When albums go on for too long
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33800
Printed Date: April 24 2024 at 06:45
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: When albums go on for too long
Posted By: el böthy
Subject: When albums go on for too long
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 21:22
|
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 ../Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=7465 - 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? ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Replies:
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 21:27
|
I don't have a problem with that. you must be someone who really hates double and even more triple albums
-------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Fassbinder
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 21:32
|
I think that the degree of perception depends on the individual features of a listener.
On the other hand, what is the average time for a lesson? I'm sure it's not a coincidence that it is not 30 minutes nor 90. I.e., there are, still, some limits for the successful perception of any information. These limits were found, I believe, empirically first, but then were proved scientifically.
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 21:41
Not hate, not at all. Actually I like the idea of a double album more than a very long album. In fact two of my favorite albums ever are double, The white album and the Human equation ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
BaldJean wrote:Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 21:47
|
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.
-------------   |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 21:50
|
Tales from Topo Oceans.
I would say Lift Your Skinny Fists too, but all of the songs are masterliness, and i can't really fault the album if my attention span is not that good. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 22:31
| 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!) |
Posted By: Witchwoodhermit
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 23:44
|
I know exactly what you mean. Being a child of the seventies, I'm used to a single album being 45 - 50 minutes long, max! I guess my head is used to this. Even when my beloved Floyd released Division, I found it to be just a tad too long. ------------- Here I'm shadowed by a dragon fig tree's fan ringed by ants and musing over man. |
Posted By: kazansky
Date Posted: January 28 2007 at 23:49
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 ------------- The devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. |
Posted By: NotSoKoolAid
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 00:47
|
There's always a such thing as too long and too short.
The Flower Kings and Neal Morse really go on just way the hell too long. It's like their albums never end! Definite drawback, because these guys don't seem to wanna only put out their best material.
Why would anyone want to pay for filler?
On the other hand I become terribly disappointed when some of the shorter 70's albums end, such as early Yes and Rush.
But that's my perception. I think this post has already found someone who enjoys filler-Flower King. More power to him??? I guess??
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 01:05
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).
On the other hand, Rush's albums from the 70's were way too short. I just got comfortable enough when suddenly the cd ended! 35 minutes is too little....
An album doesn't have to be a particular length, as long as it is good, it has to have the duration it has to have. Some of the best albums are 75+, others are just 45+. When you record with length as one of your worries, you'll lose focus on the important thing: recording as good an album as you posibly can. There's double albums that are wonderful and not boring at all, and some that last less than an hour but seem like 80... hours.
I will not name names... That would get me bashed for eternity. Though even in that genre I tend to dislike there's a double album that's very close to a masterpiece, and never gets boring. It all depends in the quality of the songs. ------------- 
|
Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 02:08
|
I'm usually not a fan of albums that are too long, I like to be able to sit down and listen to an album without any pauses, if its too long its usually hard to do and I don't listen to it as often as I would a 45 minute album. Its gotta be damn good for me to get really into a double album. ------------- "The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 02:13
|
gimme a 40 minute album with 6 songs on it and I'm happy. *starts looking down the RPI lists again*
------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 02:17
|
Ugh. Indeed. That Mars Volta album would have been amazing if it had cut out sooner. But they just had to play in time for...however long they played, I can't remember anything past the fifth track. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: eddietrooper
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 03:43
| 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. |
Posted By: dedokras
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 04:45
| Tales is far too long for me and I think it could have been a great 45 minutes long album. I also find The Division Bell too long because I only like the first two songs, the last one and one in the middle. On the other hand, Genesis Live is far too short, it could have had Supper Ready, Can Utility... , Fountain of Salmacis and Harold the Barrel and could easily have made a perfect double live album. Anyway, there are enough quality bootlegs to fill the gap :) |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 04:47
|
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* |
Posted By: kazansky
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 04:53
Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence is actually longer if you listen to both cd completely and not to mention their live albums ! but long doesn't mean it's lame right ------------- The devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 05:00
if only that was true of http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=9150 - this one . ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 05:16
|
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?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 05:18
OK you got me immediately! Disc one is fantastic and then you come to disc two!!!!!! What a bloody racket.
I concede, no album goes on too long except...
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 05:30
|
Did I miss something, i.e wrt to the physical capabilities of different formats. 78rpm discs were on average 3 minutes aside. LPs with microgrove technology, maximum 30 minutes per side (Todd Rundgren's Inititiation did just break this limit, but with a warning on the LP sleeve in the context: "tape record this album asap, because the microgroving is so fine it was prone to damage from most stylli". Audiophiles claim that more than 15 minutes aside for an LP means clipped audio spectra. WRT CD format the former chairman of Sony Electronics was asked how long a CD should be, and replied capable of taking the full Beethoven 9th Symphony (just think how you would have bought this on 78rpm disc!), hence the original 74 minutes which has been subsequently stretched out to just under 80 minutes. Hence 78rpm records set the standard for singles at around 3 minutes (from the Edwardian period), with LPs the longer pieces (from around the early 50's in the US). In the meanwhile during the years of 78s, popular musicians were playing long piece live - our grandparents (if they could afford a gramophone!) just put up the then current technology on record. I was shocked when I discovered a Benny Goodman recording of 1938 had a tune lasting over 15 minutes - recorded onto a yard wide master according to the eventual CD notes, but was not available to the public on record until over 3 decades later.
Now we have technology that can capture pieces up to 80 minutes (and who knows what mp3 and DVD technology will permit the recorded music fan), we have greater chance to discover whether a tune and/or album outstays its welcome - although when we would hope for a long set if we saw the musicians live. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 05:41
| When I was collecting Zeppelin 'private releases' back in the days when they came on two vinyl discs in a nice gatefold cover, it was always an issue of when the first side of the original tape would end. Plus, Zep would play a 20-minute version of 'Dazed' or a 14-minute 'No Quater' making the task of timing the edits that much more tricky. Ahh, the good old days... |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 06:38
|
Its all perception. OSI's Free is only 48 minutes but feels like 480 minutes and is clearly too long, where as Pain Of Salvations The Perfect Element is 75 minutes but feels like 50 and I almost find myself wanting it to be longer. Some of you can complain that there is a skip button on CD players but we shouldnt really have to skip songs in the first place as albums should be heard as a whole.
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005  |
Posted By: samhob
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 06:47
|
I have the exact same feeling with some albums (and hey, I like tangerine dreams "zeit" so it isn't general) Bachdenkel's "lemmings" for example.. (Great album btw) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 09:08
| I could say that most Rush albums are around 40 minutes too long - or would that be inflammatory? (Just checking) |
Posted By: Tristan Mulders
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 09:23
|
I don't care how long an album is in playtime, as long as it doesn't feel like it's overdone and too long. And both album's that you mention, Oceansize's "Effloresce" and TOOL's "Lateralus" both have this quality that the albums are a bit of a trip the listener undergoes. Perhaps because both feature these eerie interlude songs in which, in Oceansize's case, the listener has a few minutes to relax. The only problem I have with lengthy CDs is when they include one big track of 50-80 minutes and they place it on the CD as one track. I sometimes feel the urge to skip bits but I just can't... and I'm too lazy to fastforward ------------- Interested in my reviews? You can find them http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=784 - HERE "...He will search until He's found a Way to take the Days..." |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 10:00
| Focus III is much too long for it to be enjoyable all the way through. |
Posted By: Firepuck
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 10:08
Me too. ------------- Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks." |
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 13:20
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 better  ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 13:22
|
I prefer my albums between 35-45 minutes. Any more, and I find myself getting bored, because it's hard to sustain an idea coherently for much more than 45 minutes.
Exception: CAN's Tago Mago, my all time favorite album, a double album around 70 minutes in length total.
|
Posted By: dwill123
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 13:32
| "Tales from Topographic Oceans" - waaaaayyy to long. And if you think the album was too long you should tried sitting through the live concert. |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 13:34
DISAGREE!
TFTO is around 80 minutes of sheer progressive beauty
 I mostly listen to it when i'm bored, and it does help.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 13:51
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"! |
Posted By: Dr. Occulator
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 14:48
|
The fact of the matter is most people do not sit still for
60 minutes at a time. So to appreciate a long 'concept' album of
extended legth is not usually possible because without listening to it
in one sitting you are missing the intended purpose of the piece. Most
people like a well crafted song of three to ten minutes that exhibits
the quality of an artist that we enjoy. The misnomer about an artist being more 'artistic' by their ability to write long often ponderous pieces of music is false. It takes a great deal of skill to write a great three to four minute song which expresses your ideas and talent. I believe the era of long 40-50-60 minute pieces is drawing to a close. A great shorter song can say as much, is more satisfying and concise and can be listened to with greater attention and then you can focus on other things in life which need attention as well. If the song is good you will want to come back to it again and again and still have time to indulge in life's rich pageant. ------------- My Doc Told Me I Have Doggie Head. |
Posted By: Tormato
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 14:55
IT'S 80 MINUTES OF PURE HAPPINESS !!!!!!!!------------- I like Tormato, so shoot me! Every person in the world can't think the same. |
Posted By: chessman
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 14:57
|
Depends on the album. If I don't like an album, then ten minutes is too long!
Some people complain about The Flower Kings' albums.
I am glad they are so long - I love every minute of them!
 Good music is good music. No matter how long the album lasts.
Rush's Hemispheres is a shortish album, but it's wonderful.
Genesis's The Lamb is a double, yet that too is wonderful.
All personal taste once again.
 |
Posted By: chessman
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 15:01
I agree totally!
A wonderful album, long, yet interesting all the way through!
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 15:23
|
Albums are never too long at all. I can listen to the one Mars Volta album I have and the one Godspeed You! Black Emperor album without realising or caring how long it has been since I got up last. In fact I probably get bored of shorter albums more quickly than longer albums. (I rarely if ever get bored of anything that is music). Longer albums have more music to grace the listeners ears. |
Posted By: Freak
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 15:49
|
It truly depends on the album. I know of double-albums that I could listen to for an entire day, and I know double-albums that I wish had been cut. Simply put, if the album works as a whole, then it works - no matter what the length is. ------------- 
|
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 15:55
|
I've always thought that the upper length for a single album should be 45-50 minutes, and a double should be 100-110 minutes. Live albums, though, the more the merrier. |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 16:22
|
Depends more on the quality of the album than the time. Sometimes a 40-minute album bores me and a 60-minute album doesn't. Sometimes I feel bored by 70+ minute albums of newer bands, but not because they are long, just because I don't appreciate it too much. Saying that artist that do not compose 60 minutes of songs per year are worse than the ones that do not is ridiculous. Most of the mainstream music is spoiled because the artists do not have freedom to make their songs the way they want them to be. Bad music can be done at the rate of 60 minute per day. Good music is like any other work of art. Shakespeare could have written a piece per week, but probably they would be ridiculous. Beethovent could have composed 1000 symphonies and probably he would be forgotten. My favorite albums usually clock at 40 minutes and if I had to buy them again, I would pay them 5 times more than a 70 minute album that is not that good, because buying an album that I don't like is a waste of money and a ripoff. |
Posted By: FragileDT
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 17:56
20 minutes of filler kills the albums potential. An album can have the best 60 minutes of music but if theres 20 minutes of filler the album is a MAX of 4 stars. Skipping over tracks (especially in a concept album) almost defeats the purpose of albums as a whole. ------------- One likes to believe In the freedom of music But glittering prizes And endless Compromises Shatter the illusion Of integrity |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 18:03
|
Yeah, Paradox Hotel is 1 minute too long. -------------  
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 18:04
First of all, I REEEEEEEAAAAALLY apologize for writting measure and implies wrong. You know, english is not my mother tongue, I pretty much learned it by myself. Are you so good in spanish? Really nice of you! Second, you say its insulting to an artist to call some tracks fillers, but you say "f 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"...now, I find that a bit insulting too! And here you even insult the listener " 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"...thats not a nice thing to say ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 18:08
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 20:12
it is... face it ... some groups just don't have 80 minutes of great music in them. Back in the day.. you concentrate and NAIL a 35 to 45 minute album. That's why ... bah... I'll leave it alone. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 22:35
 Two things:
1)
 Why the cheap shots, why 2) When I come, you won't have time to duck. My anger is manifested so swiftly, you will think a dream theater concert just ended, so brief and to-the-point my vendetta will be.
-------------
|
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 22:36
Ahh, the lady does make a good point  ------------- Beauty will save the world. 
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 22:38
|
I can't stand 74 + albums. Too much. And sometimes, too much of nothing. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 22:39
|
1 word: La Te Ra Lus
still great though -------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 23:00
Erotomania is the only good track on that record anyway. 
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 23:14
|
We Can't Dance by Genesis - way too long. If the quality slips then the album can become too long. Remember also with longer albums comes longer lapses between releases. It is all relative!! Personally I preferred the 50 odd minutes of Genesis albums in the 70's. Perfect length for albums, Wind and Wuthering and ATTWT! and about one and a half years between albums. Give me that anyday to waiting 10 years for a new Roger Waters release ( which would obviously be excellent) :-) ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: soundsweird
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 00:17
| I never listen to an entire album once I've determined which tracks are good and which aren't good (after two or three listens). Even my favorite artists overstay their welcome after about twenty minutes, at which time I put on something completely different. I'm not one of the "prog or nothing" people that you often find here; a typical listening session spans a broad range of genres, from Medieval to Experimental Electronic. When you have thousands of albums, the only way to listen to all of them is not to listen to all of any one. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 00:36
Theo (I think this is your name, right?), that was NOT a cheap shot. I may have poked fun at DT in the past (before I became Admin, that is), but what I wrote above is deadly serious. I have got six DT albums at home, but the only one I've managed to listen to relatively often and enjoy is "Images & Words". Please read my DT reviews if you want confirmation that I can tackle the issue in a serious, objective way. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 05:33
Interesting thoughts. Still, I would say some of your arguments do not hold. Sometimes artists do not put out large amounts of material not because they can't , but because they restrain themselves in order to achieve higher perfection (if I may say so). I'll give you some examples. Cezanne is considered one of the greatest artists of modern times. However, he was so severe on himself that he often distroyed his own work in anger, every time he felt the didn't "capture the initial emotion" on canvas exactly the way he wanted to have it. Probably many of the paintings he destroyed were also masterpieces - he did have a blustering temper and it's possible that many of his outbursts weren't justified. However, what he left us is one of the greatest modern artistic patrimonis. An extreme example, now: one of the greatest dutch painters (among Rembrandt and Van Gogh; and he's also one of the greatest ever) is Jan Vermeer. His work consists of about 40 paintings and it's higly probable that the complete number of works he's done (including those that were lost for ever) is only larger by a few tens. What do you choose - do you choose to say he's a lesser great artist because he didn't have the inspiration to leave us several hundred works (as other geniuses did) or are you thankful for the way he managed his effort in order to do leave us 40 masterpieces? I guess that by your arguments Vermeer is just a minor artist...
One other issue. You say a 40 minutes long record shouldn't be payed the same as a 60 minutes long record. I know that in the free market, prices are only primarily based on the characteristics (quality & quantity) of the product; the final product is always chosen in direct relation with the estimation of the possible buyers' intent to give for the product. For example, even if I can objectively agree that the X album is equally good as the Y album, I would agree to pay a lot more for the Y album because the artist or the music has a stronger (and probable impossbile to define by words) appeal for me - or I simply am much more interested in it even if I can't know what the album contains... There are other criteria then lenght for asseising an album's value, you know. I would pay more for 30 minutes of brilliance then I would pay for 70 minutes of just good music! ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 07:55
|
It's really subjective. For me 28 minutes of Reign in Blood is longer than TFTO and The Lamb together.
Among my all time fave albums there are under 40 minutes long and some double albums.
Some albums contain unnecessary tracks like You not Me on FII, so they are too long with 1 or 2 tracks, but that's a very big flaw.
|
Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 14:56
|
The truth is, this all depends on the listener. As good as Dream Theater is, personally I have trouble paying attention to Scenes From a Memory, while fans of the band call it a masterpiece. I happen to think that all the Flower Kings albums are quite good. I don't consider any of them to have "filler". There are a few songs I don't care for (probably about 5 or 6, mostly shorter poppy songs), but they are not "filler" to everyone. But again, other people would probably find an album like Unfold The Future interminably long. I think every single track on it is fantastic, with only 2 or 3 songs being merely "good". So there are albums that seem too long to me that are under 40 minutes, and some that are 140 minutes that I absolutely love. My only real issue with long albums is not that I loose interest or can't pay attention, but that it is such a time commitment to listen to them. That is why I listen to stuff in my car, on my MP3 player, while doing dishes, etc. Also, I never skip songs (except bonus tracks at the end of some remastered albums), because I always feel like the artist put them there for a reason. For the most part, if I like a few songs, I like the whole album. Prog bands tend to be good like that for me. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 16:25
Teo, without the H
Kidding I was, no problem of course.
But I'm DEAD SERIOUS about my coming vendetta if you keep that attitude!!!!
-------------
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 16:53
|
'Awake' is actually one of DT's best albums to my ears. It's quite diverse, with some of their most progressive material- 'The Mirror', 'Erotomania'/ and 'Space Dye Vest' I rate very highly.
I think whether albums go on too long is an entirely subjective opinion. For example, some fans and even band members (Rick Wakeman stand up) dislike TFTO for its length but I honestly could say I love it from beginning to end. 'The Ancient' aside, which is a real experimental track and quite unlike anything they'd done before, I don't see why it causes such controversy. It's a halfway house between CTTE (sides 1 and 2) and Relayer for me (sides 3 and 4) with characteristics of both.
I feel The Lamb is perhaps more controversial. Again, I love that album but it actually required more effort for me than TFTO did! There's such a large amount of music on there and it's so dense sonically (some people actively dislike the production too) that I could see why that divides people. But it's high up on my personal favourite list of Genesis albums-in my top 5.
But the double album I'd nominate as being one I personally feel is too long is The Flower Kings' 'Unfold The Future' as I was saying on another thread. There's so much material that does nothing for me whatsoever- I could only pull an album's worth of material I like from the 2 discs. I've had that album for a year or more now and if I'd have not bought 'Paradox Hotel' on the off chance (and to claim on a money off voucher in all honesty- needed a few pounds more to use it), I'd probably not have given their other stuff an airing based on UTF. But I'm glad I did as I like most of their other albums. Yet I still don't get that one myself. But then it's their 'recommended' album here, lots of fans swear by it and that's exactly what I mean by it being subjective.
And I'll continue to give UTF a listen in case it suddenly 'clicks'.
There are some non double albums that I find to be too long, though. A Passion Play I find a real chore as there are no hooks to my ears, it seems to be an attempt to 'better' TAAB, when in my mind it clearly doesn't- the 'Hare That Lost Its Spectacles' bit makes me cringe with embarassment. And then I get to 'Olias Of Sunhillow', a shrill sounding affair with little variety for me as it all starts to sound similar after a while, imho, and all a bit one dimensional to my ears. It's technically impressive in that Anderson did all of it himself, but I find it a dirge, quite honestly.
But again, some swear by these two albums and love them.
|
Posted By: NotSoKoolAid
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 18:56
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. |
Posted By: richardh
Date 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. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 08:23
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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Zargus
Date 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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 14:22
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.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 14:40
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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 21:17
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?"
|
Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 23:04
|
666 is the longest album it just drags on for too long -------------  "Only the sun knew why"
|
Posted By: MadcapLaughs84
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 23:10
|
I think 50-60 minutes it's okay for an album ------------- 
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 02:38
Aphrodites Child? If so then its best to listen just to the second disc IMO which is much stronger than the first disc.
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date 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. |
Posted By: soundspectrum
Date 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. |
Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 18:40
 ...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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 23:45
Well...there always a first time! ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 18:48
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. |