length

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

are modern albums too long?

― jess, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

a: yes.

― jess, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

non-brevity levity answer: i think so. i can barely get through the average 60-78 minute cd (hiphop records are of course notorious for packing every spare second even with obvious filler i.e. the skits), let alone the recent spate of double cd's. there are exceptions obviously (the swans' "soundtracks for the blind," a handful of hiphop records, etc.) but for the most part i think a certain cohesion and listenability were lost with the passing of the LP and it's duration (and side breaks!) the thought of dvd audio and it's time capacity fills me with the horror. i'd love for someone to offer an argument as to why this is a good thing, except for archival and/or price purposes.

― jess, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think they're too long, definitely. I owned Doggystyle for like 3 years before I heard the last song on the album, which turned out to be my favorite ("Pump Pump," which I knew previously from a mixtape & wondered, "Where can I find that Snoop track?" -- while we're on the subject of Doggystyle, what's up with that fucked up track listing on the back of the CD.?)

I've heard somebody (Tom?) mention that they don't mind long CDs because they just program the good songs. I've never programmed a CD player in my life, so this could be my problem.

― Mark, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

programming CDs seems kinda anathema to me; mostly because i dont really ever have the time, but also because i am a ROCKIST at heart and really do like to follow the "artist's chosen progression." so i suppose my gripe remains that i want some damn tighter editing from artists, you meglomaniacs.

― jess, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Agreed. Things seem to be a bit more in control than they were a few years ago, but overall the length of an LP (around 45 minuntes) is easier to digest for me than a bloated 80 minute epic (let alone a double CD).

― Sean, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I blame Def Leppard. Or Dire Straits. Or someone like that.

― Sean Carruthers, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't see how. Bad albums are always too long.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I blame the death of the single. If artists want some piece of inessential tomfoolery to come out now, they can't stick it on a B-side any more... it has to go on the album.

― Douglas, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Inessential tomfoolery is killing music

― electric sound of jim, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

long albums = more surprises later on

― Josh, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

long albums = better for naps

― Josh, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Main problem = knowing first 4, 5 tracks really well, rarely ever making it to the end. However, if album is good then eventually all will be revealed. If album is bad & long - nightmare.

― clive, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

haha mark s programa cds via the magic of GROUP THEORY!! this is TRUE!! if CD has [x] cuts on it, choose a number [y] which does not DIVIDE INTO [x]: program in cycles of [y], since by GROUP THEORY you will get all the cuts, but in a difft order eg 12 cuts: 7 2 9 4 11 6 1 8 3 10 5 12 hurrah!

― mark s, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

So you have the time to listen to a CD all the way through and then to complain about it on a webboard but not to set it on 'random' or program it? Blimey!

(I thoroughly recommend random play - it's nearly always a good way of getting to know your CDs better)

― Tom, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Another point: vinyl albums tend to lose sound quality as you try to fit more and more material onto a given side. (Pop/rock albums are more vulnerable to this, since they tend to be more heavily compressed and have a lot of bass frequencies, both of which help to eat up more room on the LP.) So if anything, there was an impetus to be as brief as possible -- whereas now, the sound quality of a CD that clocks in at 79:59 is no better or worse than a 25-minute EP.

― Phil, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Longer is better. Why? Coz the album is dead anyway, and better NOW contain 18 hits than 12.

― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Definitely. Just take the Strokes record.

― helenfordsdale, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

But Tom, surely putting it on Random destroys the flow which the band/artist spent so long agonising over - the way we were _meant_ to hear it?

Er, no. I'd program all my CDs if the player remembered the order when I took the disc out. My brother has some fancy system that does this, I'm dead envious.

― clive, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

listening to an album on shuffle play = good. I'm not convinced bands actually compose the entire album as an organic whole where the concept is spoiled if you listen to it out of order. There are exceptions, of course - try listening to Chill Out by the KLF on shuffle play.

listening to five albums on shuffle play in a CD multichanger = bad, an approach favoured by people who see music as wallpaper.

albums are too long, and it is the curse of the CD. like many other correspondents I tend to lose interest after the first few tracks. Do you reckon bands officially put the four best songs right at the start so that an album create a good impression with reviewers who aren't going to bother listening to the end?

― DV, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

there aren't many albums where it really matters if you play them out of order. haunted dancehall is one i play in order, and one that refutes the law given above (the best 4 are the last 4)

― gareth, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The five albums on shuffle play thing works ok when it's five compilations - particularly of different but vaguely related genres. The main problem with it is that it takes too long to skip between CDs. Most of my multi-band listening is done using my MP3 playlists.

Clive - when you know all the tracks cos of random shuffle play or whatever then you can go back and appreciate the glorious whole if you want, but like the Vicar says I suspect most artists don't give a monkeys.

Tom's top pop tips #2: you don't even need to program. I have my remote next to me when I'm playing a record - on comes a skit or boring track and with one tiny touch it is gone. Easy! Unless of course you're not actually paying attention to what's playing.

I am glad nobody in this discussion has tried to impress us with the 70 minute CDs = better to shag to point. Even though it's true!

None of my favourite 3 CDs last year were under 60 minutes (This has nothing to do with para above).

― Tom, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Tom is completely on the money about random play. Now once I've listened to something straight through twice I can't stand to have the same order again. And then when I have gotten into the album I may play it right through all over again.

― Ronan, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

the whole problem with that you will never grow to love difficult tracks which improve with repeated listens.

this explains why you like such immediate material.

― DV, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes DV is otm. You have to fight the boredom and sit through stuff and then before you know it you're walking somewhere and you start humming some bit and it's from the song you thought was boring and you can't wait to get home and hear it again.

― Ronan, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I should have made myself clearer - the remote thing is what you do when you know the album and what you like on it already. The random thing is how you give every track a fair shake. I can't even remember the last time I heard something and thought "this is difficult" (actually I can, it was some electroacoustic music Brian Duguid recommended in The Wire).

― Tom, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think when something is "hard" to get into, it kind of floats by you for a while so it's not a conscious decision "oh this is difficult". However there is a certain effort required to er let it float by. And to persist. That's how it is with me anyway.

― Ronan, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think it's two different things we're talking about - there's familiarity eventually making you like something which isn't immediate, and there's persevering with something which is actually quite hard to like. MP3 playlists are my preferred way of dealing with both those actually.

― Tom, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes, *but*, ever noticed how this is seen as a marketing bonus? Like that set of driving cd's constantly advertised on Eurosport. Over 5 hours of music! Wow! Buy now! etc... (having said that, lots of music while driving is good, so...). But, erm, yes, as Johnny Cigarettes once pointed out (I think) 45 minutes should be it. So you know you can make it to the end without falling asleep.

― Bill, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Pop music today is bad = yes modern LPs are too long.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (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.