What's the ideal length of a studio album?

nicfit · 09.02.2006, 06:53 AM

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

Pookie · 09.02.2006, 06:57 AM

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.

Norma J · 09.02.2006, 07:04 AM

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

nicfit · 09.02.2006, 07:10 AM

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.

HaydenAsche · 09.02.2006, 03:25 PM

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

nicfit · 09.02.2006, 03:31 PM

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

k-krack · 09.02.2006, 03:38 PM

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.

Style · 09.02.2006, 04:17 PM

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.

Savage Clone · 09.02.2006, 04:18 PM

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

blots · 09.02.2006, 04:20 PM

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.

acousticrock87 · 09.02.2006, 05:27 PM

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.

Toilet & Bowels · 09.02.2006, 05:40 PM

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

k-krack · 09.02.2006, 05:46 PM

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)

porkmarras · 09.02.2006, 05:48 PM

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

acousticrock87 · 09.02.2006, 06:00 PM

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.

LifeDistortion · 09.02.2006, 07:19 PM

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

k-krack · 09.02.2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acousticrock87

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

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

nomadicfollower · 09.02.2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acousticrock87

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.

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

blots · 09.02.2006, 07:28 PM

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.

View Poll Results: Does length matter?
More than 75 minutes	0	0%
60-75 minutes	8	16.00%
45-60 minutes	31	62.00%
Less than 45 minutes	11	22.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

09.02.2006, 06:50 AM	#1
Pookie invito al cielo Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,877	???
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 06:53 AM	#2
nicfit invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: banana boat Posts: 15,570	45-60 , shorter for punk-plain rockin'out records. __________________ 11:11 11-11-11 I Ascended.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 06:57 AM	#3
Pookie invito al cielo Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,877	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.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 07:04 AM	#4
Norma J invito al cielo Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Orstralia Posts: 4,917	I dont think it matters the length of an album. Aslong as the content is good. __________________ I want girls with new-wave hair-doos
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 07:10 AM	#5
nicfit invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: banana boat Posts: 15,570	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. __________________ 11:11 11-11-11 I Ascended.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 03:25 PM	#6
HaydenAsche invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 10,755	Less than 45 minutes. Arab on Radar's Yahweh or the Highway and Erase Errata's Other Animals are perfect. __________________ rip
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 03:31 PM	#7
nicfit invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: banana boat Posts: 15,570	^^^^ that's right,i meant that in my earlier post (some genres are more effective on the short distance) __________________ 11:11 11-11-11 I Ascended.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 03:38 PM	#8
k-krack invito al cielo Join Date: May 2006 Location: On Posts: 7,380	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. __________________ sandwich klub 4 men. Danny is a C.H.U.D.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 04:17 PM	#9
Style stalker Join Date: May 2006 Location: Califronia Posts: 418	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.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 04:18 PM	#10
Savage Clone invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,286	I am gonna go with 45-55 minutes for a single album as well.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 04:20 PM	#11
blots little trouble girl Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 47	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.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 05:27 PM	#12
acousticrock87 invito al cielo Join Date: May 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,515	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.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 05:40 PM	#13
Toilet & Bowels invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Northern Europe Posts: 12,213	well it depends on the band, but generally i appreciate it when people have the courtesy to keep things brief.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 05:46 PM	#14
k-krack invito al cielo Join Date: May 2006 Location: On Posts: 7,380	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) __________________ sandwich klub 4 men. Danny is a C.H.U.D.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 05:48 PM	#15
porkmarras invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: London - UK Posts: 14,313	If a band has the talent i don't mind the long listening jouney. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 06:00 PM	#16
acousticrock87 invito al cielo Join Date: May 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,515	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.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 07:19 PM	#17
LifeDistortion expwy. to yr skull Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CA Posts: 2,457	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
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.02.2006, 07:28 PM	#20
blots little trouble girl Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 47	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.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|