Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093
|
Topic: When more is less Posted: January 13 2015 at 11:30 |
With the trend of releasing albums close to 1 hour long and even more, we see relatively often in reviews of modern albums comments like "if they would have dropped these 2 weak songs (or perhaps shortened that section which drags on unnecessarily), they could have made a flawless 50 minutes album".
I just reviewed an album, 'Blue' by the German Neo band Eyesberg , which is a bit over 57 min long, and I got the same feeling, the last 2 songs are quite weaker than the rest and I feel that the overall quality would have benefited from dropping them and release a 50 min album. In this case at least they are put at the end of the album so one might take them as a kind of 'bonus material', the best stuff is there anyway intact and 'undisturbed' by the last 2 songs if one takes that mentality.
Are bands sometimes not realising this and thinking that as long as the good stuff is there, there's no harm in adding something as 'plus' or 'bonus' even if it's a bit weaker, especially if it is put at the end of the album?
Have you had the same feeling with recent long albums? And what's your take, is it indeed 'no harm to have more' given that you are going to pay the same money for the album? Or does it indeed bring the overall feel of album quality down?
|
|
Moogmoods
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 12 2015
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 47
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 11:44 |
I have an 'EP' up for sale, compromised of 8 tracks. I intend releasing a physical CD with an additional 2 tracks on it, and as a result it will push the total time to around 70 minutes. Some might feel that that is excessive but to me the overall flow of the album is going to be better with those 2 additional tracks. I suppose at the end of the day it depends on whether the material stands up or not. I do not mind an overly long album as long as there is variation and above all else a sense of 'journey' through different landscapes/moods/timings etc.
|
The purpose of life is a life of purpose - Athena Orchard
|
|
m2thek
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 12 2009
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Points: 220
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 11:49 |
I agree that anything over 60 minutes is very challenging to make compelling all the way through. I'm OK with bands filling the remaining time with bonus tracks, just as long as they make it clear that it is not part of the album's 'canon' (I think it's safe to assume that the majority of prog albums, concept or not, are made to be viewed as a whole and not song-by-song).
|
Matt
|
|
'PiphanyRambler
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 16 2014
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 120
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 12:47 |
I always assume that bands think that what ends up on the album is worthy of being there. I don't think they would deliberately give us something that they perceive to be bad or unnecessary. They may realise it afterwards, however (like some Yes members with TFTO).
|
|
Polymorphia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 12:49 |
Longer albums usually just feel more substantial if done well. The reason why the hip-hop albums that are acclaimed this decade are acclaimed is that they are usually thoughtfully-made 60+ minute albums stuffed with lyrical material. It becomes very easy to say important things in that format. Several rock bands these days are just opting for the 10 3-minute tracks, which works great sometimes, but also sometimes feels less substantial.
On the other hand, I think The Mars Volta's Noctourniquet could have dropped a couple tracks and I would have liked the album better. Some of it was rather bland to me in comparison to the other tracks. I don't feel it would have been a flawless album, but it would have been a very good one, I think, instead of just a good one.
|
|
|
altaeria
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Status: Offline
Points: 178
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 12:50 |
I've been complaining about the overly drawn-out lengths of most albums since CDs became the mainstream medium during the mid-90s.
I prefer 45 to 50 total minutes of quality material on a CD, without that additional half-hour tacked on, presumably to fill up available space.
|
|
Andy Webb
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: June 04 2010
Location: Terria
Status: Offline
Points: 13298
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 13:01 |
Polymorphia wrote:
Longer albums usually just feel more substantial if done well. The reason why the hip-hop albums that are acclaimed this decade are acclaimed is that they are usually thoughtfully-made 60+ minute albums stuffed with lyrical material. It becomes very easy to say important things in that format. Several rock bands these days are just opting for the 10 3-minute tracks, which works great sometimes, but also sometimes feels less substantial.
On the other hand, I think The Mars Volta's Noctourniquet could have dropped a couple tracks and I would have liked the album better. Some of it was rather bland to me in comparison to the other tracks. I don't feel it would have been a flawless album, but it would have been a very good one, I think, instead of just a good one.
|
I feel like TMV could have improved a number of their albums if they used less filler in their songs. I love every just about every TMV song, but when it has 4 minutes of noise filler until the transition to then next great song, I feel like they could do some trimming (I'm talking about Francis the Mute in particular).
|
|
|
'PiphanyRambler
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 16 2014
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 120
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 13:09 |
altaeria wrote:
I prefer 45 to 50 total minutes of quality material on a CD, without that additional half-hour tacked on, presumably to fill up available space. |
I think that labels, in some cases, are responsible for the filler material that bands release on CDs. Or perhaps some bands just do that, thinking that having more songs on an album means more chance to impress an audience?
|
|
octopus-4
Special Collaborator
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams
Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13390
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 13:16 |
( or perhaps shortened that section which drags on unnecessarily)
It's what I think of Thick As A Brick...
|
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half. My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com
|
|
Roxbrough
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 02 2012
Location: Yorkshire
Status: Offline
Points: 100
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 13:52 |
You can always play it in two sittings. More is more.
|
Live Long and Prosper
|
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26133
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 14:06 |
Trimming the fat off of albums was more of a pragmatic concern when there were only 45 minutes of vinyl time available, or 78 minutes of time on a CD. But that's less of a concern now, so there's no "financial disincentive" to trim one's album. Does this extra "fat" lessen the artistic value of the album? Sometimes yes, but I think usually the answer is no. More is more, as my colleague Roxbrough above states - especially if there's no added cost to the consumer - remember that cost (whether it be gauged in mental anguish or actual money) is a key component of the "value" equation. It depends a lot on how the album is presented. If you have a single 60 minute track that has 20 minutes of garbage in it, then technically you may still have 40 minutes of greatness, but we don't often see it that way, we think of it as a mediocre track. But if you have an album with 40 minutes of great songs, and then one 20 minute suckjob tacked on to the end, then it may be easier to personally "edit" that last track out of our minds (and our digital playlists, more to the point). If I were rating such an album, I wouldn't merely give it 5 stars just for the 40 minutes and tell the reader to skip the last track - that's not realistic. But do I wish that last track were never released on the album? Not at all. I didn't have to pay extra for it, and I may even learn to like it someday. Bring it on.
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 14:21 |
HolyMoly wrote:
Trimming the fat off of albums was more of a pragmatic concern when there were only 45 minutes of vinyl time available, or 78 minutes of time on a CD. But that's less of a concern now, so there's no "financial disincentive" to trim one's album. Does this extra "fat" lessen the artistic value of the album? Sometimes yes, but I think usually the answer is no. More is more, as my colleague Roxbrough above states - especially if there's no added cost to the consumer - remember that cost (whether it be gauged in mental anguish or actual money) is a key component of the "value" equation. It depends a lot on how the album is presented. If you have a single 60 minute track that has 20 minutes of garbage in it, then technically you may still have 40 minutes of greatness, but we don't often see it that way, we think of it as a mediocre track. But if you have an album with 40 minutes of great songs, and then one 20 minute suckjob tacked on to the end, then it may be easier to personally "edit" that last track out of our minds (and our digital playlists, more to the point). If I were rating such an album, I wouldn't merely give it 5 stars just for the 40 minutes and tell the reader to skip the last track - that's not realistic. But do I wish that last track were never released on the album? Not at all. I didn't have to pay extra for it, and I may even learn to like it someday. Bring it on.
|
Well that's precisely the kind of opinion I was asking. In your case you prefer to have an album with lower overall average quality and get the extra stuff which you can always cut-off.
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 14:23 |
Of course a relevant point is that "the weak stuff" may not be the same for everybody. Perhaps some listeners enjoy more that weaker stuff (for my taste) and less the stuff I like more, so perhaps stuffing it all in the album gives more chances of some of it appealing to more people?
|
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26133
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 14:24 |
Yeah, pretty much. :) I tend to go for the lower quality stuff anyway.
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13274
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 14:30 |
There has been filler on albums throughout the years, so I do not think it is necessarily a modern thing. There was filler in the "classic" era (Five Percent for Nothing, anybody?). I do think that there is a tendency in some o imagine that the longer a track, or album, is, then the more Prog it is.
Sometimes, less is, indeed, more.
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12702
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 14:34 |
Editors have done a great service to authors who fall too much in love with their own words. There is something to be said about concision. Look back on the days when successful bands released double or triple albums -- there are only a small percentage of those that are actually worthwhile throughout the entire length of the vinyl.
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
TeleStrat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 15:45 |
Gerinski wrote:
Of course a relevant point is that "the weak stuff" may not be the same for everybody. Perhaps some listeners enjoy more that weaker stuff (for my taste) and less the stuff I like more, so perhaps stuffing it all in the album gives more chances of some of it appealing to more people? |
"The weak stuff may not be the same for everybody." I think this is the right answer.
'More is less' to some listeners while 'more is more' to others.
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24391
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 16:08 |
With very few exceptions, whenever I have to give a numerical rating to a review, I dock points when the album is too long and smacks of having been "padded". Personally, I believe very few musicians can sustain running times in excess of 50 minutes - let alone over an hour. Fortunately, I have seen that lately the trend for very long albums has been reversed. In fact, some of the best albums released in the past few years do not exceed the aforementioned 50 minutes, and some are barely over 40 minutes.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 16:12 |
It's interesting - when vinyl imposed a physical restriction, I feel albums were generally shorter, then when CDs came along I wonder if albums got "padded" as a way of giving the consumer "value for money", e.g. if you can fill a CD with 80 minutes of music why not do so. With downloads becoming more prevalent I think this mentality may be becoming less prevalent, and with no real restrictions perhaps artists can have the right amount of music on the album.
Edited by Padraic - January 13 2015 at 16:12
|
|
Argonaught
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1413
|
Posted: January 13 2015 at 16:14 |
lazland wrote:
There was filler in the "classic" era (Five Percent for Nothing, anybody?) Sometimes, less is, indeed, more. |
The word you were looking for was "intermezzo", not filler.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.