|
Well, yeah, I've always thought ep's were ALWAYS better than any bands full lengths, for example. A good 30 minute album kills a double disc of filler nad bullshit. Personally, I would never make a super long album or movie or do a long live performance, as long as I have a say over it (obviously I've played in bands where I had no control over an album coming out that was over an hour). Movies are definitely always too long. I really can't think of any movie in the history of films that I wish was longer, but I think about 90% of films should be shorter. There's really no reason for any movie to be longer than 70 minutes, the same way that there's not much of a reason for an album to be longer than 40 minutes usually.
Leave people wanting more, not less.
...Still, 3 years for a boring 37 minute album seems a bit laughable. I'm not complaining about the length of their album (actually, on the contrary, the short length is why I reccomend it over In Rainbows -- In Rainbows is so long that it's nearly impossible to listen to in one sitting). Rather, I posted that quote because it seems to suggest to me that their hearts are not in it anymore (there are other quotes saying they don't want to go back to the Kid A sound because it was "Hell", and stuff like that; I think it's not so much the sound of Kid A, but the thought of writing music without boundaries, with them doing something new. Whatever criticism or praise goes for the new album, no one is going to argue that the sound is particularly new or inventive for Radiohead, it actually seems like a huge step back from some of their more intricate songs, like from THIEF era...). This is a band who used to release material all the time, whose b-sides were often better than their albums. I see them calling it quits in the next few years.
It's no shock, and NO SURPRISE. It's interesting though.
__________________
|