"Filler" tracks on prog albums

As far as I am concerned an album lasting 77 mins is simply too long (there was a debate almost two years ago about the idealalbum lenght and surprisingly the results was close to 40 mins - the lenght of a vinyl)

Edited by Sean Trane - May 04 2006 at 05:06

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I just read a review of Tool - 10,000 Days ... the reviewer complained about two tracks that he called "filler": Lipan Conjuring and Viginti Tres. My problem with that is: The album has a play time of 77 minutes! Even if one doesn't like these tracks, I don't think that they should be taken into account when determining a rating for the album. IMO it's just additional content that shouldn't affect the rating - wouldn't it be awkward if the album was rated higher if they had left out these tracks?

Of course they should. Take another example - a 40 minute album with 10 minutes of pure sh*te. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration when reviewing the album ? Anyway, this is one of the reasons that the rating of an album isn't adequate. I would rather listen to an album with 20 minutes of amazing music, than one with 40 minutes of average music. But with the rating system, they would both get the same score.

If you are talking about bonus tracks , then please state so!

Edited by Sean Trane - May 04 2006 at 05:12

I love These " Filler" Tracks. I don´t like albums having one killer song after the other (that sounds like a Compilation Or Best-Of Album (I personally hate Best of Albums and think they shouldn´t be included in the archives to me)

A really good Album has to be listened to from beginning to end end and has to be homogene all the time and has to have short resting breaks after total freak-outs

I think that the usual definition of a filler track is: a track that is weaker than the others (lower quality, not just lower complexity/technicality or interlude/intro/outro) and has been put on the album in order to increase the playtime. Like the artist thought "I only have 30 minutes worth of music ... let's goof around a bit, play some blues/rock song/whatever and add these songs to the album until we have 45 minutes".

IMO that type of filler track should most definitely be taken into account when rating the album, as it lowers the quality of the album. But if an artist decides to publish 60 minutes of quality music on an album and then also adds outtakes/bonus tracks on the remaining 15 minutes of the CD, these should not be held against him.

^ I don't mind the word at all. But I agree that it is often applied too easily.

Think of a hidden track that contains 10 minutes of silence and then a door clapping. Now if I have to rate such a track (on my website for example, where you rate tracks not albums) I cannot give this track a high rating. But I would feel bad if this track was considered in computing the album average.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Think of a hidden track that contains 10 minutes of silence and then a door clapping. Now if I have to rate such a track (on my website for example, where you rate tracks not albums) I cannot give this track a high rating. But I would feel bad if this track was considered in computing the album average.

oddentity wrote: I hate the word "filler".  I think it's disrespectful to the artists involved to call what they have worked hard to create "filler".   Sometimes it might be justified, but all too often reviewers lazily throw the word "filler" at tracks they don't comprehend and haven't taken the time to appreciate.     So much of it is subjective.   What is one's man's filler is another man's meat and potatoes.    Ideally, a reviewer should, when faced with a track they initially dislike, take it upon himself to understand the intentions of the band in creating it, as well as their overall vision.   Simply dismissing it as "filler" is mindless and doesn't benefit anyone.    The word needs to be expunged from the dictionary!   -

Edited by oddentity - May 04 2006 at 07:44