Can Length Ruin An Album?

I

irishmom91562

New member
Hmm, I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about grading albums. I do give my opinion on albums, but this isn't about how I evaluate albums. This is simply about preferring to have more music, on the chance of getting more good music. It's unrelated to how I grade albums.
 
Ever been listening to an album, and though 'Wow this is just TOO long!'?
It's not neccasarily because an album has filler, but sometimes I just don't have enough time to listen to a whole album, and can even get bored if I feel like the album's neverending.
Perfect example:
samples%202pac%20all%20eyez%20on%20me%20large.jpg

Almost all of the songs on it are great, but I can't give 2pac 2hours of my life every time I want to listen to him.

Discuss?
 
Yeah! I agree too! I only shuffle when I don't anticipate having time to listen to a full album, or if I'm sitting at home bored and indecisive...usually not knowing how long I'll be at the computer.

Otherwise...all albums, all the time! :beer:
 
Absolutely. Though in fairness if I add up the running times of the tracks I like on ...And Justice For All the total is certainly way less than the length of Reign In Blood.
 
Mood does play a big role. Sometimes you're preoccupied with something and time flies, or you're paying close attention and loving it; other times you could be bored (or not in the mood for the style of music) and the album drags...even if it's an album you love.

I often find myself changing my album ratings on RYM as I listen to them, mostly likely because my mood is playing a role in my enjoyment of it.
 
What if the 10 song album lasts longer than the 15 song album? Do you then think 'oh it's more music so i'm getting more money's worth'?

I've heard many 'unreleased tracks' of songs that were left of albums & given as extras for re-masters. And I would say 99 times out of 100 there's a perfectly good reason they were unreleased, that was they weren't very good and would have added nothing to the finished article.
 
I can see that. As I recall, we're around the same age...as a kid, it was all vinyl and cassettes, but I was about 12-13 when CRAB really began to be the dominant form (around 1990 or so), so the majority of my music-aware life has been with CRAB. Even prior to mp3s, it was possible to program past weaker tracks.

I understand the preference for "pristine albums," but, especially at this point when I listen to almost everything in iTunes or on an iPod, I just want as many good songs as possible. I still have an automatic connection to album format...most of my listening is done on a per-album basis, rather that mixes of disparate tracks. But I feel no remorse in cutting out weak tracks on an album. ;)
 
Well, I usually listen to an album halfway, listen to something else, then come back to it if it is a rather song based album. So album length doesn't really matter to me.
 
Haha yeah.. it depenRAB on what kind of music it is. If it's repetitive I listen passively like Progressive house for example. It's not "repetitive" per se, but not much usually goes on. Which is a good thing cause it's meant to be chilled and slow
 
^You could easily argue that you are no longer listening to the albums though. You're listening to collections of songs. If you buy an album on the strength of some songs, you're not spending money to get the album, you're spending money to get a collection of songs extracted from that product.

You should still base an overall opinion of an album on all it's tracks, I think - even if you only usually listen to half of them.
 
Hehe. I usually have the discography of a bad if I like them that much. So I'll pick one album.

I know I was thinking yesterday about how long one of The Cure's albums was. I don't remeraber which I was listening to.

It wasn't a complaint, though, just an observation.
 
Well, the thread is about wether or not length can ruin an album and it seems you agree that it can - just that you don't think the goodness of the album is as important as collecting good songs(?).
 
i think it definetly can i have lots of tracks which are sets from live acts, i hardly ever listen to them cos i like abit of everything in my playlists like a mixture of genre i hardly ever listen to a full album all at once, it bores me.
 
I feel longevity can almost make or break an album at times. I don't necessarily have a problem with short albums - In fact, I reckon an album's quality can be improved by keeping the length lower and controlled, rather than offering a cluster**** of 80 minutes, half of which is garbage. Keeping the songs at a minimum also means that there is a greater chance for a quality album overall (Simply because banRAB don't need to fill it with filler) and that the fans will also get albums at a better rate.

A good example of an album going overboard IMO concerns Techno Animals release 'Re-Entry'. The album starts with promise and interest, and then you look at the track list... Double album
R-150-68435-001.jpg


1-01 Flight Of The Hermaphrodite (10:56)
1-02 The Mighty Atom Smasher (10:04)
1-03 Mastodon Americanus (7:23)
1-04 City Heathen Dub (10:04)
1-05 Narco Agent Vs. The Medicine Man (14:00)
1-06 Demodex Invasion (19:14)

2-01 Evil Spirits / Angel Dust (9:45)
2-02 Catatonia (15:44)
2-03 Needle Park (10:41)
2-04 Red Sea (11:20)
2-05 Cape Canaveral (21:28)
2-06 Resuscitator (7:46)

And its a fine album unfortunately, but I rarely chuck it on. It just isn't worth it. Half the time its pure wank to drag an album on that much.

Unfortunately there are a few albums I have that just drag on far too long, and I rarely chuck them on and listen throughout.

I can handle an album of just one hell long song though, oddly enough (The Necks or Kashiwa Daisuke sort of songs, 45 to 60 minutes a piece).

Perfect album length - 35 to 45 minutes. I find it much more satisfying to get a short album that is perfect in its entirety over a pointlessly long album that's a hit and miss.
 
Back
Top