Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - When albums go on for too long
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhen albums go on for too long

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Message
NotSoKoolAid View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 507
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 30 2007 at 18:56
Originally posted by Glueman Glueman wrote:

Originally posted by el böthy el böthy wrote:

Originally posted by Glueman Glueman wrote:

No album goes on too long. Given that I don't accept the term "filler" - something I might find a "throwaway" may be someone else's favourite. The longer the better for me. In fact, anything less than 50 minutes is a blatant rip-off unless it's priced at a budget cost. I expect at least 60 mins nowadays.
Has no one ever heard of the "stop" button or the "next track" button?

You know, putting money in the discusion along with art is never a wise thing to do, only people who think around money do it. Art can´t be compared or messured (ar at least shouldnt be) with money. Saying you think an album under 50 minutes with the same price than one from at least 60 is a rip off implys that you dont really care for quality but quantity. It seems you prefer,  a band that writes 45 minutes of great material and they add 15 minutes of just so so material, than to have a 45 minutes long masterpiece... because you pay less, or have a "fair" price. Thats like buying big paintings, just because they occupy more space than little ones, even if they arent betterConfused
 
 

It does not imply that! If you choose to mis-interpret my post then that's your problem.

 

The quality of a piece is judged by the listener. It's up to them to decide what proportion of an album they actually like. No two people are going to view a record the same way.

 

Records were 25-45 minutes long due to the constraints of vinyl. There is no excuse to put out a short album nowadays. If an artist cannot fill 60 minutes of quality music, for the sake of argument, per year, then that says more about their lack of creativity than anything else. Other than re-issued pieces with bonus tracks, I do not accept that anyone adds sub-par material just to pad out a release. It’s an extreme insult to the artist to presume that those few tracks that you may not like are to be considered “filler”. There is NO such thing as filler. And if a person cannot sit through 60 minutes + of an artist then that also says as much about attention deficit as it does the quality of the material, which is, again, in the ear of the beholder.

 

And it’s not juxtaposing art and money. When a product is marketed it should be priced according to various criteria – one of which is value for money. To sell two records for the same price – one of which is 30 minutes and one of which is 79 minutes is a blatant rip-off.

 

 

And the words are spelt "MEASURED" and IMPLIES"!

 
 
You don't seem to understand many things. Selling me two discs for the price of two, when I and most other people only enjoy one disc-worth to begin with, is a rip off. A gigantic double the price rip off infact.
 
Also, with an album such as Sola Scriptura, One or Testimony by Neal Morse or The Flower Kings' double albums (really perfect examples) all feature a number of songs in which there are numerous parts that seem unenjoyable, uncreative and far too boring. I have plenty of patience, I've heard stranger bands in my lifetime. I've heard thousands upon thousands of bands, really. When a guy like Morse shines, he really does shine, and same for Roine Stolt, but they simply release so many tiny inserts, or sections of songs people DONT enjoy (because those tiny bits are not creative), it takes quite some effort and time to fast forward several nth minutes.
 
Obviously an artist can release whatever he wants, but it doesn't mean anyone's going to like it.
 
Why paint the world when you can paint something specific?
 
Lack of focus, and it does exist.
 
 
 
 
 
I didn't make this up to make you angry, though I presume, Glueman, you will be angry I disagree with you.
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 25890
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2007 at 03:01
I think the CD format has encouraged filler.Nowadays you even get 10 minutes of silence at the end of some albums!!  Artists are under pressure to deliver 70-80 minutes for a CD which in old money would have been a double album.I never was a great fan of doubles though and it gets even worse when you get double CD's.Despite being a fan of IQ I really don't want to listen to all 120 minutes of Subterranea in one sitting.
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2007 at 08:23
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

I Artists are under pressure to deliver 70-80 minutes for a CD
.


I'm not sure this is accurate. I have heard no evidence that a band must fill an entire CD. Many Cd releases these days come in at about 45 - 55 mins.
Back to Top
Zargus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 08 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 3491
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2007 at 09:52
The longer the beter, i want music from my money since i dont dl any music but buy it the more music i got for the money and the longer the albums are the beter. I have nothing agains short albums ither its up to the artist how much music he wana put on the albums but i prefer long albums.
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 25890
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2007 at 14:22
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

I Artists are under pressure to deliver 70-80 minutes for a CD
.


I'm not sure this is accurate. I have heard no evidence that a band must fill an entire CD. Many Cd releases these days come in at about 45 - 55 mins.
 
I didn't mean from the record company as such but presumably with the potential to fill a CD with 70 minutes of music there must be a feeling that the whole thing should be filled with something? The CD format creates its own pressure in that respect.
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2007 at 14:40
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

I Artists are under pressure to deliver 70-80 minutes for a CD
.


I'm not sure this is accurate. I have heard no evidence that a band must fill an entire CD. Many Cd releases these days come in at about 45 - 55 mins.
 
I didn't mean from the record company as such but presumably with the potential to fill a CD with 70 minutes of music there must be a feeling that the whole thing should be filled with something? The CD format creates its own pressure in that respect.


Oh I see. Well I don't think this is neccesarily true in most cases either because I have seen quite a lot of short CDs, from pop bands too.
Back to Top
el böthy View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 27 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2007 at 21:17
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

I Artists are under pressure to deliver 70-80 minutes for a CD
.


I'm not sure this is accurate. I have heard no evidence that a band must fill an entire CD. Many Cd releases these days come in at about 45 - 55 mins.
 
I didn't mean from the record company as such but presumably with the potential to fill a CD with 70 minutes of music there must be a feeling that the whole thing should be filled with something? The CD format creates its own pressure in that respect.


Oh I see. Well I don't think this is neccesarily true in most cases either because I have seen quite a lot of short CDs, from pop bands too.

I also dont think there is such pressure. I remember listening to the big selling artist a couple of years back, like Green Day, Linkin Park and Blink 182 to name a few, and they were all under 50 minutes...
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
Back to Top
The Lost Chord View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1907
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2007 at 23:04
666 is the longest album it just drags on for too long
Back to Top
MadcapLaughs84 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 21 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 658
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2007 at 23:10
I think 50-60 minutes it's okay for an album
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 25890
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 01 2007 at 02:38
Originally posted by The Lost Chord The Lost Chord wrote:

666 is the longest album it just drags on for too long
 
Aphrodites Child? If so then its best to listen just to the second disc IMO which is much stronger than the first disc.
Back to Top
salmacis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

Content Addition

Joined: April 10 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3928
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 01 2007 at 07:46
I disagree that 666 drags. I personally think it's probably the most compelling double album I know of alongside 'Soft Machine Third'. Pretty much incomparable, both of those sets.
Back to Top
soundspectrum View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 14 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 201
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 01 2007 at 13:09
really it all just depends on the album. but you have to take into account that it doesnt matter because its a subjective argument. At the end of the day half of us will be for it and half against. but i think albums cant be too long, but i have no faith that any band could put out an album exceeding 74 minutes that  wont either take conditioning or devotion.
Back to Top
MajesterX View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 513
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 01 2007 at 18:40
Originally posted by el böthy el böthy wrote:

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?


Ermm ...And you have a quote from James Maynard Keenan from TOOL in your signature????

I've never met a big tool fan that complains about albums longer than 60 minutes.
Back to Top
el böthy View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 27 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 01 2007 at 23:45
Originally posted by MajesterX MajesterX wrote:

Originally posted by el böthy el böthy wrote:

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?


Ermm ...And you have a quote from James Maynard Keenan from TOOL in your signature????

I've never met a big tool fan that complains about albums longer than 60 minutes.

Well...there always a first time!Wink
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
Back to Top
progismylife View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2007 at 18:48
Originally posted by salmacis salmacis wrote:

I disagree that 666 drags. I personally think it's probably the most compelling double album I know of alongside 'Soft Machine Third'. Pretty much incomparable, both of those sets.


Pretty much yeah. I am listening to Soft Machine right now and it is pretty captivating. Same with 666, an album that just has to be listened to a bit at a time so as to not overwhelm the senses.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.145 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.