I'm tired of (most) 79 minute albums!

For me, albums are an experience. If you fill them will music that has no substance and is just there to fill space, I don't see the point.

There is only so much good work an artist can do with 80 minutes at their disposal. The occasional inclusion of an album of this length, only integral to a work's substance, is acceptable to me. Bands feel they need to use all 80 minutes, but I'd rather they spend a long time working on a solid 35-50 minutes than the same time working on 80 minutes with less focus on refining their music.

I love long albums! I would rather pay the 15 dollars for a CD that is filled than pay the same for a disc with only 40 minutes. I like to think of it very economically -- more bang for my buck! 

I have a big problem with listening to Ayreon's The Human Equation because it's too damn long, and the quality of the music doesn't make up for that.  I find it difficult to sit through all of it (though I haven't listened to it in a while).  I think the ideal length of an album is between 50 and 65 minutes, that's my opinion.  

I prefer 35-45 minute albums myself. Quality over quantity!

I think 79 minutes of music, for the most part, is significantly better then when a older album is re-release with "bonus" tracks, and for those part, I fail to see what the bonus is. 

Yep. Happens to me too. The whole reason I can't seem to enjoy DT's Scenes From A Memory is because it lasts for sooooo long it gets pretty tedious. I prefer prog albums to be in between 30 to 50 minutes (unless it's a double album or something)

The T wrote: King of Loss wrote: The times albums lasted 40-50 minutes is because vinyls couldn't store more than 60 minutes   I know, but that doesn't mean that, just because you CAN put 80 minutes of music in a cd, you HAVE to do it...

...unless it is a collection (like compilations, live albums, greatest hits).
Ex: Supernatural Fiarytales set - each of the 5 discs has only about one hour of music on it!

I generally find myself listening to shorter albums more, often for the previously mentioned reason that I don't have a straight 80 minutes in which to listen to music. However, if an album is consistently good throughout, I don't care how long it is, and it will often be a source of many songs to enjoy as individual songs. I feel like I get my money's worth when buying a longer album, as well.

Yeah, I share the same view. The Flower Kings are consistent offenders, IMHO. If they just cut their albums down I think they'd be much better thought of. There are some moments of prog brilliance amidst some aimless filler on most of their work, particularly the last few albums. 'Unfold The Future', 'Flower Power', 'The Rainmaker', 'Adam And Eve' and 'Paradox Hotel' I find to be particularly noteworthy in this respect. The latest, 'The Sum Of No Evil', despite having no obvious 'fillers' (unlike anything else they've done since 'Space Revolver', IMHO) I still feel overstayed its welcome a little. (However, DT's 'Systematic Chaos' was nearly 80 minutes but I can handle that all the way through...it's simply the only album of theirs I can say that about, funnily enough) 

For a CD, I think around 50-60 minutes is the ideal length, and I think 60 minutes is often pushing it. Most of my favourite albums this year have been just the right length, IMHO- Porcupine Tree's 'Fear Of A Blank Planet' and Rush's 'Snakes And Arrows' spring to mind, as well as Fish's 'The Thirteenth Star' which was around 50 minutes or so; no filler whatsoever, every song stands up. But his previous effort 'Field Of Crows' has a fair amount of weaker material on it, IMHO, and that's nigh on 75 minutes. In other words, I feel quality is far more important than the quantity.

Edited by salmacis - November 22 2007 at 03:58

The T wrote: I know the needs for artistic expression demand more.. time... or resources.. or whatever. But sometimes it's just pretentiousness of artists who really think all they write is good. Yes, even Roine Stolt sometimes suffers from this (even though I love his music so much that I happen to enjoy his elephantistic albums).... But what about the times when albums lasted 40-50 minutes? What about some balance? Some equilibrium? Not EVERYHTING has to be 80 minutes long!