Is the EP overtaking the album?

What is up with the new trend of metal bands releasing EP's that are longer than their albums? Is this a new marketing ply, since albums no longer sell?

Isn't an ep that is album length an album?

I think it's a cost-cutting effort for bands that are past their prime (sales-wise speaking) testing the waters to see if fans want new music from them.

Bigger acts or serious "artists" that still care about the concept of full length albums won't be effected much by this current trend.

I see it as a way to minimize cost. Time will tell if this is a viable business practice I suppose.

My record is 76 minutes and ya'll are gonna have to just deal with it.

I don't like it.... I prefer full albums... even back in the day, EP's were just "collectibles" to me

thejokeriv wrote:

I don't like it.... I prefer full albums... even back in the day, EP's were just "collectibles" to me

Yea, can't say that I care much for it either. But it is what it is.

thejokeriv wrote:

I don't like it.... I prefer full albums... even back in the day, EP's were just "collectibles" to me

I agree, I only owned and still only own a handful of EP's, I am sure it is a cost cutting measure but I personally don't see fans buying EP's in greater number then full length discs.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I think it's a cost-cutting effort for bands that are past their prime (sales-wise speaking) testing the waters to see if fans want new music from them.

Bigger acts or serious "artists" that still care about the concept of full length albums won't be effected much by this current trend.

I see it as a way to minimize cost. Time will tell if this is a viable business practice I suppose.

While I agree with what you are saying, it's not all bands past their prime. Skid Row, yes, but Gamma Ray and Anthrax? These are just names from the top of my head.

All I know is, I hope it ends. Is it really cheaper if you're already doing studio time to add 4-5 more songs and have an album?

kmorg wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I think it's a cost-cutting effort for bands that are past their prime (sales-wise speaking) testing the waters to see if fans want new music from them.

Bigger acts or serious "artists" that still care about the concept of full length albums won't be effected much by this current trend.

I see it as a way to minimize cost. Time will tell if this is a viable business practice I suppose.

While I agree with what you are saying, it's not all bands past their prime. Skid Row, yes, but Gamma Ray and Anthrax? These are just names from the top of my head.

I know what you mean - I wish Anthrax had record 4 more tracks to make it a full album

What bugged me about anthrax's ep, at least hear in northern canadia, is that its pretty much the same price as brand new full lengths from killswitch or volbeat. Ridiculous, at least when metallica released the beyond magnetic ep it was significantly cheaper. I actually like the way metallica did that one, release some leftover songs that are strong but won't fit anywhere else. 4 songs, no padding it with pointless remixes of other songs or any crap like that. You can argue about the quality of the material, but that is how an ep should be done.

Dark Horseman wrote:

All I know is, I hope it ends. Is it really cheaper if you're already doing studio time to add 4-5 more songs and have an album?

Nope.. the thing is there is the studio time (assuming you're in a real studio with a real engineer, which you should be), but what really gets you is the mixing, mixing is charged by how long the record is a lot of the time but that is also estimated doubly by how long the engineer assumes it's gonna take. So, basically, if you can't communicate well with the mixing guy, or he is doing a bunch of stuff he isn't supposed to (taking over the producer role), or - and this is what happens most often - there is a bunch of stuff he needs to fix, like dropping sticks in a song...guitars sounding inconsistent...whatever it is..that's gonna ramp up your price. Audio engineer = same as automotive engineer. Better prepared you are, better price you end up with.


So, your record could initially be $1,000.00 to mix, but add a few songs and the blunders that come with that, and suddenly it's another $1,500.00. Technically, where you lose money is making the album longer unless it's a double album, because the label and the stores are going to have a certain price whether it's 40 or 70 minutes.


Now we might say... mix it yourself..do this yourself.....okay, are you of the credentials that an Andy Sneap or a Jamie King is? No? Then good luck putting this out and anyone in a position to REALLY help you caring. You need help and that help needs to be people who know what they are doing behind the board.


Then, there's the fact that fans can't decide whether they want to complain over a record being too short or too long. What are bands supposed to do with the ridiculously mixed reaction kind of public they're getting? Even the sales can't tell you everything because you have to factor in piracy.


Of course, again, I don't care about any of this and everybody can suck it because my album is 76 minutes and one of the songs is 20 minutes. I could have taken that one off, made that an EP, but it's too important to the flow of the record, and besides it's at the end so if you wanna just turn off the album before then who cares.

kmorg wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I think it's a cost-cutting effort for bands that are past their prime (sales-wise speaking) testing the waters to see if fans want new music from them.

Bigger acts or serious "artists" that still care about the concept of full length albums won't be effected much by this current trend.

I see it as a way to minimize cost. Time will tell if this is a viable business practice I suppose.

While I agree with what you are saying, it's not all bands past their prime. Skid Row, yes, but Gamma Ray and Anthrax? These are just names from the top of my head.

I can't speak for the popularity of Gamma Ray, but in a case like Anthrax, it's probably more of a case of "It's gonna be awhile till we're in the studio again for a full album, so let's put out this ep of covers we recorded during our last studio session."

It hits on 2 factors. 1. Keeping fans happy and 2. keeps them in the press. It's win-win for a band of their stature.

Now Anthrax did right with the wacky multiple covers and cool packaging, but for most bands and labels, it's probably cheaper packaging for an ep than a full length too. Simple carboard slipcase, no booklet, etc.

I have no problems with EPs that have cover songs or live stuff. My biggest gripe about them is bands putting them out and then later releasing the stuff on a full length record also. Still haven't bought that Newsted ep out of that fear.

To me an EP should be what it's title implies something extra or different from the albums.

That makes sense. Although in some cases a song may take a different direction on the LP. New ideas for riffs or guita solos, etc can find there way into songs once the band has time in the studio and the chance to rerecord. When that is the case, I enjoy having the various versions.

jstate wrote:

I have no problems with EPs that have cover songs or live stuff. My biggest gripe about them is bands putting them out and then later releasing the stuff on a full length record also. Still haven't bought that Newsted ep out of that fear.

To me an EP should be what it's title implies something extra or different from the albums.

This. It should be Extended Play, not A Portion of What Could be an LP. Live tracks, covers, outtakes, omitted songs, extended songs, isolated tracks, archived unreleased songs, demos, alternate versions, hell, even interviews. I love that stuff.

From an artist's point of view, I like EPs. You can put together 4 or 5 cool songs and put it out without feeling the pressure of writing 4 or 5 more just to make it an album.

How many times has everyone on this board said "It has 4 or 5 cool songs, the rest is subpar low-quality filler blech..."

If a band is paying for it themselves, it cuts recording, mixing & mastering costs. Pressing costs won't necessarily be any lower.

I get when fans say "I prefer albums", but a lot of times that just comes off as whining (not aimed at anyone in particular). The music scene has changed, and this is just one example of it. Just roll with it.

Maybe it's because some folks nowadays have shorter attention spans and a good 4 or 5 songs is all they'll listen to by a band.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

From an artist's point of view, I like EPs. You can put together 4 or 5 cool songs and put it out without feeling the pressure of writing 4 or 5 more just to make it an album.

How many times has everyone on this board said "It has 4 or 5 cool songs, the rest is subpar low-quality filler blech..."

Now they'll say it only has 2 cool songs.

I get what Shawn is saying and it is the reality. I'm just used to albums and that's what I want to spend my money on.

In Skid Row's case, I wonder if their new label simply didn't wanna pony up the $$ for a full album, given the disastrous sales of their non-Bach output thus far.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

kmorg wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I think it's a cost-cutting effort for bands that are past their prime (sales-wise speaking) testing the waters to see if fans want new music from them.

Bigger acts or serious "artists" that still care about the concept of full length albums won't be effected much by this current trend.

I see it as a way to minimize cost. Time will tell if this is a viable business practice I suppose.

While I agree with what you are saying, it's not all bands past their prime. Skid Row, yes, but Gamma Ray and Anthrax? These are just names from the top of my head.

I can't speak for the popularity of Gamma Ray, but in a case like Anthrax, it's probably more of a case of "It's gonna be awhile till we're in the studio again for a full album, so let's put out this ep of covers we recorded during our last studio session."

It hits on 2 factors. 1. Keeping fans happy and 2. keeps them in the press. It's win-win for a band of their stature.

Now Anthrax did right with the wacky multiple covers and cool packaging, but for most bands and labels, it's probably cheaper packaging for an ep than a full length too. Simple carboard slipcase, no booklet, etc.

Gamma Ray wanted to go on tour, but they could not finish a full length album in time. That is why they released the ep.
Sometimes bands get a very good offer for a a tour, but only under the condition they release new material.

I've always viewed EP's as collector pieces and not essential to the band's catalog. In most cases the material on the EP can be placed on the album as bonus material or reason to buy the remaster with the EP material included. I understand the cost benefit breakdown for the band/record company, but why not release the content for download if they are "testing the waters". Guess I don't understand all of the factors that go into taking the music from the song writing/rehearsal sessions to the product on the shelves. I usually don't buy EP's unless it is a band I have to have everything they put out.

journeyman wrote:

In most cases the material on the EP can be placed on the album as bonus material or reason to buy the remaster with the EP material included.

See, that's something else I don't like. Screw all this "bonus material" crap...let the album be the album. If you have 3 or 4 songs left or whatever, put out an EP...

With global digital availability, the need for bonus material in restricted markets is way outdated.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Nope.. the thing is there is the studio time (assuming you're in a real studio with a real engineer, which you should be),

Well, if you play in a metal band and you are cutting your guitar tracks in the studio then you are probably getting ripped off in a big way. I saw this as someone who has recorded both ways. Drums and vocals, sure. But guitars you can easily do from home. And for metal with all the tracks, rhythms, leads, doubling-up .... that could be 60% of your recording budget easily.