Ideal album length?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49770
Printed Date: May 18 2024 at 09:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ideal album length?
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Subject: Ideal album length?
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 15:45
|
I find that unless it's a concept album, an album should not be much longer than 40 minutes or in a few cases 60. Most very long albums by those standards I've heard end up having some filler unless there's some unifying concept to it that provides context for the songs seeming weak when taken on their own. In some respect, this is one thing I kinda miss about the vinyl era... back then when you had to keep a typical studio album on one disc, it meant that only the best tracks from the recording sessions would be included. I could be overthinking this, of course... didn't some famous reviewer say "no good album is too long"?  ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Replies:
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 16:39
|
I was quite happy with the typical length of around forty minutes back in the 70's but having got used to the length of cd's these days if I get a new release that's only around the 40 - 45 min mark I find it a bit short. I think around 55 minutes is a perfect length these days.
The good thing about shorter albums though was that I could listen to more in any listening session. In the days of vinyl I'd often just play one side and then move onto another one giving me the opportunity to listen to 3 albums in the time it takes to play 1 cd.
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 16:58
The funny thing is that I grew up on vinyls too, perhaps I just got a bit oversaturated on CD-era albums often being so long and am now overreacting. After all, the question asked is a pretty damn subjective thing.  ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Nightfly wrote:Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 19:40
|
I like somwhere between 50 and 60 mins. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 19:42
|
I feel that artist sometimes feel the need to fill an entire cd, which leads them to produce subpar material. However, there is no ideal album length. It depends on the album and the artist. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: mithrandir
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 19:55
| depends on the type of music, |
Posted By: Statutory-Mike
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 20:07
80 minutes is perfect  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 20:25
|
My ***** albums (all full-lengths) range in length from 28 minutes to over 90. There is no universally ideal album length; it's different for each album. |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 20:47
|
Although my favorite albums range from around 30 to 120 minutes I find that 45 is the optimum time. Leave the audience salivating for more  |
Posted By: Jozef
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 21:00
| 50 to 60 is generally fine in my opinion. Although I usually don't mind either way what the length is. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 21:20
But what defines "too long" is different for every album, so that doesn't mean anything (and it's wrong anyway; lots of albums are too long for their own good but still good albums anyway) |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 21:46
Let's have some fun with particular premise...
 ...just, umm, liven the place up a bit I like rrrreaallly long cd's, the kind that allow me to get a good nap in the middle...preferably some noodly sections, they do the trick every time. Then some nice atonal noise to wake me back up for the grande finale...let's say, at least 2 hours total. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 22:12
|
It's ok, I can take a poke or two, even if you are (still) wrong
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 22:18
|
hahaha, resorting to the ol' "na-na-na-na-boo-boo" defense. A personal favorite of mine. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 27 2008 at 22:35
| na-na-na-na-boo-boo |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 04:10
Yeah, that's why I started this thread in the first place. I think that in order to even ask a question like this, you have to see an album as a whole forming a self-contained work of art rather than a collection of songs - and, of course, not all bands view it that way but in prog and other genres with a tendency towards being rather high-concept such an approach comes naturally.  I think the litmus test for whether a (prog) album is too long is whether you can remove several tracks from the running time and it wouldn't express less than the full version does. If there's no tracks that either don't add nuance to the album as a whole, or other creative content exploring the same (or just similar) themes as the rest of it, it's not too long. It's important finding a balance between a varied album and one where many songs feel totally out-of-place. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Luke. J
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 12:58
|
The ideal album length for me is the length of the good music available. If you have 90 minutes of quality music it is fine with me, if there are 40 minutes why not? As long as there are no tracks or sections to artificially raise the amount of material (call them "fillers" if you want) I am happy with it. So, Camel's Mirage and Ayreon's The Human Equation are among my favorites with the very different length. I do not care for the length of the music, but for the music on an album. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 13:22
The problem with the term filler is its negative connotation. Albums like OK Computer and Daydream Nation both have what can only be called filler (Fitter Happier and Providence, respectively), but both improve the quality of the album. IMHO there are two types of filler: shorter tracks that function only in the context of the album, but, in that context, improve the album (or at least are meant to, since obviously not all succeed) throwaway tracks that function only to make the album longer |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 05:43
I usually don't think of these as "filler", but you have an excellent point. Those are probably the original meaning of filler...
... and the term has been corrupted to mean this instead. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 06:22
|
I've often thought that albums were too short, but I've never thought that they were too long, except for the ones that would have been too long even at ten minutes length. |
Posted By: BePinkTheater
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 15:42
|
I think with the right flow, an album can't be too long or too short. I do find, however, that often times, anything longer than 70 minutes is too long. On the other hand, I find that 40-45 minutes might be too short (or at least it become obnoxious when it's the only cd in the car) ------------- I can strangle a canary in a tin can and it would be really original, but that wouldn't save it from sounding like utter sh*t. -Stone Beard |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 15:52
|
Well, as many 70's Prog Lovers, we all know that MOST of albums of the 70's, Prog and Hard Rock mainly, had as Minimun 30 min and as Max 50 min, of course some minutes of +, but Generally. Sometimes Deep Purple albums that are 35 min long, they get a little bit short, but it's ok for me anyways, since it's Hard Rock, and all the songs are all played well, rather than the 60 min+ albums from nowadays of ridiculous pop bands with 21 songs and each song is a faliure. So it also depends on the quality on the album, I suppose they've already said that before me. |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 01 2008 at 15:58
and the quality(well at least if you like it) of the music. Cause you CAN give ME 120 min of Deep Purple in one day. But NOT 120 min of Britney Spears in one day, or neither a MINUTE! As I said before, I stay with the 70's! for Prog, generally: 40-55 min (not including live) for Hard Rock generally: 30 min-45 min (not including live) |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 07:56
|
The longer the beter!
But to be honest i dont realy cear its up to the artist to shoose how long he want his album to be, i yust listen. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 08:16
|
from 35 to 65 with 50-55 minutes as a paragon of ideal Just checked my top-50 albums: only six from them are longer than 70 minutes |