Can albums be too long ??
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=59802
Printed Date: March 04 2025 at 06:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Can albums be too long ??
Posted By: progrules
Subject: Can albums be too long ??
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 13:48
I have read this so many times last few months and I can hardly believe it when I see it in reviews. Many reviewers claim that over 70 minute albums (or doublers) are way too long and it annoys them  .
An often mentioned argument is that in the seventies there were just vinyls and they had the perfect length (40 minutes).
Personally I don't get this criticism. To me an album can't be long enough, especially if all the music is worthwhile (which is for instance the case with Martigan's Vision lasting 79 terrific minutes). And also simple maths speak in the advantage of long albums. I rather pay $ 20 for 80 minutes than for 40 minutes of music. So that's why I don't understand the criticism. Do you ? Please give sensible arguments. ------------- A day without prog is a wasted day |
Replies:
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 13:57
|
Yes, an album can too long, just the same as a novel can be too long. I say trim the fat of both. The Flower Kings are notorious for this (to me- others will disagree, and that's fine of course). Albums with more than an hour's worth of music ask a lot of a listener (who listens to albums, not songs). Paradox Hotel kills me. I absolutely love about five or seven tracks on that album, but it's a double disc loaded with stuff that really should've hit the cutting room floor ("Bavarian Skies?" Really?). Part of being an artist I think comes from know what to cut. For my album, I must have written over two hours worth of stuff over the course of years. Had I thrown all of that onto one album, it would've been a mess. Instead, I carefully considered what belonged and what didn't. That doesn't mean I can't save some of this music for another release (indeed I aim to), but cramming everything you did onto one disc just because you can usually leads to a crappy result. Not in every case though...my favorite album is Tales from Topographic Oceans. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:03
I can see where Robert is coming from, but, to my mind, it's not really a question of whether it is too long, just whether it is good. TFTO is not too long, but I don't rate sides two & three, so would have preferred a single album with Revealing & Ritual. I am really enjoying the Flower Kings at the moment, so I don't really consider the length. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:06
|
I think that the genre can play a little part: the history of punk and hardcore are full of great LPs, but a lot of people prefer to stick to the singles. Some bands can turn really annoying from a certain length (I never could stand the Ramones' albums!) Now, to answer to the topic, are 70 minutes too long? It can be and it depends of various things: your tastes (of course), how you feel today, etc. For me, some 40 minutes long album can be really too long to listen to! |
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:10
|
I remember Genesis got some critique (this time I mean outside PA) for Calling All Stations, that there were some fillers on it. Phil Collins defended the album by saying that these days there's more music on a cd than on an album in the early days.So I think Epignosis has a point.
But there are two sides to it. You can use the skip button, of course. Choose what you like from the abundance of songs on an album. But let at least 45 minutes of your album be quite good. Does this sound satisfying? Not completely to me. So I think in the end I agree with Epignosis. Artists, learn to edit, and bring quality instead of quantity. If you have 45 minutes of brilliant material, leave it with that. If you have 80 minutes of material, so much the better.
I'm still surprised that quite some of my favourite Italian albums are only around 30 minutes. They don't sound like they do!
Funny, I remember someone from Yes (Jon Anderson) say that Tales would have been better made if cd was the standard in those days: the album could have been like 50 or 60 minutes. And then people wouldn't complain about the album being to stretched out. (To be honest: I like Tales as it is). So in that case the cd would have been ideal.
|
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:13
|
In most cases, I don't mind it if an album is lengthy, a good example of this are Tool's albums. Their albums got as many minutes of music on them as the disc can hold (somewhere between 70 and 80). Also, on some fantastic albums, like Porcupine Tree's FOABP (that lasts only 50 minutes) I wish there was more music on the album. For songs comparable to the songs on FOABP I now have to buy the Nil recurring EP, that contains only 30 minutes of music and costs only €3 less than FOABP (FOABP €19.99 and Nil Recurring €16.99)... I guess that's marketing... However, in some cases an album is good enough being not too long. For example Pink Floyd's WYWH, I don't think an extra song would do the album much good, as it is perfect as it now is. The same thing is with other albums, Foxtrot, DSOTM, Pawn Hearts, etc. Also, I think it's pretty annoying if an album is too long and that's affecting you listening the album. the Lamb, for example, contains lots of songs meant to tell the story if the album, but are musically very weak. This way I have to skip through the story of the album, making the emotion of the album fade away a bit. Same thing with The Wall.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:17
Yes, an album can be too long if the music isn't all worthwhile, but I guess it's subjective whether the music is worthwhile. As an example I think Frances the Mute by TMV could be shorter, and have less 'filler' in the form of noise, but that's just my opinion.. I'd rather an album clock in around 40 - 45mins, and be comprised of all memorable music. Thankfully most CD's I buy or albums I download are all pretty cheap anyway, so I rarely feel short changed. |
progrules wrote:Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:28
Definitely. Check the Mars Volta albums no.3 and 4 to see why. 
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 14:29
Long albums, even the ones with practically no weak songs on them, are
often either repetitive or incoherent. (Most Tori Amos albums seem to be both.  ) I'd rather buy a 30-minute album than an 80-minute album I will never listen to. |
Posted By: Luca Pacchiarini
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 16:43
Of course, every Dream Theater album which is longer than 3 seconds bores me to death
 |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 16:52
|
I'd say that in the times we live in today there really isn't such thing as too long of an album. The majority of people today listen to select SONGS, not albums today, so the more music you pack on to a CD the better. Even if most of the tracks suck as long as you release one good hit song then the other 75 minutes of an album is worth releasing, since fans will ultimately get the album and the whole thing will be released on iTunes.
As for us prog community who generally listens to the whole thing from beginning to end, of course there is such thing as too long of an album. I haven't listened to all of Unfold the Future in one sitting yet because it's so long. Tales From Topographic Oceans has tons of padding. Paradise Lost by Symphony X is the same song over and over again. These are my two cents. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 17:21
|
Long albums for the sake of long albums bore me. What can be succinctly crafted in 45 minutes of music does not need to take 30 more minutes, especially if that music becomes repetetive or dull. That being said, if DSOTM had been 20 minutes longer, I probably would still enjoy it. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 18:02
|
It's a great question and depends on the quality of the album
Some great ones spring to mind:
Roger Waters - Amused To Death
The Cure - Kiss me, Kiss me , Kiss me
Shakti with John McClaughlin
Then again the remasters with 5 x versions's of Camel's Lady Fantasy or Caravan's For Richard is overkill IMO. Yes we can all skip songs but that is not the point. In terms of pure studio albums and even the odd live ones it all depends on quality otherwise you can lose interest.
Klaus Schulze's Moondawn another good long album  ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Soul Dreamer
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 19:14
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). The other way around happens more often, though...an album which is too short, and could use another track. An example of this is Deep Purple's Machine Head. Great album, but only 37 minutes...and then you learn (later) that they had the killer track "When a Blind Man Cries" but didn't put it on the album...
------------- To be the one who seeks so I may find .. (Metallica) |
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 19:19
|
If a band can keep up the momentum and the musical quality and hold a listener's interest for 70+ minutes, then more power to 'em.
------------- "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 19:58
|
I think usually an extense lenght (65-74 mins) can show some low moments in the music.
I preffer not very long albums (´til 55-65 mins max.) but if any band can do a big and very long album, it´ll be welcome. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> 
|
Posted By: Luca Pacchiarini
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 20:14
| 35-45 minutes are generally enough for me |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 20:15
|
I think that when in a review someone states that the album is too long, it means it has filler, that less minutes could do without. I don't think it's length per se. |
Posted By: mr.cub
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 20:42
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tsevir Leirbag
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 20:45
|
If the album's good, there's no such problem as "too long album", I think ------------- Les mains, les pieds balancés Sur tant de mers, tant de planchers, Un marin mort, Il dormira - Paul Éluard |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: July 23 2009 at 22:23
|
40 minutes is the perfect length. ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 00:01
| 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. |
Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 01:12
I knew answers like this were coming so that's why I asked for sensible comments ------------- A day without prog is a wasted day |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 01:16
Couldn'tve said it better myself! ------------- 
|
Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 01:18
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 ! ------------- A day without prog is a wasted day |
Posted By: The Runaway
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 03:40
|
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. ------------- http://www.formspring.me/Aragorn224" rel="nofollow - Trendsetter win! The search for nonexistent perfection. |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 05:59
|
Oh come on, there is no perfect length.
I know 35 minute albums that are too long, and I know maxed out double CDs that aren't long enough.
It depends entirely what's on them.
|
Posted By: valravennz
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 06:41
|
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.
I am fairly certain this topic has been around the forum before on several occassions and I agree with previous comments that the best album length is between 40 and 50 mins. ------------- 
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 06:49
|
I think that being able to listen to a long album in one sitting shouldn't really be a consideration. It would be unfair to a release to be judged on the strength of how much time a listener has to spare. An abundance of time is a luxury not all of us have.
I can get aquainted with a long album in several sessions and get to know and like it just as well as a shorter length album.
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 06:49
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. |
Posted By: The Runaway
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 09:48
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnium_%28album%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnium_(album%29 ------------- http://www.formspring.me/Aragorn224" rel="nofollow - Trendsetter win! The search for nonexistent perfection. |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 10:35
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. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 11:32
|
Hi,
I say no ... if someone is more worried about length than they are in the music, then may I suggest that tthey drop the "prog" idea and go participate in teh Variety's top 100.
Please ... take a stand ... this is important for the development of music!
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 12:03
| 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. |
Posted By: progvortex
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 14:23
| YES an album can be too long |
Posted By: Green Shield Stamp
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 16:43
|
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. ------------- Haiku Writing a poem With seventeen syllables Is very diffic.... |
Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 16:51
|
Nearly all country albums are too long, no matter what the length. ------------- Trust me. I know what I'm doing. |
Posted By: Soul Dreamer
Date Posted: July 24 2009 at 21:06
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... ------------- To be the one who seeks so I may find .. (Metallica) |
Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 01:31
Thanks for your honest answer. But I'm afraid I'm a lone minority on this subject.
  Doesn't matter, it's still my opinion. ------------- A day without prog is a wasted day |
Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 01:32
Ok then. Is this album too long ?? ------------- A day without prog is a wasted day |
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 01:55
| Albums can definitely be too long. Just like writing, I value concision over long and never-ending rambles full of unneeded words. If you have 80 minutes on an album, you can probably cut at least 10-20 minutes off and make an album much stronger. It's like an edited paper rather than an essay full of BS. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 02:15
That's different. By it's concept, it needs to be at least in the vicinity of that time. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Zebedee
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 06:54
|
As long as the overall quality of a long album is good, I don't see a problem. The problem is however, that a long album of the same overall quality as a shorter album is much more difficult to create. So shorter albums tend to be better most of the time. ------------- 
Friendship is like wetting your pants: everyone can see it, but only you can feel its warmth. |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 16:56
|
Well the limit of a CD is 80min and thats not to long so no an album cant be to long. ------------- 
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 17:50
| I only see problems in an album length when the artist decides that he must fill the whole CD capacity just because it is available. If the artist has 80-minute worth music, he can fill the CD, but if he fills the cds with tracks that would be left out just because there is room for them, then it is a problem. Unfortunatelt, it seems to me that many artists fill the cds with tracks that should have been left out just because they fit. It is worse when they include bonus tracks such as different takes of the same songs just to say that there are bonus tracks on it. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 18:13
I almost never listen to alternative takes/bonus tracks, at least not on my first listen. |
Posted By: tdfloyd
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 21:11
|
Yes, albums can definitely be too long. Even in pre-CD days, how many good double albums were there compared to ones that overstayed their welcome? These days many artists feel obligated to fill up a CD which is close to 80 minutes. Quality control takes a back seat. I don't want to catch too much crap for saying this as I am a huge Pink Floyd fan but The Division Bell is one of them. Not that there are any bad songs on the second side but starting with "A Great Day For Freedom" their is a sameness to many of those songs.
I am not saying that I want a 35 minute album either. If you only got 35 minutes, well then get back to work until you have around 50 minutes.
|
Posted By: Gustavo Froes
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 21:35
Albums can defintely be too long,but I wouldn't agree with that.I'd rather listen to Captain Beyond's debut(around 35 minutes)or Cream's Disraeli Gears rather than The Wall at any day.This is just my opinion of course,I'm just saying that there are excellent albums with short lenght,while double albums rarely work for the best. |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: July 28 2009 at 05:52
|
Albums surely CAN be too long. It's all been said so I'm going to go slightly wide of topic and say that, in the age of CD, there are re-releases that have been made too long or even ruined by "extras." (I'll say up front that I know this won't be a popular complaint, because somehow always "more is better," though that's hardly the case as some kind of rule.) Albums especially ruined by the extras-plague are the albums that were tight in the first place, or "concepts." When the concept is done, so should the record be. Been listening to the Italians a lot lately so they come quickly to mind. Latte e Miele's Passio Secundum Mattheum ends, and then we have to have an out of place bonus track. Not precisely a concept record, but Maxophone's great eponymous one-off ends with track 6, Antiche Conclusioni, and then we are given two bonuses, the last of which is really totally out of place whatever you might think of it. Track 6 was carefully set up to be the apotheosis of a great and varied album; I can't list to the bonuses, they are not in my iTunes (yes we can, and I do sometimes, control what constitutes an "album"). If you still don't get my point, picture the great Dedicato a Frazz ending with some unreleased bonus track - it would be a crime against humanity so to speak, even though fans of the band would love to hear more from that vanished, peerless group. Now, something like the way many of the Yes re-releases were handled, those are just fine with me. The extras on Tales and Close are of a historical value, and they're a service to curious and even analytical ears of true fans. Well, maybe America didn't belong on Close. Floyd's The Final Cut is a concept album with an extra track on the more recent cd release, but it's inserted as track 4 because it fits there - it's not some extraneous track "not good enough" to be on the album but which the company or band decides to realease now to drive sales. Imagine how dumb it would be if it were just put at the end after the sad tale is done? If the album wasn't a concept, or especially if it was a little thin on release, then the bonuses can surely okay. However some albums, without being concept records at all, rise through familiarity to a level such that to alter them would be a shame. For an easy to hand example just take any Led Zeppelin record. -------------  Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: July 28 2009 at 22:40
|
I agree with the people that say the proper length depends on the music. Tool's albums, for example, are just the right length, but if a punk band were to put out an album that long, I'd never finish it. A lot of the 70's band put out music that just sounds right on a 45 minute album, and wouldn't work as well on another length...
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury">  
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 28 2009 at 22:49
|
I think we're missing the more important question, can albums be too circular? And doesn't typically square outer casing disrupt this in some weird kind of way? Or to put it another way, borrowing from George Carlin: "It's not how long you make it, it's how you make it long." Einstein On The Beach anyone?  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Quasarsphere
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 00:38
|
In majority long two disc albums like The Wall, The Lamb... are sometimes competely boring, for me, but if I rewind individual tracks, this effect is less visible. The only longtime albums I hear from beginning to end with satisfaction are: Tales from Topographic Oceans, and L'Heptade from Harmonium (obviously with superb concert version Harmonium En Tournee). Thus the exceptions are exist. ------------- Quasarsphere - Ambitious Music Lover. Pozdrawiam fanów dobrego rocka z Polski. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 04:09
|
Moving to PC as standart player, giving the possibility but also the risk of jumping more easily.
I must say i dont often listen to a compleete album anymore.
I like varriation too much - jumping from one style to another after 10-15 min.
So in that context no, it cant be too long, give me as much as possible, wont listen to it all at the same time anyway.
If i LOVE an album, i sometimes listen to it all, but mostly the classics 70's stuff. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 04:34
Hmm interesting perspective here ... I think this is definitely something for a new topic !!
 I think I will do a counting one day of all the posts by Slarti where he gives a SERIOUS answer  ------------- A day without prog is a wasted day |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 09:58
|
Yes! Just listen to Tago Mago by CAN! It would've been much better if they cut "Aumgn" and "Peking O", and maybe shortened "Hallelulwah" a bit. |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 13:39
|
^ Oh, brother. Here come da flames.
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 14:06
|
^^^ Been listening to too much 'Grunge' me thinks ?
------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 16:11
|
------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: August 01 2009 at 16:21
I've listened to the entire Halelulwah AND enjoyed it But my ears are not infected by RIO/Avant enough to enjoy "Aumgn" & "Peking O". Apart from those 2 songs, Tago Mago is a great album! |
Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 23:18
|
I'm on the opposite end, at least in regards to Tago Mago. If anything, it's one of those albums I wish was longer. I agree with the general consensus that what one listener may consider too long another won't, so it's really up to the listener, the band, and the album.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 23:27
|
Is the Ring Cycle too long? ;-) ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Lost Follower
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 10:34
|
I think many albums are far too long now. I don't want 70 minutes to be honest. Half an hour too long. Give me 40 mins of top quality and I'm happy. Unless it's a 'Best of' or something, then just cram it all on.
------------- ~Jump you f**ker jump~ |
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: November 13 2010 at 18:01
| It can absolutely be too long, but less due to length than the music. For example, some albums like The Whirlwind are perfect being 75 minutes long, others like Death Magnetic (Metallica) are good but much too drawn out. The Mars Volta comes to mind also as being too long sometimes. |
Posted By: 40footwolf
Date Posted: November 13 2010 at 18:46
|
Of course an album can be too long if it doesn't earn its length. Francis the Mute is a great example of this-you could cut that album in half and lose absolutely nothing. ------------- Heaven's made a cesspool of us all. |
Posted By: 40footwolf
Date Posted: November 13 2010 at 18:46
Looks like we're on the same page ------------- Heaven's made a cesspool of us all. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 13 2010 at 18:55
If it were a blank CD-R, we'd all be much better off. Might be able to make something decent out of those wasted polycarbonates. |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: November 13 2010 at 19:03
|
Man Walter, you're killin tonight. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 13 2010 at 19:13
|
It's extremely difficult to make a consistently good and thematically coherent 70 minutes of music. Most modern albums that use the entire length of a CD are just collections of songs, not really albums, and there tends to be a lot of filler. I would much rather have a great forty minutes than a decent seventy. Also, the shorter albums are nice because it's easy to listen to the whole thing at once. People are busy, we don't often have the time to listen to an hour and a half of music at once. ------------- 
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: November 13 2010 at 19:59
I'm in the stages of planning an album myself, and I have to say, though there's enough material for close to 80 minutes if we wanted, we just don't want it to be that long (not without real justification anyway, like coming up with a story about a young man named Rael ). It brings to mind another thing I preferred about the days of vinyl. Not only was the total time shorter, but you had the available time cut in half due to the fact that the listener had to go and flip the record over (or the tape for that matter), causing a pause, a space for consideration perhaps. That interval placed a palpable severance, one that might be used to advantage by an artist, between the last track on side A and the first on side B; this was a larger and better difference than found today between, say, tracks 4 and 5 in the middle of a CD. Much is great about CDs and mp3s, but I do miss that interval. ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: catfood03
Date Posted: November 13 2010 at 22:07
| Don't mind an CD being too long. I usually skip the tracks I don't like. As long as I get at least a solid 30 minutes worth of music out of the editing. |