How long do you like your albums?

I'm feelin' lazy today so I'll just copy & paste my post from the "Appetite" thread:

Quote :

My attention span tends to crap out at around the hour mark, so albums
that are 50-55 minutes long are just about right for me. I came of age
when an "album" was nine or ten songs, nowadays some bands release CDs
with fifteen or sixteen songs on 'em and that tends to drag after a
while.

I guess because CDs can hold up to what, 80 minutes of
material on 'em, some bands feel the need to fill EVERY minute of it
regardless of whether they have strong enough material to do so. Just
because you CAN doesn't mean you HAVE to.

ultmetal wrote:

Depends on the album, but the recent trend to try to fill up a CD with as much as possible isn't something I care for. Judas Priest - Nostrodamas is a good example. Could have been a GREAT album had they cut it down to just the 10 -12 best songs on one CD and cut out all the fluff.

Yeah, but that whole album was an experiment and they wanted to try a lot of things they hadn't done before ... including the double album format. But it doesn't really aid the listener, it just gives the artist a new challenge.

Quote :

I frankly have the same problem with the last couple CAGE CDs. Everyone raves about them,

Not me.

Quote :

but to me they are too long and too samey, even though there are some superb songs on them.

Agreed.

How about when Petra pounded out Jeckyll & hyde in under 45 minutes with no solos?

It depends on the album or music style for me.
Here are some examples of albums i like regarding length...

1. Slayer - Reign in Blood
Over before you know it, but in a good way.

2. Pantera - CFH
Generally my prefered time frame.

3. Dark Angel - Time Does Not Heal
A little epic... but moves along nicely and doesn't get boring.

I've been thinking about this in the past quite a few times, and I cannot understand why people sometimes complain and say things like "cut a song or two and this album is awesome". To me, having extra songs cannot in any way make the album less good. As a consumer, I like my album with as much material as possible. A SONG can be too long, an ALBUM cannot, in my opinion. Of course an album filled with songs that are too long is automatically bad, because the songs themselves are bad.

If you draw comparisons, movies can be too long. But a box set of DVDs cannot have too many movies. An album is a COLLECTION of songs. I mean, any single song can be too drawn out and thus too long, but the album itself just gets better when you add more songs.

I think this is a problem for people reviewing albums mostly - especially when scoring or ranking albums. They may think an album is as good as the average rating of the songs. But as a consumer, why should I have 10 four minutes songs, when I can have those same ten and then five more songs that fit right there in the album? Even if those extra five tracks are less than stellar. Is the album all of a sudden worse because you ADD songs? Does that apply to bonus tracks as well? Is the difference really that you tag a certain song as a bonus track and then it doesn't affect the quality anymore?

Sometimes those extra songs you don't immediately like end up being nice when you pop the CD back in after a few years. You may not even remember all those tracks 'hidden' between great, classic songs.

Anyway, I like my albums long. I should start reviewing albums myself, but take quality AND length into consideration. Like, the best thirty minutes count for 70 percent of the score, the next fifteen minutes for 20 and the next fifteen 10 percent, or some crazy math like that. That would hurt the scores of albums that are too short, because if the album is 45 minutes long, the score for the last fifteen minutes would be 0. Because even a mediocre track is still better than silence.

Case in point, Iron Maiden's A Matter of Life and Death has songs about the same quality as Powerslave (the album I used to consider my favourite by Maiden), but is about 25 minutes longer. That means it's BETTER. It has at least 45 minutes of awesome material, and then some more. And now it's my new favourite.

One more thing, a bit off topic, but when my commute to work was something like 45 minutes, I used to enjoy short albums because I got some sort of satisfaction and sense of conclusion by listening to an album from beginning to end every morning. But now I don't take more than 20 minutes, so it's not like I expect to be able to listen to a full album anyway.

About an hour most of the time.

As long as there are no filler tracks, I could care less.

Depends on vinyl or cd. On vinyl doesn't get much longer than 45 mins and cd maybe 80 mins.

Wargod50

ultmetal wrote:

Depends on the album, but the recent trend to try to fill up a CD with as much as possible isn't something I care for. Judas Priest - Nostrodamas is a good example. Could have been a GREAT album had they cut it down to just the 10 -12 best songs on one CD and cut out all the fluff.

I frankly have the same problem with the last couple CAGE CDs. Everyone raves about them, but to me they are too long and too samey, even though there are some superb songs on them.

NoLifeTilMetal wrote:

Cage – Hell Destroyer (MTM) 2007

Cage’s “Hell Destroyer” was one of the most celebrated U.S. power metal albums of 2007. Metal fans globally sang it’s praises. Having already been a Cage fan, I was anxious to hear it. As the opening moments of the title track rang forth and vocalist Sean Peck released those Halford-esque, blood curdling, heavy metal screams, I was anxious to agree with all the praise. The first couple tracks will grab the listener by the jugular and won’t let go. This is real power metal heavily inspired by Judas Priest. The vocal and musical similarities between Cage's "Hell Destroyer" and Judas Priest's "Painkiller" are unmistakable. Comparisons to bands like Iced Earth, Helstar and Deadly Blessing aren’t far fetched either. Likewise, “I Am The King” and “Metal Devil” are crushing metal numbers that should please even the most discerning metal fanatic. The songs are dynamic and dramatic, with dual guitars showcasing blazing riffs and shredding solos. Everything from the cover art, to the musicianship to the production is all top notch.

I also found it compelling that “Hell Destroyer” was a concept album. The epic storyline is obviously inspired by the Bible but isn’t taken directly out of the Bible either. Rather, the Biblically inspired end times themes are mixed with some slight sci-fi themes to create a fiction story that merely parallels the Book of Revelation. There are also interludes with spoken words and sound effects that are suppose to help tie the storyline together.

My only complaint with “Hell Destroyer” is that I found it to be a bit too long and samey. The tempos, the songwriting, and even the vocal performance didn’t change much from song to song, making it hard to listen to this CD in one sitting. I think “Hell Destroyer” might have been a stronger album had the band trimmed it down to the best 11 - 12 tracks. I felt the same way about Judas Priest’s lengthy concept album “Nostradamus”. Also, much like “Nostradamus”, I think the storyline would not have lost a bit had the interludes been left off in favor of just the strongest songs. Other than this complaint, I have to agree with the accolades thrown at “Hell Destroyer”.

On the other hand, I want a box set to be packed with as much music as possible. Even a live album or compilation CD can be like this. It usually features the band's best material so rarely gets boring.

I agree 110% with everything you said.

Soo many albums can be cut down - and it would actually redeem them. I have the same problem with Cage's "Hell Destroyers". That album could have been saved had they cut the fluff. But it was WAY too long and drawn out. Because of that, I barely can bring myself to listen to it. In fact, I've not even picked up their last album because I'm afraid of the same problem.

Earlier Cage releases weren't like this. And I love them.

Also - yes. Box sets are different and need to be longer. I'm just talking about typical albums here though.

35 - 40 minutes works about perfect for me. Even 45 can seem a bit too long for me.

Then again, there are those rare exceptions when an album actually warrants it's length. Some albums that come to mind are:

Metallica - ... And Justice for All
Nightwish - Dark Passion Play
Therion - Lemuria/Sirius B
Within Temptation - The Heart of Everything
Leaves' Eyes - Vinland Saga


all these albums are long, but I never get bored with them. that is rare though.

There are quite a few albums I know that would have benefited had a few tracks been cut out. Case in point: Crawl to China by Tourniquet. At 15 tracks and close to 69 minutes, it kills the album. My solution: I burned a copy minus 2 of the longer acoustic based songs and the final instrument. It came in at a nice 52 minutes with 12 tracks and the album flows way better than the original track listing and all the songs are of the heavier variety.

Good call on "Crawl to China".

I like that album, but it suffers from WAY too many songs.

I prefer longer albums, how I wish Piece of Mind was as long as A Matter of Life and Death.

Length of the album doesn't matter to me as long as the songs are there. I'll take longer well-done songs over many songs every time out. 8-10 songs at 45 minutes to an hour is perfectly fine with me.

jstate wrote:

Length of the album doesn't matter to me as long as the songs are there. I'll take longer well-done songs over many songs every time out. 8-10 songs at 45 minutes to an hour is perfectly fine with me.

This. I prefer LP length anyway, so between 40 and 45 minutes. If they're longer than that I'm gonna have problems with my attention span.

It really depends on the band/style. Generally for me a regular album 35-50 minutes is an ideal length. Regardless of the band/style though, archive releases should always be longer and come close to if not fill the disc.

thejokeriv wrote:

A 40 minute Dream Theater album would be an ep and not feel right

A 5 minute dream theater single is too long.

I prefer around the 45 minute mark.

For me depends on the artist/band some 40 mins is too long some its way too short..

on average i like mine at least 60 mins

Usually about 35-40 minutes, but there are many great albums shorter, and some great albums over an hour long.

GrandNational wrote:

I usually like it to have it end at the 45 minute mark.

This.

I agree with the majority here, 40-50 minutes usually feels about right, depending on the band. I enjoy progressive rock and metal, though, so longer songs/albums are not unusual in my collection. If the music is well-constructed, longer is not a problem, but pointless instrumental meandering (cough, cough, Dream Theater, cough) can be a detriment. I do have some older progressive albums, from the LP days, that I wish were longer, Gentle Giant in particular.

5 chances and if not catch me... its over for sure.
not playing again in years.
sometimes happen that i got a weird mood and go for it.