79 minute albums...What do you think?

I've reached the conclusion that, 8 times out of 10, a 79-minute album is just TOO long. There are cases of masterpieces that last that long and that make full use of the minutes, making those near 80 minutes seem like 40, but in general, I think the proper length for a record is around the 55-60 minute mark. Many 75+ albums are filled with meaningless noises or segues or just minutes of empty silence, or, even worse, weak, boring songs. I can think of many examples but one that strikes me is The Mars Volta. De-Loused is the only album by then that I think deserves to last more than 70 minutes, but Amputechture and Frances, they're too long, with lots of wasted minutes, with a few weak songs, and, specially Frances (the other I just don't like) could've been very good (IMHO!) with a trimming job. The same with cd's by band that I love like TFK.

Now, I remember some albums... I think  "Scenes From a Memory" (DT),... some Neal Morse's albums too... but i'm not sure.

I like albums around the 35 to 45 minute range so to me, a 79 minute album is actually a double album =P

I hope this isn't a thread about Klaus Schulze, cause he is simply masterliness...and 79 minutes worthwhile. 

coleio wrote: laplace wrote: I like albums around the 35 to 45 minute range Wow do you listen to prog? Awful

Yes. What? ;P

You're babbling man, snap out of it.

Well, when your whole case is "Awful", it's ample. ;P What's so awful about concise albums, as you'd put it?

My response to your liking of 35 minute albums was ineffable, explaining my lack of rationale.

It isn't really concise, just short I think it would always feel it was missing something, especially in prog. I mean there are probably Girls Aloud albums that are longer than that...

I had finished listening to Dream Theaters new album today, and that's over an hour long and I felt it was short, maybe it's just me...

I'm with laplace here, colelo. What on earth is un-proggy about listening to 35-45 minute albums? With only a handful exceptions that is the amount of music you could comfortably FIT on an LP. Anything more than that and you were indeed into double-album territory.

Gentle Giant never really went over 40 minutes on their studio releases and they were all the better for it. Every note MATTERED.

coleio wrote: My response to your liking of 35 minute albums was ineffable, explaining my lack of rationale. It isn't really concise, just short I think it would always feel it was missing something, especially in prog. I mean there are probably Girls Aloud albums that are longer than that... I had finished listening to Dream Theaters new album today, and that's over an hour long and I felt it was short, maybe it's just me...

So you're not actually making examples of bad albums that last less than forty minutes, but incredibly, just stating that short albums are awful?

At least if you'd stated an opinion such as "artists don't have sufficient time to vary their themes over such a short duration" or even "CDs that hold less than an hour's worth of music are overpriced" I'd care, but either way, the band themselves decided on the album's length so it's a complete work of art as given. So as it is... you're babbling, man, snap out of it. =P