Posts: 8299 |
Scottish Dubliner Posted Sat 04 Oct, 2008 3:49 PM |
With the release of J Bloggs, an album that lasts a whole 32 minutes, It got me thinking a CD can hold 78 minutes of music are we being ripped off ?
I know that in the days of vinyl there was a time constraint as to how much you could fit on an album, around 30mins per side was as big as it got, but 32 mins ? That is basically a single side of an old LP. Btw Travis are not the only guilty party.
I was just wondering what everyone's feelings are on this...
What is the ideal length for an album ?, Would you be happy to wait longer for a release if it was longer ?, Should bands put "filler" tracks on an album just to make it longer ?, If the album is short should the band add "demo" or "live" tracks to the end ??
Dubz
|
|
|
Posts: 7404 |
Turtleneck Posted Sat 04 Oct, 2008 4:59 PM |
I think you'd have to go by number of tracks, rather than album length. Ode has 11 tracks (I think?), so that is about normal. I have plenty of 12 track albums where 2 songs are hits, 2 are gems that don't get radio play, 5 songs are bad and 3 should never have been written, let along recorded.
I'd rather have a shorter album with lotsa good stuff than a bunch of songs I have to skip. I don't want "filler." And with CD's and iPods and all that, skipping is a lot easier than having to fast-forward a tape or lift a phonograph needle. I rarely sit down and listen to an entire album anymore unless I'm driving a long distance.
Here's another question. In most cases, do we even need albums anymore? Rarely is an album a cohesive group of songs that demand to be compiled together and sold as a set. It's just how we're used to getting music.
|
|
|
Posts: 10115 |
ricv64 Posted Sat 04 Oct, 2008 5:27 PM |
| ideal length is 40-45 mins unless it's a live one |
|
|
Posts: 31 |
drummer Posted Sat 04 Oct, 2008 5:38 PM |
it all depends on how good the songs are.
i couldn't care less about how long it is cause its class that counts :-) |
|
|
Posts: 8299 |
Scottish Dubliner Posted Sat 04 Oct, 2008 5:57 PM |
If it's the class or quality that counts wouldn't you be prepared to wait a while longer until they could fit more class or quality tracks on the album. I mean I have singles that are longer than 32 minutes, Aphex Twin - Come to Daddy (5 tracks) is 34:27.
I don't know, even 45 minutes is short. I think an hour would be respectable.
I do agree that albums tend not to "scan" so much these days, they seem just to be a collection of tunes with not to much thought to the running order. For example White Stripes - White Blood Cells runs perfectly where as Elephant starts off with Seven Nation Army, which is a great tune but you know the rest of the album is gonna be a bit of a let down. Years ago I used to think the best track on an album was usually No.4 but not so much these days.
Dubz |
|
|
Posts: 1381 |
happy_me Posted Sat 04 Oct, 2008 6:33 PM |
| To be honest, 30 - 40 mins is the most ideal lenght of an album for me. After that I start to get bored. If I really like an album I usually put it on repeat when it's finished, to savour the music so to say. If an album is much longer than 40 mins I hardly ever get the urge to do that. Besides I think it's better to listen to 30 mins of well put together music, than 30 mins of well put together music + 30 mins of shite.... That is my opinion. |
|
|
Posts: 1918 |
Moray Posted Sat 04 Oct, 2008 8:11 PM |
| lest we forget the overblown cocaine induced bloated self adoring monstrosity that was Be Here Now, where the Gallaghers endeavored to fill all 78 minutes available to them to the best of their drug addled ability, I think we'll all swiftly agree it's all about quality over quantity. I'd rather have one ripe banana than a basketful of rotten ones. |
|
|
Posts: 8299 |
Scottish Dubliner Posted Sat 04 Oct, 2008 8:25 PM |
But why can't we have quality and quantity ??
Dubz
|
|
|
Posts: 2578 |
Esteban Posted Sun 05 Oct, 2008 1:44 PM |
| The same reason films are different lengths and books have different numbers of pages. It really is that simple. It's however long it takes to get the story told. Full stop. |
|
|
Posts: 10115 |
ricv64 Posted Sun 05 Oct, 2008 2:16 PM |
| yeah 40-45 , then move on . Sure CD's can have more time but that'll lead to more filler |
|
|
Posts: 959 |
fenchurch Posted Sun 05 Oct, 2008 3:52 PM |
Scottish Dubliner wrote:
But why can't we have quality and quantity ??
Dubz
Probably cos the world isn't perfect :( |
|
|
Posts: 3258 |
mili Posted Sun 05 Oct, 2008 5:07 PM |
Esteban wrote: The same reason films are different lengths and books have different numbers of pages. It really is that simple. It's however long it takes to get the story told. Full stop.
Well put! Totally agree. |
|
|
Posts: 719 |
MusicGirl99 Posted Sun 05 Oct, 2008 11:40 PM |
I'm definitely with Dubz on this. They really should be longer. 1 hour is a good length. I'm all for extras, live stuff, demos, videos, whatever. If you're gonna buy a record, then it's of an artist you like. And if not, then you just buy the single. Let's face it, the record is dead anyway, just a few more years left on it. So albums should have more. I don't mind waiting as you are expecting quality in the first place.
Once I had a heated discussion with someone who said you should support every British band under the sun and I said you are quite mad. I'm not gonna buy every album if I only like one song. Obviously they were blindly following whatever was supposed to be the next big thing. |
|
|
Posts: 317 |
SAM(LOS ANGELES) Posted Thu 09 Oct, 2008 6:54 PM |
Scottish Dubliner wrote: With the release of J Bloggs, an album that lasts a whole 32 minutes, It got me thinking a CD can hold 78 minutes of music are we being ripped off ?
I know that in the days of vinyl there was a time constraint as to how much you could fit on an album, around 30mins per side was as big as it got, but 32 mins ? That is basically a single side of an old LP. Btw Travis are not the only guilty party.
I was just wondering what everyone's feelings are on this...
What is the ideal length for an album ?, Would you be happy to wait longer for a release if it was longer ?, Should bands put "filler" tracks on an album just to make it longer ?, If the album is short should the band add "demo" or "live" tracks to the end ??
Dubz
you bring up a good question and make a good point dubz but the way i see it, i prefer quality over quantity, if it's a good album, i don't really mind if it's 30 minutes,cheers |
|
|
Posts: 1667 |
Typing to Reach You Posted Thu 09 Oct, 2008 8:03 PM |
Scottish Dubliner wrote:
If it's the class or quality that counts wouldn't you be prepared to wait a while longer until they could fit more class or quality tracks on the album.
Dubz
Sure they could prolong the writing process and try and write more quality songs, but I think albums are artistic things - sometimes its part of the character of an album to be short and punchy. If Ode had several more tracks on it'd start to loose it's momentum. And things like double albums are usually a let down because they're full of low-quality songs and as a whole piece or work usually lacks any kind of flow or cohesiveness.
Besides, two smaller albums could have been written and released in the same space of time as one longer album, so It's not necessarily about getting more music by getting longer albums.
I don't think the length of albums is really the point though - I think it's more about the cost of music. If we got albums for free or a very low cost, I don't think so many would complain about the length of albums from any other viewpoint, it's just a value-for-money thing. Or do I have that wrong and you think albums are too short regardless of any cost issues? |
|
|
