Can albums be too long ??

To me an album is over long when it contains too much filler. I am perfectly content with GG albums that are short, all the way up to the 80 minute TFTO. If the music feels like it has lost it's "drive" or passion or w/e you want to call it, then that music should be cut from the album.A good examples iare most pop albums, where you can clearly tell the hit of the album from the filler.

ProGR72 wrote: If the album's good, there's no such problem as "too long album", I think

Couldn'tve said it better myself!

40 minutes is NOT the perfect length for an album, it's just that around 44 minutes of a single record, the record would lose quality. Van der Graaf was notorious for making albums around 51 minutes length in 1976, and such. Now, that the CD is out, the most you can do is 80 minutes, and after that it is just impossible to burn on.

Unfortunately - yes - some albums can be too long. Double cd's tend to be the worst. Frankly, I inveritably listen to the first cd on a two cd set and either ignore or fall asleep during the second cd.  I cite the recent release of Dream Theatre as a prime example and others such as "Snow" by Spock's Beard and TLLDOB by Genesis. I really think that anything over 70 mins is stretching the concentration and listening power of most. Annoyingly, it requires several listens to actually hear the album as a whole or in my case, if it has not been absorbed by then, the album ends up on the "may-be later" pile.

There is of course the other extreme. Can an album be too short?

I was listening to Van Halens 1984, the other day, having just bought the CD to replace my vinyl copy. I'd forgotten it was only about 35 mins! Still a good album, though.

Blacksword wrote: There is of course the other extreme. Can an album be too short? I was listening to Van Halens 1984, the other day, having just bought the CD to replace my vinyl copy. I'd forgotten it was only about 35 mins! Still a good album, though.

Well, if you were a death-metal fan, you could scream "Thieves!" at Deicide: most of their albums are under the 30 minutes! In the same time, French death-metallers Loudblast called the 29 minutes "Cross the Threshold" an EP.
I prefer the honesty of my fellow countrymen.

The CD version of "1984" is only 35 minutes long? VH never released some b-sides? This information makes me nearly glad to never have bought any Iron Maiden CD until now: there are plenty of bonus tracks on the new CD versions! And the Iron Maiden are NEVER too long.

As others have said, it's not about the absolute length but about whether the band is inventive enough to hold your attention for whatever be the album's length. Reign In Blood - not prog! - is one of the shortest albums I have heard and I get bored halfway until the title track comes to lift the proceedings. 

It depends on your listening habits.  I listen to music on my ipod when I take my dog for a walk. The walk lasts about an hour, and I like to listen to an album from start to finish.  If the album is much longer than an hour, I find I can't squeeze all the tracks in, which is most unsatisfactory.  So, yes I think some albums are too long.  For me 60 minutes is the perfect length.  78 minutes is frustratingly overlong.

progrules wrote: Soul Dreamer wrote: The answer to the question is Yes, an album can be too long, especially when while playing it you get the feeling that it's getting boring, while you like the music generally...TFK is notorious for this (for me).    Strange enough I agree with you on this one. Strange because I'm a huge TFK fan. But yes they have several dispensable songs on all of their releases. But I do wonder what you would think of the example I mentioned. I'd say check out Martigan and I'm curious what you would say about the length then !

Martigan's album Vision isn't a minute too long, I love it from beginning to end. It's the best neo album in years...

Blowin Free wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnium_(album%29