albums that go on too long or finish before they get going

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Cd has encouraged artists to be expansive. The obvious upside of this is that we no longer have albums that weigh in at around the half-hour mark and you end up feeling ripped off. (Then again, who ever said that albums should be 45 minutes long?) And the downside speaks for itself: bombast, noodling, time-wasting.

Thinking in particular of artists you like, what's the worst case you've come across of an album going on too long? And finishing too soon?

― Daniel, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Madonna's 'Erotica' is still in my all-time top 10 even though it justs lies down and dies after "Rain", 2/3 of the way through.

― dave q, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I cant think of any albums that are too short - even really short ones can have a couple of removable tracks on.

I picked Mercury Rev's last album as my favourite of its year despite it running out of steam after only three tracks. And my knowing this at the time.

Oh, wait, UF Orb by The Orb seemed too short to me, compared to its predecessor.

― Tom, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Early Beatles albums seem ridiculously short when listened to today. People often make a big deal about the fact that they released an album every 6 months or so, but there's probably more music on the average hip hop cd than on the first four Beatles albums combined.

I agree with Dave about the wonderful Erotica. Also Stankonia runs out of steam before the end. But better for weaker material to be stuck at the end than anywhere else - it's easy enough to stop a record early.

― scott, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It depends what you mean. I've often wished that particular tracks would go on for longer, but it's rare I'd like extra songs just for the saking of extending an album. As Tom says, there's normally at least one comparative duffer on there anyway, so it's quite likely that any additional material would be even worse. I rarely feel ripped off with albums that are under 45 minutes in length, and would actually prefer my indie and pop stuff to come in at 30-40 minutes. Listening to more than 10 or so short pop songs by the same artist in a row normally gives me a bad case of aural indigestion.

― Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Richard, you're probably right. Maybe I'm just whingeing about cost, i.e. is it fair that single albums all cost the same regardless of whether they're 33 minutes or 73? Does anyone know what the definition of an album is, in terms of time?

A friend has just mentioned Sonic Flower Groove by Primal Scream, as a woefully short album. Talking of which, Byrds albums seems to last about half a minute and I find myself wanting more at the end.

― Daniel, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Nowadays a programmable (sp?) CD player is a must. Having 10 bonus tracks (demos etc) at the end is fine, but usually they're only worth hearing once - example being the reissue of Soft Cell's 'Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret', an absolutely classic disc somewhat spoilt by the 3,000 bonus tracks, none of which are any good.

― dave q, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"Torch" and "What?" are good, but dont fit at all with the album - bonus tracks are a problem when the album does have some kind of hem hem thematic coherence. The infuriating thing about that reissue is that they put all sorts of stuff on but NOT the 12" version of Facility Girls, which is classic - the 7" version is completely so- what, it's only got about a third of the song.

― Tom, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Counter-example being the Who's "Live at Leeds" - original too short, reissue brilliant, and if they could come up with ANOTHER edition with an extra 5 hours of music on it I'd be very pleased.

― dave q, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

new Plaid album is too long and you get the feeling there're filling up the CD for the sake of it. I still think the Lemonheads album "It's a shame about Ray" was too short. I also harbored a theory when I was sixteen that the reason all Nirvana albums were under 45 minutes, was so that they could fit easily on one side of a C90. This being a gesture to the "kids" from Mr Cobain himself. I think a good length generally is an hour.Fuck the kids

― tom, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes, I was thinking about Plaid recently how they are sublime if you hear one track, but a whole CD is way too much (I seldom finish one of the Trainer CD's in one go). Lee Perry's 'Revolution Dub' seems a bit short at 30 minutes, although you really don't notice it, probably unwinds in dope time instead of real time ;)

― Omar, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that any record over 45 minutes will not contain any fillers. Granted, the same can be said for those under 45, but the chances are less likely.

― alex in montreal, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The problem with bonus tracks on reissues is that there was usually a reason they didn't make a final cut anywhere, and the reason wasn't lack of space. They totally destroy the flow of the album, too - I always find myself stopping, for example, Who albums before the bonus tracks because the albums were fine as they were. Better to stick bonus tracks on a completely separate CD, issued as some sort of new release, that way you aren't rushing to the player to turn it off before some awful demo comes on.

― Ally, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

If I want to sit down and listen to an album, as opposed to have it on as background noise, 40-45 minutes is perfect for me. I agree that hour-plus CDs are way more prone to filler.

― Sean, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I can recall feeling shocked when The Cure released that sprawling, ultimately crap double thing called Kiss me Kiss Me Kiss Me. Bands just didn't release that much material in one go. In my strict post- punk upbringing, the notion of expanding short, sharp formats into something more long-winded was severely frowned upon.

― Daniel, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Two Grave Sins have been mentioned on this thread, namely the claim that none of the bonus tracks on the _Non-Stop_ reissue are any good (excuse me? "Fun City" and "Torch" -- hello?) and that _Kiss Me x 3_ is crap. But that's my own personal religion at play. ;-)

I don't mind long CDs or extra tracks at all. Hell, I love 'em. But then again, I am much more patient about (or conditioned for?) letting music continue on rather than random shuffle play or its more recent equivalent of letting yer mp3 player run wild. It's definitely a personal thing at base, there's nothing inherently wrong or right about those approaches.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh yeah, and "Insecure...Me?" as well. GENIUS GENIUS GENIUS. Sorry, Dave Q. ;-)

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Be. Here. Now.

The only good 60 minute plus albums are always greatest hits, I'm sure.

― Bill, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

...or stuff you burnt yourself with MP3s and a burner.

Seriously, when an album gets to the point where, if this was still the LP and cassette age, you'd need two discs to play it, you need to hunt down the artist and slap some sense into them. My skipping-over- certain-tracks version of Generation Terrorists is way better than the version they actually put out, what's wrong with them? There's no such thing as too short in my mind, but too long is unbearable. Even most 60-minute+ greatest hits CDs are too long.

God help the artists putting out double CD albums these days - what are they thinking?

― Ally, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"Survivor" Destiny's Child. The first three tracks are undeniably great. Independent Women part II starts the decline, but there's a couple of good tracks after it. After that, you're on your own.

― Graham, Wednesday, 15 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

So very wrong about Destiny's Child. I think the album just keeps getting better, moving away from pop thrills into some lovely R&B, which is still very pop, but also much more rich. R. Kelly's "R" is needlessly long, but 12 Play is too short. Mogwai's Rock Action is great at its length, but feels like it could accomidate more.

― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

those awful churchy songs at the end of 'miss e...' ruin the flow a bit don't they? it's like she goes "okay, that's enough of the shagging and pill-popping, now i'm going to have to ask for forgiveness". no need, love.

― michael wells, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Survivor could do without the cheesy ballads, though I know one is great (can't remember name, definitely not 'my heart still beats'!) Then you'd be left with the good stuff just after them. Could do without the outro thing as well, and the gospel medley...

Bill

― Bill, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ugh, Survivor is unlistenable except for the fast tracks, and even some of the faster tracks are awful (the other version of Independent Women is enough to make me want to shoot Beyonce in the face). It has gone down in history as the ONLY CD that I've ever burnt a copy of to listen to and decide whether I wanted it that I ended up NOT BUYING.

― Ally, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

[historians worldwide scrabble for correcting fluid as their Ally monographs are now out-of-date...]

― Tom, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Now listen here Mr. Ewing, you slanderous bastard. I have only burnt 3 CDs as a test run. 2 I have purchased. 1 I have not. Destiny's Child is that one. I threw out my burnt copy because I thought, "Good god, my principals of buying all that I copy are not worth this rubbish".

'Tis 100% true and I have said it a million times now: Survivor is an album I dislike intensely. Too ballady. If they were ugly girls half of their fanbase would be gone. They are mostly crap. They are a singles band, but only if the singles are their fast songs.

― Ally, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Sorry Ally not doubting you, merely considered "gone down in history" a bit, ahem, dramatic for not liking a CD...

― Tom, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh, I thought that was a given, that there is a novel being written about me, for posterity's sake.

― Ally, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ally: There wuz a novel being written about you, but after that Survivor shocker I've decided to write about Tracer instead...

― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh, but you forget about Nick Dastoor's novel about me.

― Ally, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The double CD as "artistic statement" is a pox on mankind! (Notable exceptions: 70s Miles reissues, Swans' "Soundtracks for the Blind," compilations.) One of the good things about "Kid A" to my mind was that they honed it down to about 45 mins. rather than larding it up to make it seem more momentous.

― Jess, Thursday, 16 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.