I'm tired of (most) 79 minute albums!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=43695
Printed Date: February 05 2025 at 17:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: I'm tired of (most) 79 minute albums!
Posted By: The T
Subject: I'm tired of (most) 79 minute albums!
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:11
Yes. I am. 
Really, there was a time when you could expect to listen to your newly purchased prog masterpiece (or that you expected it to be a masterpiece) without having to set your agenda, to alter your whole day, to forget about the rest of mankind for almost 80 minutes! The problem is, while there are a lot of magnificent 79 minute albums, most of them are harmed by the length. It's not the rule that artists manage to put out 80 minutes of pure quality, but an exception.
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!  ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:12
The times albums lasted 40-50 minutes is because vinyls couldn't store more than 60 minutes 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:16
I know, but that doesn't mean that, just because you CAN put 80 minutes of music ina cd, you HAVE to do it... -------------
|
King of Loss wrote:Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:18
|
Here, here!. I hate 75 + albums. Bring back the 45s or some of those cute 30 EPs I'm beginning to like so much... ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:24
Well, I'm definitely not. Klaus Schulze is best when filling every second of the CD with sound, samples and such. 
------------- 
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:30
Yeah, but most artists choose, cause they can make more songs you know!
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:43
|
Too much prog music for your money? This is a problem? ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:45
|
I've found this true in most cases. The longer the album is the more chances the artist has to fail to impress me. ------------- sig |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:59
| I prefer short albums (35-45 minutes) in general, but there are some cases I feel an album should've been much longer. Albums longer than one hour do tend to drag a bit towards the end. |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:59
|
No to mention, forget about designing the whole listening experience and just put a lot of songs togheter instead. I fail to listen such long albums everytime, leaving 5 track out of my atention for months. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:08
| You're dead right where the Flower Kings are concerned, hell, I usually get tired of their music after ten minutes, they're so O-VER-IN-SIS-TENT, but in the past year I got to know two fairly recent prog albums which are over 70 minutes long (I think) and incredibly inventive from start to finish: Discus' TOT LICHT and Deluge Grander's AUGUST IN THE URALS. Talkin' 'bout Prog Heaven? Well, it exists! |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:10
I hear what you are saying. Some Prog just lacks diversity. Or the sound gets tedious. The most recent victim of this is DT's latest studio release. I had hoped to hear so much more from such outstanding musicians. And as much as I like Devin Townsend, he also seems to lack sonic diversity with Ziltoid.
One album I can't rave enough about, not sure if it's 80 minutes or not, is Kino's Picture. After about a year, it still retains it's magic to me. And I really enjoy Rush's SnA release.
Overall, an album that is put together well and lasts 50-60 minutes exceeds any production of 80 minute rehashed material. The idea of filling up a CD for the sake of doing it is nonsense.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:17
|
I really hate this, I start listening from the beggining but then after a while get bored and turn it off, next time I play it I start from the beggining again and the same thing happens, it can take up to ten listens for me to make it to the last track, and then I wished I had heard it earlyer, especially if its the best. ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:21
|
Oh well, in the age of MP3 it's only a temporary problem
Just kidding
 , though there may be an element of truth in it. Paul Simon once said in an interview that he found out that 45 minutes is the perfect time span to listen to an album. And I agree with The T: most artists are not able to make an 80 minutes album which is good overall. |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:22
|
Nothing like that good old Brain Salad Surgery album. It ends when you need it; it lets you breathe, you get enough pauses and a whide musical range to let your mind play. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:39
| Just depends on who does it. If Fear of A Blank Planet and Nil Recurring were crammed together...I'd find a way to give it a 6.0 on this site. |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:39
| For the topic's sake, yes, they are getting a tad bit boring and fail to impress me. |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:47
I would have given it two stars, I thought that PT wasn't able to sustain the consept that long as it was. ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:54
You're describing the vinyl edition of FoaBP ...  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aotm-2025-1/vote" rel="nofollow - 2025 Monthly Release Poll Listened to: 
|
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:01
| It's not like you have to sit through the whole album in one sitting, it's just more music |
Posted By: paloz
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:04
| Yes, not all cd have to be over 80 minutes. For example, for me Scenes from a memory should have been cut of 20-25 minutes, and it would have been perfect. But there are also great 70-80 cds that need them (and have the right to be like that). Some examples: "Trout Mask Replica", "Tommy", "The Wall", all Godspeed etc... |
Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:21
|
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:25
|
I'm with you Teo. Most artists need an edit job prior to releasing their magnum opus....They don't have as much to say as they think they do.
------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: Inverted
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:27
|
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!
------------- Prog... It's good. |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:47
|
I agre that their are not many very good 75+ minute albums out there, but they do exist. I have also come across the reverse problem, a number of modern albums that are just too short, with only 45-50 minutes (obviously, I dont apply this to albums that were originoly released as vynil).
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:53
| 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. |
Posted By: cynthiasmallet
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:57
|
Marillion have the right idea, excluding "La Gazza Ladra", I think "Clutching at Straws" was their longest with Fish, and that's only, what, 50 minutes long? ------------- Would you like to watch TV, or get between the sheets, or contemplate the silent freeway, would you like something to eat? |
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 18:18
|
I prefer 35-45 minute albums myself. Quality over quantity! ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 18:38
|
I agree that 75+ min. albums are hard to maintain a high-quality level all the way through However, I can draw many examples of 75+ min. masterpieces... I don't really have a 'desired record length' as my top albums range from 35 to 80 mins  , most of them being somewhere in the middle... |
Posted By: khammer99
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 19:16
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. 
------------- Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up. - Terry Pratchett |
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 19:50
|
I see the point to this thread however I like a full CD I would just prefer they save the highly indulgent noodling and risky stuff for the end of the CD so the first 50 minutes is great, that way I could bail out when I feel like it and still enjoy the main body of the CD .
|
Posted By: Hans
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 22:04
| 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) |
Posted By: johnobvious
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 22:17
|
Complain to God for giving you a short attention span. The longer the better for me. If I like the artist, I will trust their judgement that they won't put crap on an album just to fill it up. Too much music. Oh for that to be the worst of my problems. ------------- Biggles was in rehab last Saturday |
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 00:11
...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! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 01:19
|
A lot of the music released today would have been a double album back in the day. I much prefer the 50 minute albums myself, maybe that's why i'm not a big fan of bonus tracks. But there are always exceptions to the rule. ------------- "The wind is slowly tearing her apart" "Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 01:45
|
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.
As with most, I'd prefer a consise, short album to a long album with the same ideas drawn out over 80 minutes, but, similarly, I'd prefer a complete album that doesn't limit its length to a short album that feels incomplete.
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 03:04
http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=9180 - http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=9180
But I prefer shorter ones. 35 might be too short; 45-50 is just fine; 55 is the maximum.
Of course, there are excellent 75-80 mins albums, but I haven't found a masterpiece of this size yet (I'm not counting occasional double vinyls).
------------- |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 03:56
|
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. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 04:08
Pah! What tosh. I get more upset by artists putting too little music on a CD than too much. The number of times I bought a 35 minute album and been left wanting more by the end of it by far out-weighs the number of times I've turned off a 80 minute album because it was boring me. You can always cut tracks from a long album, but you can never add music to a short one. 
This is Prog for heaven sakes, it's supposed to be long and indulgent - train yourself to improve your attention span and not to complain about the generousity of the artists in providing too much music. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Casartelli
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 04:14
"Elephantistic" is quite a good description of a Flower Kings album. At first I read "Elephantastic" which I found less appropriate.
Agreed with the majority here. I prefer to see an album as a whole (regardless of whether it's a 'pure' concept album or not) and not as a set of songs in which I have to make my own selection. So artists, please only release what's worth releasing and not what's physically possible to be released.
|
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 04:48
|
I agree with the topic creator, 30-50 minute albums are generally more coherent and usually the material is the absolute best of the artist at the time. These days artists seem quite reluctant to cut songs from albums even though this is one of the most important parts of constructing a good album.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Marwin
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 05:59
|
I totally agree here long albums tend to feel forced in a way and are never quite the masterpiece as shorter ones. Of course there are exceptions
------------- http://myspace.com/toxicmindfin http://myspace.com/porcelainprog |
Posted By: lightyearday
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 08:09
|
I make this point on my site actually;
due to the sonic limitations of vinyl, albums couldn’t really be much longer than, on average, 40 minutes - 20 minutes per side. (This was one of the reasons the double album, then triple album became so popular at the time).
Now I have to admit, I don’t have the time to sit and listen to a 70 minute CD. In addition, my experience is that artists tend to over-populate their albums with songs and pieces of music that, had there been more stringent restrictions on album lengh, simply wouldn’t have been selected.
I also think ( and this is only an opinion) that this goes a long way to understanding why there are so many classic albums from the 70’s and early 80’s, but fewer since the advent of CD; Quality control! You had only so much space on your record, so you made sure it was the best material you had at that time. Of course, it also explains why classic artists from this time could have 6 albums out in 4 years; in this day and age of 2007, it’s not unusual for an album to appear only every 4 years from a major artist. ------------- If you like the music of Rick Wakeman and ELP go to www.myspace/grahambholley - www.myspace/grahambholley |
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 09:04
35-55 minutes = 
65-80 minutes = 
But surely it depends 
|
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 12:07
  Much agreed! (Need to have been longer: Close To The Edge, CSNY's "Deja Vu", The Six Wives of Henry VIII.... etc.)-------------
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 12:20
|
Yeah, sometimes it's hard to get through a super long album likeall of Tools or GY!BE. I feel the best timed albums are the fifty minuete long ones, easy to digest, and at the same time can pack an epic or two. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 12:30
|
Very few is any artists can pull off 80 minutes of solid material.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: endlessepic
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 12:45
|
I agree with the original poster. I bought "Amputechture" by TMV and found it very difficult to enjoy all the way through, I bought "Close To The Edge" for the same price, which is way shorter in overall length and I didn't feel cheated in the least. If TMV had just picked the best of that album I would have enjoyed it more than throwing millions of hours of music on there. However, if ELP had made a 79 minute album in between Trilogy and Brain Salad Surgery I think I would enjoy every second. |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 13:02
|
The longer the beter.. and some filler is always nice. ------------- 
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 13:15
| I think that when it's a conceptual album 80+ minutes work. Lamb lies down, The Wall,Tommy and Quadaphenia those are all great albums. |
Posted By: Astrodomine
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 13:23
 True |
Posted By: cacha71
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 14:41
|
I think that the issue is highly subjective but I agree that some astists do overdo the length just for the sake of it. However, not really that many do - I can't say that I have too many albums exceding 60 minutes and even fewer that I am bored with.
I agree with one of the previous posts, though, which points out that vinyls were often restrictive and left you wanting more. I'm sure there were often times when artists wished they had just that five minutes extra space! It must be pointed out that artists then always had the option of making a double album (in which case they had to come up with another 40 minutes of equally inspired material to fill the second record!), whereas now there is more flexibility.
Having said all this, 80 minutes is an awful long time to hold the attention of the audience and any artist who manages to do this is truly great! ------------- http://www.last.fm/group/Progressive+Folk |
Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 14:46
For many people, including me, albums are an experience and they MUST be listened in one sitting. If albums as we know them generally carry a certain feeling or concept, it's extremely difficult to create them in this manner without it getting old. I'd rather get 40 minutes from a band every 2 years than 80 minutes every 2 years. Listening involves a listener's interpretation of the meaning of me music, and when you make albums that are too long to follow, you cut this process short of what it could be. -------------
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 18:24
|
I don't think 80 minute long albums are that bad. Like KingCrimson776 said, you don't have to sit through the whole album in one listen. I bought Neal Morse - Sola Scriptura awhile ago. I was luckily able to get a couple of listens to it uninterrupted. Aside from those instances where I have lots of free time, I usual only listen to it in parts (in this case song by song). Mostly I get used to the album by playing it while working at my desk or other lengthy activities that require long hours of sitting. and doing work. I end up listening to the good parts and drowning out filler. And I also prefer some short albums as well. I'd take 30-50 and 60+ |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 19:11
|
If I can't sit through a whole album and have a nice experience then it's not worth it, for me of course.
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: emkogceo
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 22:51
|
This is an interesting topic. On one hand, it can seem pretentious if a band puts 80 minutes on an album- it's as if they're saying "we have all of this great music that's worth releasing." But today, it can seem just as pretentious to release a 40-minute album- it's like saying "you album buyers should be happy with just 40 minutes of our wonderful material." Of course another important thing is how good the music actually is, but this is a lot more subjective than people in the 79-minute-album debate often realize. People always seem to say, for example, that The Lamb would have been a great single album but is a weak double album. But when pressed on what would be cut, everyone has different opinions. If Foxtrot and SEBTP had come out together as a double album, I'm sure people would have said the same thing. Even 40-50 minute albums have their weak points, but they don't feel as much like "filler" since they're on shorter albums. 10 years ago, I preferred buying longer albums, but since there's so much more great music so easily available now, I think artists sort of owe it to people to trim their albums a little bit so that the listener doesn't have to devote 80 minutes of time to an album to give it a fair evaluation. Of course, this is coming from someone who is about to release a 70-minute album, so I'm not exactly practicing what I preach. ------------- www.emkog.com |
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 00:44
Most likely it would have been extremely enjoyable.. imagine a TFTO-style album that's essentially Tarkus X 4! (Or maybe that album would just have a mix of the tracks from Works Vol. I & II !  )-------------
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 03:06
|
Hm...something just came up my mind... If a modern artist wants to publish an album 80 mins long, it's most likely it will contain (a few) fillers. If the same artist is restricted with the vinyl limitations, (s)he will have to pick better tracks and kick out fillers, right?
Well...
If one really wants to publish an hour+ of music, why they don't just pick the best tunes, 40-50 mins long, making a masterpiece concept and the rest pile at the end as bonus tracks?? For me, bonus tracks are not the integral part of the album but if someone wants to listen, they're here, anyway. ------------- |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 03:51
Frankly, I think there was more filler back in the Vinyl Age.
|
Posted By: Terra Australis
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 04:09
|
What are you going to think when we consistently get albums that are 10 hours long because the new medium allows for it? ------------- Allomerus. Music with progressive intent. http://allomerus.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - http://allomerus.bandcamp.com |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 04:15
|
Musicians have plenty of time to write their first batch of songs so a debut CD packed full is interesting to me. Any follow-up that attempts to span an hour and a quarter is a lost cause and very avoidable - bands are often lying to themselves at this point, or else hoping that people will be satisfied with their winnowed-out cuts from the first album. (yes, I know _your_ favourite modern prog band has a prodigious output but I don't like them one bit.) ;) on the other hand I love to make compilations, and this is where long CDs packed with filler shine - all the chaff and packaging has to be protecting something of value, no matter how small. ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 04:24
|
I'm amazed to think that so many people believe that bands sit down and write filler, or deliberately load-up an album with worthless, throw away, second-rate songs just to make it longer. That's such a bizzare attitude, sure, Top-40 one-hit wonders produced by Simon Cowell would probably do that since most of their sales are singles-based and albums are of secondary importance, but no one in the album-based Prog world would do that, it doesn't make sense.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 04:27
|
I agree. About 40 minutes is right for an album - I grew up listening to LPs.
Mind you - in these days of MP3s, I expect that fewer people are listening to albums from beginning to end any more. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10"> 
|
Posted By: MoreBarlow
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 09:22
| Depending on the album, I may be able to tolerate a little extra length... but something also found in vinyl albums, naturally, is 2 sides per album-- maybe partially what's so unlikeable is that there's no "break", or naturally ending/beginning whatever have you, between the 2 parts of a really long album. |
Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 09:22
|
Not tired of that 77 minute album?
Actually it really depends on the album, and nobody is obliged to listen to each album in one sitting. I hardly ever listen to both discs of The Lamb, once the first and after some break the second.
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 09:26
You should try Steve Roach's Darkest Before Dawn or Philip Glass's Music With Changing Parts. Those would really drive you up the wall. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 10:57
|
I have come to the conclusion that the only +70 minutes albums that work are the ones that are, sort to speak, experiences more than just music. For example: Lateralus. Lateralus is one of the longest albums (it´s almost 80 minutes), but the music in it´s whole creates this sort of atmosphere that works great from start to finish. Other example is Sleepytime Gorilla Museum´s Of natural history. Although 71 minutes long, it´s still a lot. But, again, it´s not just music, it´s almost a da da theater play, and it works! But, this are the exceptions! Albums like the ones form Dream Theater are just too long. And, lets face it, there is always a bad, or two, songs in their album, they would work much, much better without them! ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 11:15
|
Personally, I am in the "more music for my buck" the better faction. In most instances what is released is either pretty high quality or at the very least serves a purpose. A song might suck but they were trying to experiment with a new sound. Or more likely, if we don't include at least one song written and sung by the bass player or drummer they will be unhappy and make our lives miserable so here it is. I think that there are numerous instances in the vinyl era where a band released their 40 minute albums, and then released the singles with previously unreleased tracks that didn't make it on to the album. A long list of critics would line up to suggest that the unreleased track should have been included and track 1, 2, 3, or 4 should have been omitted. But when you ask the artist why this wasn't done they will tell you that tracks 1, 2, 3, or 4 were more in line with the sound or the atmosphere they were going for. With an 80 minute album it is more likely that the previously unreleased song will be included. Obviously, not all the time, because there are still instances where bands go in to the studio with more than 80 minutes or even 160 minutes worth of material, so there is still music that gets omitted and saved for future albums or to appear as that 1 previously unreleased track on a greatest hits or box set package that makes it necessary for a completionist to purchase that compilation package.
------------- 
|
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 12:00
Agreed, I personally don't like seeing people using the word filler because it would be, as you said, loading an album with pointless tracks. This doesn't make any sense to me because the artist obviously had some reason to put that track on an album (that reason NOT being to take up space, which is stupid). If a track is meant to be on an album, it certainly can't be "filler" (meaning its only purpose is to take up space), can it? |
Posted By: limeyrob
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 12:26
| I was discussing this issue with a friend and we wondered if there was any correlation between length's of albums and the intervals between releases. We weren't overly concerned but the sense of anticipation seems less these days as you have to wait longer between releases for the longer albums. Mind you if they are as superb as Human Equation I can stand the wait. |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 17:54
In mainstream music, this is true, but we proggers know better!
 |
Posted By: oddentity
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 23:29
I hate the word "filler". It is used far too often these days. Usually, when a reviewer uses the word "filler" to describe a track, they are simply revealing their own close-mindedness and limited musical horizons. For example, reviewers often describe an ambient interlude or a jazz/rock tune as "filler", whereas if they expanded their musical horizons they might be able to see the value in such tracks and enjoy them for what they have to offer. |
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: November 24 2007 at 11:08
|
I don't mind 79 minute albums providing all the material is worthy of inclusion. My only problem being that at any one sitting I get to listen to less albums than I did before. Okay so I don't have to listen to a whole album at once but particularly in the Prog genre so many albums are the type that you want to sit back and listen from start to finish.
|
Posted By: Spydrfish
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 14:18
Though in some cases that could be the opposite I like a good 50-65 minute album length, I usually consider that not too long, but not though that depends on how many tracks/notable tracks there are., If there are too many 1-2 minute filler tracks, that would make a 50 minute album seem much shorter (Selling england by the pound) Fear of a Blank planet was 50 minutes, but seemed to short cause the last two tracks failed to be notable (To me). Also longer albums such as Spock's beard's title album (77 minutes) and Marillion's Brave (71 minutes) are practically flawless and don't seem to drag on (To me). So it really depends on, like I said, I like some albums that are short but sweet, but they often leave me wanting more such as Rush albums, but sometimes an album can be full of good music but too long to really listen to much (Flower kings). ------------- This Space For Rent |
Posted By: Jace
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 14:56
|
Hi,
I am looking to find bands that have made songs that are longer than forty minutes or even up to 75 minutes. Do you know of any bands beside Flower Kings who do that?
Thanks,
Jace ------------- Jace |
Posted By: Spydrfish
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 15:00
Porcupine tree, Moonloop (unedited) 40 minutes Edge of sanity Crimson 1 & 2, 40 and 43 minutes Echolyn mei 49 min Green carnation light of day...day of darkness 60 min Fantomas, Delirium cordia 74 min ------------- This Space For Rent |
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 15:50
|
Good example of thread's subject (IMHO surely) - MAGIC PIE's latest album. I'd give it 4 stars if it would have been shorter
|
Posted By: Spydrfish
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 16:14
Filler tracks seemed to be more of a problem with older prog bands, Yes's fragile had 4, Emerson lake and palmer had quite a few wich actually became hits... Though short songs don't always mean filler. With the old albums that originally had epics on one side of the record and such, Some tracks on the other side of the record seemed to be written half heartedly. ------------- This Space For Rent |
Posted By: heavyhery
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 17:53
|
me too.theyre so long that you can only hear them one or two times in your lifetime ------------- heavyhery |
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 18:20
In general I agree that a lot albums (in all genres) are just too long these days; back in the days of vinyl musicians had to be a bit more disciplined and focused.
On the other hand, some minimalist electronica positively thrives on CD; no background noise so it can be very quiet, and almost 80 uninterrupted minutes to play with. Steve Roach has released a few single track 70+ minutes epics like Immersion 1 and 2, Dream Circle and Darkest Before Dawn, and of course Klaus Schulze has always included generous quantities of music on his CDs and they're all the better for it.
Horses for courses I suppose. ------------- 'Like so many of you I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 18:21
True, but the last 30 minutes or so is just the sound of a stuck record needle. Still an excellent album, though. ------------- 'Like so many of you I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 18:43
The short Yes and ELP tracks you are refering to are not "filler" in the classical sense of being uninspired songs written to fill-up an album, but were more musical interludes that added colour and texture to the albums. ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 18:52
exactly Dean 
For ELP at least.. it is well documented that those 'filler' songs as
people call them were exactly intended to give texture and specifically
lighten the mood after being bludgeoned after monster tracks like
Tarkus, and Toccataon the subject... would love to remember the clown who took stars away from Per Un Amico because it was too short... the same kind of fool that would downgrade an album for having too much filler I guess hahahha. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 21:18
|
^^many a reviewer has given Selling England by the Pound 4 stars because of More Fool Me....ignore the song and you still have around 50 minutes of material, most of which is undeniably 5-star material. I won't even get into that f word that rhymes with killer....
Agreed on Per un Amico, I'd much rather have a short album that leaves me wanting more than something drawn out that has me counting the minutes until it's over.
Let me throw some clappies at Micky and Dean
because those fi**er tracks bring a lot to the table...I've said it before, Benny the Bouncer is a great track. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 22:12
thanks.. I love clappies  as far as More Fool Me.. if I was to review that album I would give it 5 stars (the only Genesis album IMO to rate it btw) in spite of it. It is sort of like Geddy Lee and Rush... sure Rush might have sounded better with say.... me singing.. but you know.. it just wouldn't be RUSH. without it. The same with SEbtP. Find me an album.. and I don't think you can... outiside of CttE that is letter perfect. Some times the little imperfections makes the perfections just seem so much greater. I made a similar point in an ELP thread, again regarding the filler, if ELP made an album consisting of 40 odd minutes of Tarkus like material the whole effect of it would be lost upon people. WIthout context.. without texture as Dean puts it.. you CAN become numb and the brilliance potentially lost. My favorite example of that.. is one of my favorite of all prog albums.. Balletto di Bronzo's YS... after 40 mintues of being musically skullf*cked. .you are sort of left numb.. and the greatness of what you have just heard... can sometimes be missed. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 22:32
|
Amen, I think you've hit on why I'm not a big fan of Ys...skullf**king is a good word for it perhaps and understatement and ELP would fall victim to the same if they didn't mix it up from time to time. IMO, BSS and Selling England are as "letter perfect" as Close to the Edge...sure CttE doesn't deviate from the true "prog form", but that makes it too predictable in a sense. I'd just as easily take SEbtP, where you jump around a little more...and to be honest, More Fool Me is a successful little song to me - I'm sure that people would have a much different view of it if Phil hadn't "taken over" later on. I don't think you can really judge a record against "perfection", becuase there is always some way that it could have been better...take away I Know What I Like and More Fool Me and add another Cinema Show: well then why don't we go a step farther and tidy up Epping Forrest a bit...and give Hackett some more bits, etc, etc, the same could be said of CttE, maybe a few less repititions of that incessant riff on Siberian Khatru, and so on. The changes I would make are different to the changes you would make, and so there is no real "perfection" in any sense, and album must be weighed against itself and against the work of contemporaries, not the idea of what could have been (but damnit, Passion Play could have been sooo good!).
*lots of ideas...not enough time to develop 'em all...More clappies are in order if you can extract any coherance from this post Good discussion nonetheless.------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 22:37
|
I have noticed that people use the word "filler" in different ways. More Fool Me is not a filler track, (it would be the highlight of a PC album), but it is out of place (or even out of pace) on SEBTP. For me, filler tracks are more often found on singles rather than albums... I mean how many remixes of the same track does any one really need? ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 22:39
give me half a clappie... and when you have some time to develop what you started touching on.... do so.. I 'd be curious to see where you finish.. because I like what you started. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 22:42
exactly.... people do.. and usually for songs that the prog snob think are unworthy of being on a prog album... but whether intended or not.... I think it does work well on the album. It is out of place... and pace.. and sometimes that is not a bad thing in my book. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 22:46
|
I'll put it on my things to do list....along with writing reviews In the mean time, you get two cheesy stars, the equivalent of .5 clappies
Peace. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 22:51
have a good night brother... and I should be heading off myself...my 4 day weekend is about over and soon back to the bad side of kissing my bosses asses and trying not to electrocute myself while daydreaming about much more pleasant things..people.. and places ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: MadcapLaughs84
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 00:11
|
I have to agree with The T, I also think that sometimes enough is enough, I think 60 minutes is good enough to project someone's feelings IMHO ------------- 
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 03:04
And I still think that albums were more likely to include substandard material back in the Vinyl Age.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 06:36
had to read that twice to make sure I read that correctly... more likely?.... more likely that trying to expand finite musical ideas into 75 or 80 minute album rather than 40 or 45. that doesn't make sense on the face of it.. care to ellaborate? You have me curious there ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 06:54
On the subject of SEbtPand the notorious "More Fool Me", I'd gladly refer you to my definition of 'flawed masterpiece', which I especially use in relation to such albums as BSS and SEbtP. Unlike, for instance, CttE or even Thick as a Brick, these albums are not perfect, but they are much more than the simple sum of their parts. Nowadays, some albums really do go on forever, and in my opinion that causes a bigger problem than just an abundance of filler material. At least in my case, it has a lot to do with attention span - I've noticed that when listening to albums such as Tool's Lateralus or DT's Awake, my attention tends to drift away big time, until I can hardly remember what I'm listening to. |
Posted By: jmcdaniel_ee
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 09:06
|
I think the whole issue with filler is it is a reflection of it's creators' taste (or lack thereof). When a group (general consesus implied) of interior designers can all agree that a room is poorly decorated, chances are high that it's because somethings in the room don't seem to belong--not that there wasn't enough decorative stuff in the room. When someone in a creative role throws in everything including the kitchen sink, there's a good chance that it just comes across like haphazard mish-mash. Perhapse some people still like that, but the concept remains that it takes more skill and talent to excercise some tastefull culling when necessary than to just throw every idea that you've recently worked on together on a CD.
It's not that I can't spare the 3 minutes that it takes to listen to More Fool Me, it's more of an issue of does it detract from the flow of the album? What is it's purpose in the grand scheme of SEbtP? I'm not trying to answer the questions, I'm just posing them as examples of why the inclusion of some things is questioned.
I think the same thing can be said about classical music, especially from the classical period. I think a lot of composers were inundated with the idea that a symphony had to be so long, so you have a lot of overdone ideas, and if you don't like the way this movement is going, then you'll have to wait another 10 minutes or so for something different. Classical music definitely has some timeless and undisputed masterpieces, but the music that doesn't work well definitely will not retain someone's interest for long--I could be spending this time listening to Close to Edge instead.
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 09:35
...but I think I'd rather have 3 minutes of More Fool Me than 6 of the 9 on Siberian Khatru, they run that sucker into the ground...so we're entering into subjective territory, that's what I was getting at earlier. You could say the same about Thick as a Brick, there's two or three sections on it that aren't quite up to par with the rest...so what exactly is a flaw? I tend to be more forgiving of an album if there is enough material outside the "flaw" like on SEbtP. Now if you substituted The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles for Geranio on Per un Amico, it would be harder to stomach because the record is only 30-33 minutes as is.
I can definately relate to the attention issue (I often chalk it up to my ADD ), they say that the typical human attention span is 40-55 minutes (slightly longer for women than men and children), so an 80 minute album on first listen is going to be an endurance test. I can remember trying to listen to The Human Equation in one go when I first got it....must've taken 2 or 3 naps, each time I'd wake up and think, "It's still not over?!" It's one beast of an album...I'm not even sure if you have 120 minutes of good material if it's worth it the cram all of it on one album...set it aside and let it develop more. I think some bands these days are less patient to let compositions unfold because they feel pressure to come up with 70-80 minutes of music...and thus we don't see an 'album per year' the way it was in the '60s and '70s.------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 11:37
| I'll tell you my perspective on 'More Fool Me', and why I think SEBTP is the pinnacle of the genre (alongside, yes, CTTE). Every long track on SEBTP is followed by a shorter one and I think that works perfectly. A problem I encounter with modern prog CDs is the lack of 'breathing space', and you could technically say the same about 'Tales From Topographic Oceans'- there is just too much, with epic after epic after epic. With SEBTP, there is a perfect structure to the album, IMHO. |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 17:51
Yep, I'll elaborate. Back in the vinyl age, unless you were a big name hell-bent on producing yourself, you were signed to a multiple album contract by one of the big 5 record companies. Music sales were album oriented and became even more so with the decline of the 45 in the '70's, but still the main exposure of a successful band's work remained FM radio singles. This led to a situation where a band's sales of 8-10 songs were really determined in a large part by the success of three or four songs. Throw in the insane pressure to release albums as quickly as possible that prevailed in the first half of the '70's and the last half of the '60's and you get a lot of crap included. Of course, a lot of you will object to the word crap, so let's just politely call them tracks that seemed like a good idea at the time.
About two decades ago, various factors (the rise of independent artists, the rise of urban music, cheap recording, and the internet), began chipping away at the traditional album production and distribution methods. Groups that followed the old model found those albums marginalized. Pressure grew on groups to increase the quality of the whole album.
Although I can think of a lot of examples, these changes probably had less of an effect on prog, which was album oriented and bucking the FM oriented scene to begin with. Stil, I imagine that a close examination of what was released in the '70's compared to what is released today will show that album quality has indeed improved.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 18:04
|
^ but this is a Prog site and we are discussing Prog albums, hence through-out the 70s from a Prog perspective, albums were the be all and end all of producing music. Few Progs band released singles and they had no effect on album sales. A Prog band would not put substandard material on an album to fill-up space because it would go against the whole ethos of producing the album in the first place. ------------- What? |