What's the ideal length of a studio album?
 

???

45-60 , shorter for punk-plain rockin'out records.

Before CD's, albums used to be about 45 mins long. Anymore then the quality of the recording suffered. Obviously double/triple LP's were released, which were of greater length.

What I noticed with the arrival of CD's was that quality control largely disappeared as bands released double-LP length albums as a matter of course, filling up the space of a CD.

I dont think it matters the length of an album. Aslong as the content is good.

i like this smiley,nothing to do with the thread...norma j,actually i prefer shorter hi-quality album (if a band/author has many good songs ready i prefer 2 discs released,say,6 month one from another),coz i find it easier to mantain the "attention level" high throughout the whole record,sorta kill bill style type of thing....if you understand what i mean.imo the only SY album a bit too long is A thousand Leaves,but the content is great nonetheless.

Less than 45 minutes. Arab on Radar's Yahweh or the Highway and Erase Errata's Other Animals are perfect.

^^^^
that's right,i meant that in my earlier post (some genres are more effective on the short distance)

Depends on the music. some require long time (ie: mars volta) some with less intricate/jammy music can do it in less. punk/hardcore records should be half hour or less, i think. if the musics good, i don't care.

45 to 60 mins is my favorite length. Albums that are over an hour long can be hard to listen to in one sitting. I rather listen to an ep than a shorter album.

I am gonna go with 45-55 minutes for a single album as well.

I think 30-40 minutes is usually right for most bands...I generally cringe if I see more than 15 songs on a record, very few bands need that kind of length. It's not a "bonus" to waste my time with crap filler, and on that note I don't like bonus tracks that much either. For some reason the standard after the fall of vinyl seems to be 60 minutes, which is enough to make me go from indifference to pure hatred listening to an album. I pay for the album not the length, and a lot of times these "economical" albums are worth a lot less to me. There are some bands that need the length for their ambition, I think whatever's right is right. But a long album has to justify its length in my opinion, a lot of bands seem to think the good will float to the surface in a sea of shit. Double albums on vinyl were much more of a risk I think than an 80 minute CD because it was an album on four sides, which makes it more apparent when there's nothing in the middle.

60-75

I enjoy filler. It's just more material. You still get the other stuff. I will sometimes not buy a CD if it's too short. I'm not going to spend $15 on 30 minutes of decent music. I will, however, spend that much on an hour of decent music.

well it depends on the band, but generally i appreciate it when people have the courtesy to keep things brief.

I disagree with you, acoustik. i just paid 16 bucks for eleven minutes of killer music. (Femme Fatale) and am really quite satisfied with my purchase. and someone up there said something about albums with more than 15 tracks, i also disagree. So many bands can pull it off and keep my attention easily. (The Locust, Husker Du, etc)

If a band has the talent i don't mind the long listening jouney.

I have a few 10 minute CDs that are awesome (Whirlwind Heat - Flamingo Honey is a spectacular 10 min. CD). However, I still consider them to be a waste of money. I think that out of courtesy they should either a) lower the price to that of a single ($5 max) or b) put more effort into it. Obviously imports have an adjusted ratio, but just in general I think that the price should be affected by how much material you're getting. That's just me, though. There is no reason to sell 10 minutes for the same high price.

Though, I hate huge 15 minute gaps at the end of the last track leading into a "hidden" song.

If I'm listening to a pure rock album, short and raw is best. Ramones exemplifed this. Yet, there is nothing wrong with an epic album, if its done right. "The Wall", or "Daydream Nation", for example. I love the journey these albums put me on, it feels cinematic, or even like a sonic novel of sorts. Yes 60mins or over can and often are artists at thier most over-blown and pretentious, but when its done right you feel like you've been somewhere by the last few notes of the album, and can be quite satisfying. Albums that never feel too long:

Sonic Youth-DDN

The Clash- London Calling

Blur-Modern Life Is Rubbish

Refused-Shape of Punk to Come

and of coruse Bob Dylan-Blonde on Blonde

uh-huh.i wanna know "why? why not just put it directly after, another track for eff's sake."

What I would've said if I wasn't so lazy.

The 15 tracks thing was kind of just a general rule, tracks don't really mean anything. Locust has very short songs, and as for Husker Du, Zen Arcade easily justifies its length for me. Le Scrawl's entire discography "Too Short to Ignore" is 66 songs at something like 55 minutes... There are a lot of very slow bands, or very sprawling bands who might only fit two songs in that time frame.

I don't really understand what use extra time is, other than taking up time. In many cases I see the album as a whole to be just as important as each song, so it's not still getting the other stuff, it's getting inconsistency and mediocrity. The amount of material is not really what you're buying, it's the work as a whole...otherwise just go to a dollar bin and buy 10 CDs rather than one, it's a much better deal. Music doesn't really end with the start and stop buttons anyway, it just seems irrelevant...the work is either worth it or it's not. Compilations are a slightly different issue, but usually the length will depend on the goal, if you're trying to get an overview of an artist's entire career it makes sense that there will be more material. Though these tend to be an excellent example of poor choices in the tracklisting being a detriment to the work as a whole. The only reason I say 30-40 minutes is because that's what a lot of, shall we say pop, artists seem have in them. When something is great it doesn't matter how long it is, and greatness isn't so scarce that I need mediocrity to take up the extra time in between.

HAHA. I laugh at yr humongous discography. Minor Threats Completel Discog. is a mere 26 songs and 47 minutes!

That it is, and it is great.

Complete Discography that is.

I think that we should ask the initial question to Napalm Death,shall we?

they would say "30 to 45 minutes." why would we ask them, when we can ask anal cunt. "30-45 seconds," they'd say! (small exaggeration)

or you could ask the question to the gerogerigegege,

nuh-uh. could not.

Short enough for me to wish it were longer. EVOL's my favorite from the group, and it's like 40 or so minutes. The number of tracks should be no more than 11.

Yeah I get what you're saying. I just listen to music differently I suppose. I rarely look at a CD as a whole unless it is meant to be looked at as a whole. Usually I assume a band just writes songs and cuts the ones that sound out of place, but doesn't work them into a single entity. I'm someone who will buy a CD for a few songs, and just think of the others as a bonus to give me my money's worth. I think of of it like, I can either have 30 minutes of great music and then nothing, or 30 minutes of great music interspersed with 30 minutes of variable music. Sometimes it's another great 30 minutes, sometimes it's a dissappointing 30 minutes. But it's still better than nothing.

Like the CD I bought today cost me $20 (it's an import) and is an hour long (excluding the obnoxious 15 minute bonus crap I mentioned). I bought it based on a single song, but I would not have paid that for the song alone. I paid it knowing that I would get 55 more minutes of potentially good/potentially bad music. It's better than paying $20 for a single song. Fortunately, the whole thing kicks ass.

right about at 40 minutes is perfect.

52 mins.

about 40 min, but one of my favorite records are Hüsker Dü - Everything Falls Apart, and that one is short but perfect.

In the days before CD's, it was less obvious how long an album was, unless you timed it. length was much less of an issue.

I've been really surprised how short some of my favourite albums are when I've bought them on CD, having only had the vinyl previously.

Particularly old punk albums, like Circle Jerks first and MDC's Millions of Dead Cops (both not much longer than about 20 minutes).

It's not only punk that suits short, what about Nick Drake - Pink Moon? That one is just perfect.

True enough, I only used those as an example becauses that's what I listened to in my youth.

yeah, I was not directing it to you in spesific, it just crossed my mind. What's your favorite long album Pookie?

I suppose the one that springs to mind is Sandinista, which was a triple LP, but is now available on a single CD.

I don't know if double and triple LP's count because they weren't necessarily meant to be listened to in one sitting. I don't think I ever did with Sandinista until I bought it on CD.

yeah, good point. I hardly listen through double or triple LP in one sitting. I think that's a good thing.

45-60, about 13 songs or something

horses?