When albums go on for too long

In the classic days no album would go on for more than 50 minutes, and even that was a bit too long for thouse days. But now a days, with digital recording, CD´s can go up to 80 minutes long and some bands use this capability and put as much material into an album as they want, which is great, after all album´s are made by (and almoust for) the artist. Yet, I can´t help but think that some albums are just too long for their own good.
An example of this is Oceansize Effloresce, by the time I get to the middle of the album I honestly think it should end in the next song or two, but it goes on and on, and although all songs are good, a "nearer" ending would be appretiated. Of course this is not a big problem, as one can pick which songs to hear and which dont, and at the end you have more material from a band, but for me an album should be heard from start to finish, and I know many agree with me on this. This long albums make it a bit too hard to... be swallowed. Also, many times there is so much material in an album, that it´s very hard that they are all killers, and no fillers what so ever. Of course, this is no general rule, as I can prove it. Lateralus is one looooong album, clocking 76 minutes, yet it´s soooo well done, that the whole thing doesnt even have a second of filler.
If you ask me albums shouldn´t run more than 60 minutes, at least there is a reason for them to go that long... maybe concept albums, or if there is trully no filler thrue out the 70 or more minutes...

What do you think?

I think that the degree of perception depends on the individual features of a listener.

It's all good, as long as there's no filler.  80 minutes of joy is better than 60, and frankly, 20 minutes of filler doesn't HURT anything.  If you feel that parts of the album are filler, don't listen to those parts.  It's pretty simple.  

I think "filler" is in the ears of the beholder. If a band has recorded something that they fill proud enough of to present to the public, then by all means present it. If I don't like it, I can program it out. In this way, I can program out the songs I'm not fond of, and still have a full length playlist. So, go ahead and fill up those CD's! (Yes, I know Mr. Stolt, I don't have to tell you this!)

Green Carnation's LODDOD is the album-song that goes too long

i don't really have a problem with an album's length.
sometimes when you really enjoy the music, a long album could feel as a short one

Some bands like The Flower Kings (they really take the prize on this one) love to record whatever they (or Mr. Stolt) thinks or dreams of over coffee or in the bathroom. The curious thing is I tend to like it all , but of course at times they just exaggerate with album's length. For example, if STARDUST WE ARE was a single cd only containing the best 8 songs, it would be one (if not THE) of my favorite albums of all time (ehh... it is anyway).

gimme a 40 minute album with 6 songs on it and I'm happy. *starts looking down the RPI lists again*

I use to say that the more stuff available from a band the more you have for choosing, but it's true that a short album is more enjoyable because it gets your full attention until the end. A good example is Gentle Giant. Their albums are about 35 minutes long and because of that they are a really intense experience.

Anything by Dream Theater does go on way too long. "Awake" just seems to go on forever.

*ducks under flame shield, seeing The T. appear on the horizon*

el böthy wrote: In the classic days no album would go on for more than 50 minutes

if only that was true of this one.