The EP, is there a point?

For those of you that noticed, I wrote a review of Pain of Salvations Linoleum EP a few days ago and in it I stated that EP's were not something that I generally bought. For the most part, I cant see why they exist. If a band is going to go into the studio, why dont they spend the time to create a full album of new materiel rather than just 20+ minutes worth.

I suppose it's cheaper to release EPs? Maybe a band doesn't have enough resources to record, produce and release a full album at some point and doesn't want to leave its fans waiting too much; in this case an EP is a good solution.

How about material that left over material that can't become an album, but still deserves to be released?

Without going into the logistical aspects of LPs and EPs (I will leave that to Dean ), I'd just make a few quick comments:

EPs are favored by lots of fledgling indie artists also, because they are cheaper to record and produce, but still provides them with the benefit of an actual physical product.

EPs are also (ideally) great for getting a taste of an artist without spending a lot of money (except this isn't the case because you've got acts like Porcupine Tree selling EPs for $18.99, knowing they can).

What I think is silly is when a band makes an hour-long album and then calls it an EP.  That makes no sense.  To me, that's like writing a 100,000 word piece of fiction and then calling it a short story.

Anyway, to answer the original question, "Why not make a full album," I think there's plenty of ways to answer this:

1. The band only has 20 minutes of quality material.
2. The band does not want to add another 20 minutes of filler (and God bless them for that).
3. Fans might appreciate a "snack" to hold them over (as the original poster mentioned).
4. The material might serve as a standalone concept and the artists do not want to distract attention from it by adding additional material.
5. The band might like to try something out of their "comfort zone" (for lack of a better term).

A good EP is better than a bad album, so if artists decide to release them, why not.

Why do bands go into the studio to only record single disc albums? I think it's a waste of time if they don't record enough material for a double disc album. With enough bonus material for a third disc. And a making of DVD. And a full length feature film loosely based on the lyrical content of the album (or based on the abstract that inspired the music, etc.). And a novel based on the film, written in such a way to not only spawn a sequel, but generate a storyverse including the ability to produce action figures, posters, and multimedia based on the book (including, preferably, more double albums + bonus content + making of dvds).

Edited by TheGazzardian - January 02 2010 at 21:59

In a nut shell it can be summed up in one work "MONEY". The cost of recording  music is not cheap. Unless the band is doing it in their own studio on their own equipment, pro studio time is insanely expensive. Now add a producer's wage and the engineer's wage, and the more time you spend the more money you spend. Manufacturing costs are for the most part flat. Whether it's 1 song or 20, once the music is done (except for packaging) the cost is pretty much is static.

As stated in some previous posts, for indie bands it's a great jumping off point to get the gums wagging, For signed bands it's a marketing tool to get more money from the fan/collector/completest and perhaps unload some of the rather dubious tracks that would garner the ire of reviewers.

That being said, Peter Gabriel released a number of EP's around the Security time with extended tracks and remixes. These would never really fit into an album proper except possibly as "Bonus Tracks". In the case of these tracks specifically, I believe the intent was to give a "Club" version to DJ's. Most regular fans would more than likely be disgusted by the repetitive nature of the music as well as the heavy rhythm section in the mix since that's not what his music is most known for.

One of the other reasons for releasing EPs is nothing to do with full length albums, but with singles. Many labels wanted their bands to release singles: for a bit of chart success; some radio-play; recognition in the music press; to advertise a new album or to bolster sales of an existing one. Historically Prog bands didn't like singles much, so some released longer-format singles in the form of EPs and this tradition continues to some extent, though bands now have their own reasons for releasing them, or just tack them onto the album as a bonus disc (Riverside's Rapid Eye Movement for example) or as a later release (eg PT's Nil Recurring). In the UK during the 90s Mansun had a modicome of chart success on both the singles and album charts and in their brief career released 14 EPs but only 4 singles.

An EP full of new or unreleased songs is great. However, I don't really understand the musical value of EP's which have work on them which has already been released for the most part. The latter, I feel is nothing more than a collector's item.

I just bought an EP from one of my favorite bands because

A - it was on vinyl
B - it has a "rarity" b-side on it.

Collector's items, nothing more. We buy them, others may not. I'm even listening to an EP right now on vinyl (3 tracks on 2 sides) before having seen this thread.

At first glance, I thought this thread was "ELP, is there a point?"