new(er) CDs or expanded reissues, not older releases as originally released.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: May 05 2005 at 06:14 |
lostrom wrote:
A duoble on one cd is rather nice and you don't have to fill the hole cd with music. So, it depends from album to album...I prefer cd! |
Wether you prefer CD is not the question. What length do you prefer. Sometimes even with my favourite bands, after 60 mins it gets a bit much. I do love the value of a crammed Cd though!
|
|
|
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:29 |
|
A duoble on one cd is rather nice and you don't have to fill the hole cd with music. So, it depends from album to album...I prefer cd!
|
|
Reed Lover
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
|
Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:11 |
Great thread Snow Dawg!
Like most here I too believe that albums were far better when they lasted around 40 mins.
Using my favourite band Rush as an example,you can see that their best albums 2112------Signals came during the era when 35-45 minutes was seen as about right for an album length.
These albums contain very few "fillers",and there is more stylistic variety.
Once we hit the CD led mid eighties the track count heads past 10 and suddenly the albums dont seem as good any more (although album length is not necessarily the only reason.)The pressure to record 60-70 minutes of quality new material is obviously a strain on many bands,but unfortunately there would probably be a backlash if bands went back to 40 mins.
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
40 or 80?
