| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
coleio 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 272
|
 Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:23 |
|
Or not, I just can't be arsed through tiredness to explain myself, resulting in me 'babbling'.
|
|
Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!!
|
 |
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 31 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5964
|
Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:26 |
 coleio wrote:
Or not, I just can't be arsed through tiredness to explain myself, resulting in me 'babbling'.
|
I find it's best to refrain from posting in a thread if you can't be arsed to explain yourself. It's asking for trouble, really. 
|
|
coleio
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 272
|
Posted: May 11 2007 at 18:28 |
|
Very wise, with that I take my leave
|
|
Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!!
|
|
Witchwoodhermit
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 23 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 871
|
Posted: May 11 2007 at 19:23 |
Being born into the vinyl generation, my ears are well tuned to 45 minutes of music.
Anything else just seems overdone.
When it comes to double albums, I set aside that amount of time. Otherwise I may play just one disc, or not at all.
|
|
Here I'm shadowed by a dragon fig tree's fan
ringed by ants and musing over man.
|
|
con safo
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 17 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1230
|
Posted: May 11 2007 at 20:28 |
|
I personally find 79 minute albums too long, with a few exceptions. I usually like to listen to my cd's on the way to work, or walking to whereever i need to be, and rarely do i ever finish a 79 minute album, i most of the time listen in sections, or one part of the album is rarely listened to.
I think 40-60 minutes is just fine for an album
|
|
|
|
greenback
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 14 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3300
|
Posted: May 11 2007 at 20:51 |
the best ultra long album:
iq - subterranea
Edited by greenback - May 11 2007 at 20:52
|
|
[HEADPINS - LINE OF FIRE: THE RECORD HAVING THE MOST POWERFUL GUITAR SOUND IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF MUSIC!>
|
|
billbuckner
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 07 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: May 11 2007 at 22:41 |
|
45 minutes is the ideal length for a non-concept album.
Live albums, however, are best when in a triple-CD digipack.
|
|
King of Loss
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16442
|
Posted: May 11 2007 at 22:42 |
|
I don't care, but the Tangent's album last year was grand, along with some other albums.
|
|
memowakeman
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 19 2005
Location: Mexico City
Status: Offline
Points: 13032
|
Posted: May 11 2007 at 23:33 |
If you ask me, i prefer those 40 - 50 minute albums, but anyway i think that no matter the lenght, an album is good if it keeps you hooked the whole time, i love very short albums like Goblin`s Profondo Rosso, or Amarok by Oldfield which is very long.
So surely there are great and horrible 79 minute albums.
|
|
Follow me on twitter @memowakeman
|
|
chamberry
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 24 2005
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
Points: 9008
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 00:03 |
|
I'm with the majority here. I like shorter albums (short IMO are 50 minutes and lower). 60 minute are gladly welcomed too, but 70 and 80 minute albums need to have better material to keep me tuned in.
An example is Oceanzise - Effloresce. A wonderful album, but it's too long and quickly looses its interest after the 60 minute mark.
|
|
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 00:58 |
|
If you have 79 minutes of solid material, a 79 minute album is great. If you have 40 minutes of solid material, a 40 minute album is great. If you have 20 minutes of solid material, by all means a 20 minute EP is great. Album length doesn't matter so long as the music is good.
On a related note, why do people get so harsh on albums about a "filler" track? There's two possibilities:
1. You can't stand the song; you skip it. No problem for you at all.
2. You like it to some extent. It increases your enjoyment of the album.
Either way, you the album doesn't get worse for the inclusion of a weak track.
Edited by rileydog22 - May 12 2007 at 01:00
|
|
|
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 31 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5964
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 06:44 |
rileydog22 wrote:
On a related note, why do people get so harsh on albums about a "filler" track? There's two possibilities:1. You can't stand the song; you skip it. No problem for you at all.2. You like it to some extent. It increases your enjoyment of the album.Either way, you the album doesn't get worse for the inclusion of a weak track.
|
I must disagree with you there, riley. If I hear an album which has about 40 minutes worth of utter brilliance coupled with fifteen minutes of dull filler material my appreciation of that album is naturally decreased. Instead of the album being a start-to-finish burst of glory it is merely a good album with too much flab, to my ears.
I don't WANT to skip tracks on an album - it should be a complete and balanced work in its own right. If an artist can't seperate their weak material from their stronger stuff then why should I have to? Skipping tracks breaks the flow of an album, and thus naturally decreases one's appreciation of the listening experience. It is a last resort. Filler be damned!
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21198
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 07:08 |
rileydog22 wrote:
If you have 79 minutes of solid material, a 79 minute album is great. If you have 40 minutes of solid material, a 40 minute album is great. If you have 20 minutes of solid material, by all means a 20 minute EP is great. Album length doesn't matter so long as the music is good.
On a related note, why do people get so harsh on albums about a "filler" track? There's two possibilities:
1. You can't stand the song; you skip it. No problem for you at all.
2. You like it to some extent. It increases your enjoyment of the album.
Either way, you the album doesn't get worse for the inclusion of a weak track.
|
I tend to agree ... but it also depends on whether the filler tracks are an integral part of the album concept. For example I can tolerate fillers on most TFK double albums ... Flower Power is a very good album for the 60 minutes of Garden of Dreams alone, the second disc is a bonus and as such should have no influence on the rating of the album (or at least not a big influence).
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 12 2007 at 07:08
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 07:19 |
Similar thread of mine....
|
|
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 14:23 |
|
I'm lazy. An 80 minute CD means I don't have to get up for something like an hour & some minutes.
Hey, wait, I have a 5 disc player. I can stay seated for up to 400 minutes ....
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 15:08 |
|
I prefer my albums to be around 40 minutes. Up to 50 is okay depending on what music's on there, but after that I tend to get bored. There are exceptions of course.
|
|
Hyperborea
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 234
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 19:48 |
|
I come from a time when approx 40 minutes was the norm, rarely did it exceed (with the exception of the excellent KS). An awful lot of the 79 minutes stuff has filler time on it, but that shouldn't detract from the good music on it. I prefer vinyl to cd anyway, much easier to read the foot notes on the sleeves. As the writing on cd's means i have to borrow the hubble telescope to read them.
Edited by Hyperborea - May 12 2007 at 20:01
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 19:53 |
|
Hey--80 minutes of excellent material is better than 40 minutes of excellent material. However, bands that can pull of 80 minutes of excellent material are rare, if existent. 40-60 minutes is ideal for me, but it depends on the material and the band, of course.
|
|
|
|
Hyperborea
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 234
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 20:03 |
|
I personally have never heard 80 minutes of excellent material on one cd.
|
|
Mikerinos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Planet Gong
Status: Offline
Points: 8890
|
Posted: May 12 2007 at 22:25 |
coleio wrote:
I guess I'm too used to progressive metal...
|
There are plenty of '70s albums that are under 35 minutes... I've even seen some around 30 minutes and under. I'd rather have 30 minutes of excellent music than 60 minutes of music that's only good, but that's just me...
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
79 minute albums...What do you think?
