Albums around 30-35 minutes long. C or D

Classic! Dirty Mind, DI Go Pop, Climate of Hunter, etc.

Classic! Albums are too long now. Actually, 40-45 minutes is about perfect.

35-45 miuntes is just great, preferably no more than 45 so they fit on one side of a C90.

Two words: Sleater-Kinney.

Preferrably no more than 40, so 2 of them fit on 1 CDR.

Classic, yes.

Classic. A nice round number like 10 songs makes for a bonus too (thinking particularly right now about Life Without Buildings).

This is the length albums are meant to be. Most CDs now would have been released as double albums back in the day. That's why they're so patchy.

80 minute CDs can be perfectly wonderful -- Lull discs would not exist without them.

I think the length of an album should be determined by the amount of good material an artist has. Look at "Mellon Collie...", "Generation Terrorists" and "Wowee Zowee" - what was the point in releasing so much music when lots of it sucks? Slint's "Spideland" and Mercury Rev's "See you on the Other Side" fall just short of the 40 minute mark, but its 40 minutes of pure enjoyment. Mind you, some albums are long and great - Daydream Nation, Spiritualized "ladies and Gents...", Yo la Tengo "I Can feel the Heart..." and Ryan Adams "Gold." Not much I'd wanna take off those.

Not entirely sure, but isn't FUNHOUSE by the Stooges around said length?

You aren't going to win me over with the Mellon Collie argument there, Kilian. ;-)

''Not entirely sure, but isn't FUNHOUSE by the Stooges around said length?''

Yes, and it's shit.

There's loads of really good albums that are of 70+ minutes and are fantastic (it depends on how much you've got to say).

But there is a 'value for money' disease that has come along with the CD age. I would always say 'quality wins' but when you haven't got much money, and you are choosing between two albums in a shop, the back of the CD with 'Total Lenght' can be v.useful indeed!

I can't honestly say I've ever listened to Mellon Collie through, and I don't know many people who wouldn't skip threw at least a few tracks. Even Adore needs a little editing. Good albums, but they could have been great.

the shorter the better i always say

Wouldn't remove anything from Mellon Collie myself, hell, any Pumpkins album. Those wonky little skipping-away-down-goth-lane tunes at the end of MC = bliss. All just flows so well, it does. :-)

"Yes, and it's shit."

Ummmm.....no, actually. It's not shit at all.

Wowee Zowee is actually my fave pavement. I'd take out maybe a track here and there, but otherwise, all gravy. And I hate most everything off of Crooked Rain Crooked Rain. Except "Range Life," that's a catchy number.

Answering my own question: CLASSIC

May I also add Mogwai's 'Ten Rapid' compilation, some Lemonheads albums (now that's a name you don't hear very often these days, or indeed on this forum) and I'm sure there are many more I love, but not just at the momen

Um, yeah, I don't know how much length (ouch!) really matters (although I'm a bit tired of 80 minute CDs) as an album is good if it is good no matter the length (although some good albums are less good if they are too long rarely cause they are too short). 40-50 minutes of music by a single artist is usually enough for me (a lot of recent metal albums seem to top out at around 50-55 which seems just perfect to me cause the songs are often rather long). That said my fav album from last year was almost 80 minutes and I thought it sustained interest all the way through so who's to say.

Julio is grebt, though a bit wrong.

This whingeing about what length albums are 'meant' to be - come on, it's not the sixties any more. 80 minutes is fine, we can skip the rubbish or program it out but give us everything and spare us the 2CD 'directors cut' reissue ten years down the line please.

Generation Terrorists is bettah for its length -- they were still clash wannabes, remember? Cut down on the punXor filler and you lose the mystique.

Each and every sixty-six minutes of "London Calling" is pretty good, I'd say. And my favorite 2001 album- Cannibal Ox's "The Cold Vein"- is a few minutes short of eighty. Wouldn't omit a single track off that, either. Seriously, if you can't sit through a long, great album start-to-finish without getting antsy after 40 minutes, you might as well bitch about "The Godfather" not being an hour and a half.

'London Calling' is abt 66 mins too long.

I rarely tend to listen to whole albums in a sitting so it doesn't really matter that much to me. But I love short songs (1:30 to 2:30).. so I'd say a 12 track album under 30 minutes would suit me down to the ground.

Great albums under 30 minutes?

the "side" of a "record" is MEANT to be 16.04 mins

The original version of "A Shame About Ray" by The Lemonheads (without "Mrs. Robinson" added) even lasts less than 30 minutes I remember. Couldn't be better. Same goes for the 1st Weezer-album. Brilliant.

''Julio is grebt, though a bit wrong.''

What am I wrong abt, Tom?

Rubbishness of Funhouse - it's not that bad.

What does grebt mean?

Grebt = great * grebe

I'm not sure what Julio has to do with small diving birds, but I guess I get it.

Tom- well, you said it: 'Not that bad' therefore not that good either and yet it gets this 'reputation' as some sort of masterpiece when it actually just bores the shit out of me. I think it has to do with me listening to some stuff that may not be familiar to you or others but even compared to other rock albums it doesn't do it.

Though i confess a lot of stuff that was inspired by this alb is fantastic. I'm talking abt early swans though i doubt it (well, Gira says it was an inspiration), and psycocandy but the velvets were equally inspirational to the latter.

God, I love Funhouse. It's what rock albums are meant to be ;)

Well for me with Funhouse sometimes I think it's absolutely fucking brilliant and sometimes I can't stand it, so it averages out to "not that bad". Ben is right this time ;) - it's kind of an ideal of the 'rock album' so if I'm in the mood for rock I think it's ace.

"I think it has to do with me listening to some stuff that may not be familiar to you or others but even compared to other rock albums it doesn't do it"

Interesting. I think it has to do with you being wrong. Funhouse is one of great rock albums ever.

Funhouse is not a good rock alb. The rifs don't register as 'great' to me. When they are 'sludgy' there's not enough 'scrap' and when they are meant to be fast then they are not that fast, which doesn't help and Iggy's vocals are just jagger (the most overarted rock vocalist in history).

When they add saxophone matters are not improved. It's not a disaster but its hardly on the level of sauter/dietrich.

''Interesting. I think it has to do with you being wrong. Funhouse is one of great rock albums ever.''

You are listening to critics Alex. Stop doing that.

''God, I love Funhouse. It's what rock albums are meant to be ;)''

If that was the case, I wouldn't listen to rock.

'Reign in Blood' is 28 minutes long!

Julio, it's comments like "you are listening to critics" that make people want to punch you in jaw. You have no idea what I (or for that matter any other poster is listening to) but you can be damn sure that if I'm stating that I like an album it is because I AM LISTENING TO THAT ALBUM AND ENJOYING IT.

I liked the muddy sludgy riffs. A LOT. I like Iggy's half screamed vocals. A LOT. I like the screeching noise. A LOT. I think the songs are great--catch-y and brutal. I like them A LOT.

Got it. Good. For the record, forget the rock bullshit, Funhouse is one of the great albums ever. If you don't think so then fine, but don't play my love for it off as some kind of critic's conspiracy. It's condescending and makes you look like even more of pretensious dickwad than you probably are.

''I think the songs are great--catch-y and brutal. I like them A LOT.''

That's the critics talking here. Brutal! Come on, you're having a laugh!

''I like Iggy's half screamed vocals. A LOT. I like the screeching noise. A LOT.''

you're settling for second best here: HALF scream! what abt the FULL scream! And where's the noise?

''Julio, it's comments like "you are listening to critics" that make people want to punch you in jaw.''

Come on, let me have your 'transatlantic' punch, then. You're making me laugh.

Chewsabadoo says: "May I also add Mogwai's 'Ten Rapid' compilation, some Lemonheads albums (now that's a name you don't hear very often these days, or indeed on this forum)" Check out yesterday's "Summery Songs" thread, to witness me worship at the altar of the godlike Evan Dando. If I'm not working on Saturday week I will be able to worship him in person, when he plays in Dublin. "Its a Shame..." and "Come on Feel..." will be soundtracking my summer.

Absolutely classic.

Music in general seems to be suffering from a total absence of quality control. Exhibit A = New Adventures In Hi-Fi.

1. Those are my words thank you very much.

2. Although I have all scream albums, sometimes I like a little sing too. Call it a compromise or whatever you like. A weakness of mine perhaps. Don't matter as the vocals work for me either way. Again I like 'em A LOT.

3. Perhaps you can't hear the noise on the album over the noise escaping from your mouth.

4. Yawn. I think, Julio, that this all your little analysis just cranky contrarian critic talking. You listen TOO much to cranky contrarian critics. Try listening with your own ears for a change.

iggy is too girly for julio who has a giant big penis

''2. Although I have all scream albums, sometimes I like a little sing too. Call it a compromise or whatever you like. A weakness of mine perhaps. Don't matter as the vocals work for me either way. Again I like 'em A LOT.''

I like singing as well but you said Iggy's vocals were 'half screamed' and i'm saying that if that is the case then he is doing it half-heartedly.

''3. Perhaps you can't hear the noise on the album over the noise escaping from your mouth.''

I had my ear close by to the speakers. There isn't much there. I had my mouth closed.

''4. Yawn. I think, Julio, that this all your little analysis just cranky contrarian critic talking. You listen TOO much to cranky contrarian critics. Try listening with your own ears for a change.''

But I have listened to my own ears and Funhouse is not godd at all and not the brutal blast that critics and you think it is. If critics didn't overarte this then the you wouldn't, too.

on a less intimate note, iggy = not just jagger, but kind of the anti-jagger => julio that is "influence theory" hence prove by since to be rubbish (viz jagger = "you love because i hurt and hate you" vs "iggy = you love me because you hurt and hate me")

critics — f.kogan excepted — write pretty badly about the stooges = they are ABSOLUTELY NOT the usual lame-o attalian noisegunk "threaten the state" assault they are sold on as (luckily: as this means negativland basically and uselessness) (or supply your preferred hate-figures but mine r bettah)

I have also "listened to my own ears" but all I heard was a lot of ringing. Pansy HALF-ringing at that.

"If critics didn't overarte this then the you wouldn't, too."

When you access the alternate universe where this event occurs let me know and we'll enter Marvel Comics style and see if you're right. I've wasted enough of life in this universe on you and your half- assed argument so I'm going to bed. Good night.

''iggy is too girly for julio who has a giant big penis''

Iggy's vocals are OK, not great ('manly' I would say) . My major problem is with the music, which is merely average.

What is really bugging me here is the "no, the Stooges aren't good, your opinion can't be right" attitude. Is it so hard to accept that some people really like them and some may not? Sheesh this really wears me out.

For the record, I think "Funhouse" is one of the greatest albums ever. You're allowed to disagree.

Whoa! X was NOT influenced by Y! If anything, Y was influenced by Z, who was sort of influenced by X.

Similarity (however narrowly or broadly construed) is a necessary but not sufficient condition of "influence". "Influence" can be defined as relationship between two artists, X and Y, such that "X influenced Y", if two conditions are satisfied: (1) Y is similar to X and vice versa (similarity being commutative), and (2) X predates Y and some plausible chain of events can be postulated such that Y was aware of X (or of another artist, Z, who was aware of X, or of a chain leading back to X). Without the second condition, "influence" cannot be said to have occurred. For instance, let us say that anthropologists discover a tribe of pygmies who have had no contact whatsoever with any person outside of their tribe for the past 50 years, and let us further say that in the culture of this tribe there is a form of music which sounds practically identical to Barry Manilow's second album. Would anyone dare to say that the pygmy music was "influenced" by Barry Manilow? Of course not. Therefore, similarity is not sufficient condition for "influence".

The preceding paragraph is only an attempt to define what critics generally mean when they use the term "influence". It should not be interpreted as a defense of the usefulness or meaningfulness of said term. I think both conditions of the definition are vulnerable to attack. Regarding condition 1: isn't it possible for X to be influenced by Y, even if X and Y are not similar? For instance, perhaps a leftist punk band could have been influenced by the vapidity of Britney Spear's latest album to release something diametrically opposed to it. Regarding condition 2: isn't this notion of a "chain" of influencing events often unproveable, and therefore problematic. Furthermore, since it is exterior to the content of the music itself, shouldn't it be dismissed as the province of psychologists or biographers, and not fit for the critic's attention?

By describing Iggy as 'anti-jagger' you are acknowledging Jagger's influence on Iggy mark.

Funhouse= acknowledge AlexSF opinion but there are a few things he said that made me think that his line of thought on Stooges was fed by crits. He got angry.

Carry this on later: My brother wants to use computer for coursework. Just when i wanted to have fun.

i meant like the antichrist, not like antinuclear

but what you say julio of course only further undermines the uselessness of the term (he is similar = he is influenced, he is dissimilar = he is influenced, he is the opposite = he is influenced? so just say, similar or dissimilar or the opposite; what has "influenced" told you that those words don't )

similar or opposite, 'influence' still means something different than just saying two artists make similar or opposite music. it speaks to intent! (which you already know you scoundrel)

mark doesn't belive in intent = mark is barthes = mark is french?

mark will you sign my copy of a lover's discourse please please pleaaaase?

but josh, the whole point is that you should sign your own!

well I haven't gotten that far into it yet really it just looks good on the shelf next to of grammatology

"Funhouse= acknowledge AlexSF opinion but there are a few things he said that made me think that his line of thought on Stooges was fed by crits."

When did you acknowledge anyone's opinion? Hahaha. You know even if my line of thinking was spoon fed from critics that doesn't make my liking the album any less valid and make your argument less of a red herring (or presumptious). Unless, of course, the implication is that only likes and dislikes which are wholly and completely original are valid or worthy of attention (which is what I think YOU are saying actually). This is a laughable assertion, Julio. No one's knowledge sprang fully grown like Athena from the head of Zeus. We've all absorbed the world around us into our critical views. Not a one of us is a completely original being free of the fetters of the society (or the mewling of it's critics) around us (and for my part I'm glad that such is the case). I'll admitt that I'm not very good at describing what I like about music in words (not surprising, I don't write music criticism and I'm not very practiced at translating fondness for certains into word). Maybe I'll develop my own idiom so at least next time when reading me writing about music you won't be struck by how completely derivative it is. Perhaps I'll use pudding (another love) to describe everything. I like pudding. "This album hit me like a pudding avalanche overwhelming me with it's gelatinous goodness." "The guitars sounded like pudding pops melting on my fingers." "The vocals were like sweet sweet pudding to my ears." "That bit at end sounded like the screams of Bill Cosby as he gets the crap beaten out of him."

Critics can turn you to good or bad things. What I object to IN THIS CASE is the line ''This is the ideal rock album'' or ''this is one of the greatest rock albums ever made'' or

''For the record, forget the rock bullshit, Funhouse is one of the great albums ever.''

I just hope you were around in 1970 to make that statement.

''Unless, of course, the implication is that only likes and dislikes which are wholly and completely original are valid or worthy of attention (which is what I think YOU are saying actually).''

Not at all: evrybody will get to read and absorb and be influenced (oh, yes!) by other things but thre's no last word on anything which includes the Stooges line.

''I'll admitt that I'm not very good at describing what I like about music in words (not surprising, I don't write music criticism and I'm not very practiced at translating fondness for certains into word).''

Nor am I? It is very difficult for me to listen to things and translate into a coherent argument.

Why do I have to have been around in 1970 to have made that statement?

Those statements are clearly opinions. Funhouse is one of the great albums ever (IMPLIED: in MY opinion for many pudding related reasons). The fact that this statement annoys you and that plenty of critics agree with me doesn't make it any less MY opinion. Objecting to an opinion is one thing, but making everyone who holds an opinion different than your into the mindless automatons of "critics" is different animal altogether.

mark s: "i intend to be influenced by ernst bloch"
critics: "hurrah mark s is the new bloch!!"
small boy: "but he is nothing like bloch he is more like molesworth (*to self*: chiz chiz)"
critics: "hush you, influence is related to intent and let that be an end to it"
small boy: (*to self*: i don't get it)

Mark, you are so pudding!

''Why do I have to have been around in 1970 to have made that statement?''

I get very uncomfortable with 'Best of' type things. Especially by people who were not buying records around that year.

For instance, a few years ago i would've said 'Trout Mask' is the greatest album ever, full stop but it's a stupid thing to say because I don't know what else was released in '69. All I can say is that it is a great record.

I cxan't undestand the hysteria around this record.

At least we can agree mark is a pudding. All this talk is making me hungry.

That is a really weird way of looking at records. I mean it's always implied when you say something is the best, that a) it's your opinion and b) that it's the best you've ever heard. No one could have heard everything ever. I mean that's a bit of a daunting task. Julio: "I wasn't born back then so I can't say it's really great 'cause there might have been something else that was really great but I haven't heard it and then I'd be a liar and no one would ever give me any pudding. . ."
Critics: "Damn straight you get no pudding."
Small Boy: "Oh give him some pudding anyway. He sounds so confused."
Critics: "I intended to give no one pudding cause you won't shut up little boy."
Mark S: "Pudding is a red herring."
Bill Cosby: "Mmmn mmn. With the puddin' in the pop and pop in the puddin' and the . . owww owww stop it owww. (critics begin beating him)"

We can both agree that, yes, we can't listen to everything ever, so why say that 'This is the best' then.

All we can do is listen to as much as we can and give our opinions on it.

Best, great, super, fabulous, favorite, whatever are all are modified by the subject speaking them. Limitations of subject are clear so when I say Reign In Blood is the best metal album EVER, it is clear that I mean Reign In Blood is my favorite album in a genre which I perceive to be metal. There are no opinions (of this type certainly) which can transcend subjective belief into some of universal objective fact. This means that I cannot prove that Reign In Blood is the best metal album EVER using physics (or pudding).

That I can't prove this is good.

Jesus H. Christ! Are you guys still talking about Funhouse & critics & taste and all that? Don't you know that Lisa "Lefteye" Lopez died? Get over to that thread, post haste!

I got an answer to this alex, but it doesn't matter. I'm argued out for the day (and its just midday round these parts!).

Wimp!!! ;) It's 5am here and I'm ready to tussle. Or eat some pudding. Mmmmn. . . pudding.

sinkah -- I am making this work as a response/continuation of bloch.

critics -- mark s is a cheap rip-off of bloch!

small boy -- i like it anyway! who's bloch?

ms: i am arguing with that blowhard bloch!!
critics: he is clearly influenced by bloch!!
small boy: where is my ma$e handpuppet?

intent more complicated than that, you big poophead

This sucks, Beavis.

shuddup, dumbass

when i was 17 my fav albums were the 1st 3 ramones albums (yeah & the 1st 2 stooges albums, but, oh let's not discuss that any further) & you know how those are real short? like just under 30 min's ea.? well i only noticed they were radically shorter than "normal" records when i taped 'em for someone & they all 3 fitted on a C-90 which usually (in those days) was enough for 2 whole albums & maybe 2 or 3 loose songs on the ends of the side. I.e., they are THE RIGHT LENGTH, you don't notice it's short til you have to measure it.

Nashville Skyline is only 27 minutes long.

Please continue naming great albums under 40 min, thx.

A few not already mentioned..

The Beatles, Revolver
Blondie, Parallel Lines
The Cars, s/t
Kiss, Destroyer
The Replacements, Let It Be

Would you buy, say, an 8 track, 38 min album from a band you like in this day and age?

You like The Strokes?

Not really.

Sam Prekop's last album was like 38 min.

The Diskettes!

funhouse is not shit, that is the most fucked-up thing i've read on ilm in months.

um, that was julio (3 years ago) in his early ILx phase

aww

sorry, lame attempt at 'teh funny', ie continue the argument down the years.

I rather admire the Go-Betweens for sticking to the 10-song, under-40 minute rule for more than seven albums.

All 10 Felt LPs are all under 40 min.

sorry, lame attempt at 'teh funny'
ah, oops. i am "not godd at all"

to the question, then: Would you buy, say, an 8 track, 38 min album from a band you like in this day and age?
yes, absolutely. Not that I like many 'bands' these days. But the Smoosh CD was, like, 14 tracks lasting just over 30 minutes. I paid full price for that.

I bought The Slow Wonder. More than 8 tracks, but less than 38 minutes.

The Beach Boys "Wild Honey" is less than thirty minutes and absolutely perfect.

short albums with long songs seem to be more inspired. of course there are exceptions.

illmatic is a good one.

Classic, I say. The reason: In the days of cassettes, and the automobiles in which they were played, I cherished albums under 45 min. because I could record two of them from CD or LP on either side of a 90 min. Maxell.