Problems With Album Length?

[Corrosion of Conformity]

KK guys I'm going to make another thread. If I get 5 on-topic responses I'll be happy.

Why do some people have a problem with albums that have too many songs on them?

I'm posting this mainly because of the White Album thread going on right now. I always hear people criticizing certain albums for having too much material on it, particularly double albums. People often talk about trimming down these long albums to a single, kick-ass album with no filler. Obviously the White Album seems to be a popular example of this, but Sandinista! by the Clash is an example that comes to my mind right away.

In my eyes more music is always better, even if some of the material can be considered filler. Sandinista! is my favorite Clash album, and I view it as their creative peak. I don't think I've ever listened to the whole album in one sitting because it's over 2 hours long, but I wouldn't remove anything from the record. I always hear Clash fans talking about how they should have made it a perfect single record. Where's the logic in that, when you can always just listen to your favorite tracks on your own? Why would you ever ask for less music?

So what's the logic behind this? Is it a money thing (not wanting to pay for a double album)? Is it just the length of the albums that get tiring? Is it an old person problem in that it was harder to listen to individual songs before the rise of mp3s?

I hear this a lot about punk albums too. It seems to me that a general "rule" in punk is to not have your album run too long. A lot of punk classics are right around the 30 minute mark. I often hear Rancid's Out Come the Wolves album get criticized because of its long running time of 49 minutes...that doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, share your opinion! Enjoy my thread!

 

[venijake]

I like more on an album most of the time. I think that the more songs that are on an album, the more overwhelming it is. For example, I feel obligated to listen to every single song on an album before I repeat, and most of the time do this two or three times. The longer it is, the harder it is and the more time it takes to weed out the good songs. But alot of time, I can pick out anything in a song and start to like it just because of that trait, or sound, or lyric. It doesn't have to be going on throughout the entire song, but it could be an iconic crash on the cymbal, or guitar solo. So in the end, it works out for me, but it just seems overwhelming.

 

[VictorB]

I love long and double albums! Some of the best ever recorded were double albums...

Record companies generally hate them, because they think the public won't want to pay more for them, which is stupid.

When Springsteen recorded his double album, The River, he insisted it be priced as a single album. The record company eventually caved and Bruce got his wish.

 

[7gtop]

I for one , believe in the majik of Vinyl / Records and open-air music .
I just love all of those long-play albums , even if some tunez were to be
used as "filler"

Pink Floyd for one catalogue , may be "called" or termed as

))) 1 (((

album

 

[chazza]

45 minutes was the perfect LP length when I was younger because it fitted one side of a C-90 cassette tape.

Now I don't really care, but I don't like having to sit through crappy tunes to get to the ones I really like. I like pretty much all of Out Come The Wolves, so that one isn't a problem for me.

 

[truckermde]

I'm with you, man. More is better, when it comes to music anyways. I totally share your opinion about Sandinista, and always wondered why someone would complain. I have very eclectic tastes, and tend to like music, period. That makes me more accepting, and less critical of people's offerings.

I think some people just get a kick out of "being different", you know, not liking stuff mainly because everybody else does. I'm sure I've been guilty of it too, when I was 13 yrs old.

Oh, and the White Album kixass, too

 

[El_Greco]

I think it's just because albums with say 9-10 songs on them are easier to get into as a whole then double albums with 20-24 songs on them.

And (at least in my experience) the less songs, the deeper I get into each one, the better I actually listen to it, take it apart, focus on their elements like vocals, guitar parts, etc etc.
Dunno if it makes sense.

Having said that, I have nothing against big albums, especially live ones

 

[7gtop]

We should all remember "classics" that were also termed as filler
by their own respective architects , such as "Start me Up"

 

[cynic79]

I don't want more music if it's bad music.

 

[Corrosion of Conformity]

We should all remember "classics" that were also termed as filler
by their own respective architects , such as "Start me Up"

Wasn't most of Paranoid by Black Sabbath "filler"?

 

[El_Greco]

Yeap it was. I remember reading they wrote and recorded it on the spot.

 

[TOMMYTHUNDERS]

i think if an album drags it bums me out because i have a short attention span. sometimes a record will start and i'll be like "man, this is killer", but then after a certain amount of time i get bored with it. i think a good album should leave you wanting more, not overstay their welcome. recent albums that i really wish were longer, but are perfect anyway:

i swear i wish these albums were twice as long, but then again, maybe if they were i wouldn't enjoy it as much.

 

[7gtop]

Wasn't most of Paranoid by Black Sabbath "filler"?

Indeed , as "this" list will be quite lenghty , as others join the "fray"



** excellent topic , with marvellous tact , I might "add" **

 

[Corrosion of Conformity]

BTW thanks everyone so far for responding. This thread has exceeded my expectations in all of 20 minutes. You've made my day.

I do enjoy listening to albums in one sitting (at least most of the time) as well, so I can understand that criticism of double albums.

El Greco makes a good point about long albums being harder to get into. More material means more plays, and I can understand some people not having the patience for that.

 

[7gtop]

and yes as the "times" have changed , we've become much more
"Instant-Gratification" oriented .

Mind you , life on a "whole" moves much faster today as well

 

[Lurko]

I think people that don't enjoy short albums more should get the death penalty.

 

[Corrosion of Conformity]

I think people that don't enjoy short albums more should get the death penalty.

DON'T RUIN MY THReAD

 

[7gtop]

as Fry-Day ________________ Lmz

 

[Paracelsian]

I have a short attention span. My best bud asked my wife last year if I ever listen to a whole song, usually I don't. I do like the more plodding/longer stuff Tool does, its entrancing and reflective to me, crossing the dez on a road trip its fantastic.

 

[Thundergod]

Dear CoC:

You've been here for some time now, started a number of threads and this is one of them.

I like your threads, but they could use some spice.

As for this thread's topic, I think it shouldn't be a problem, in fact people should be happy they will pay the same for more. As a kid I remember buying my first CD, it had 12 songs, then when getting one that had only 7 songs and most of them short I felt a little ripped off. True story.

Now long songs: it's not a very good idea because unless they are the theme song for titanic or some movie that wins lots of awards and has all 15 year old girls running about, they won't get played by radios. Radios will cut them before the guitar solo (if there's one) or just not play them at all.