ALBUM TOO SHORT = LET DOWN?

I'm not a real harsh critique but one thing that personally is a major let down for me when I get an album is a short release all together. I have two examples that probably won't mean allot to most of you.

BECOMING THE ARCHETYPE - Terminate Damnation blew me away when I bought it this year. Terrific, tight musicianship, tons of atmosphere and emotion and feeling. 55 minutes of just a relentless progressive death metal experience that blew me away. Then, there new CD Physics of Fire shows up. Its a whopping 31 minutes long with about 5 minutes of fill including a almost 3 minute....so so, instrumental. So It really only has about 27 minutes of actual songs. I just think that sucks. It’s too darn short. And the music on POF is fantastic again, don't get me wrong, almost all the songs are around 3 minutes. Not to mention the catchiest song with the best hooks and riff is the very last song, which isn't even 3 minutes long?!?! I was just disappointed completely.

Next one
IMPENDING DOOM - Nailed. Dead. Risen. This is the best death metal I've heard to date. Granted, there's a ton I haven't heard but I love it, totally brutal, melts my face off, LOVE IT.........................11 songs.........34 minutes?! Oh and by the way, the last song shows a track length of 6 minutes, but it's a one minute blast in the beginning followed by over 4 minutes of complete recorded silence, and then with about 1 minute left....recorded bloopers that really weren't funny, just lame. So really its only 28 minutes. Way to short, the music is so awesome, so intense and you got a 27 minutes to enjoy!!! UGH! I'm bummed about that one. However, I will give this one a pass, since they are a very young band, still finding their way.

So, am I alone? Am I unrealistic in my expectations? It's obviously just a personal preference for me. But I'm curious about the rest of you.

Bottom line for me, if it's to be considered a truly GREAT piece it needs the right length to get 5 stars from me. 40-45 minutes at least is about right.

I felt this way about the latest WASP album, DOMINATOR. I don't have the CD handy right now but I think it clocks in at just over a half an hour (one track of which is merely a "reprise" of an earlier song). I thought that was kind of a ripoff.

On the other hand, I also hate when albums drone on for 75 minutes or more. I know that since the advent of the CD, bands can fit more material on them than they could on an LP or cassette, but it seems like some bands feel that they NEED to fill all that space simply BECAUSE they have 75 or 80 minutes to play with, whether or not they have enough good stuff to make a worthwhile listen all the way through. Type O Negative are famous for this.

Or maybe it's just my A.D.D. talking. My attention span tends to crap out pretty quickly... HEY! LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!

LMAO, yup, I totally agree on the other side. An hour of crappy metal is not the answer, its a fine line!!!! GOTTA GO RUN AROUND THE HOUSE A COUPLE TIMES NOW!!

i need killers not fillers...to hell with cds,hehehe....back when jag panzer were the masters and releasing the "short" anthem generally hostile to fill the A side of the mighty vinyl.....

Vendetta's Hate album (on of my top thrash albums of the year) is just 30 minutes long. Way too short.

Like my wife says often..."Size Matters".





"Now stop touching me."

In the old days, lots of metal albums were only 7 or 8 real songs.

Melissa, Forbidden Evil, Mob Rules, etc. etc.

What's much more annoying to me is over-long albums with tons of filler. Like, I hate to say it, but CAGE.

I too miss the days of 8 or 9 song albums. It left you wanting more.

If the music is high quality I like it to last as long as possible. However, that doesn't mean that if it is short I'm disappointed. If it is short but every song is good then I can overlook it however if there are only a few songs that are good and the album is short, I feel ripped off.

Temple of Blood wrote:

In the old days, lots of metal albums were only 7 or 8 real songs.

Melissa, Forbidden Evil, Mob Rules, etc. etc.

What's much more annoying to me is over-long albums with tons of filler.

I agree. I hate putting in a CD and seeing the time come up as more than 45 minutes. 30-45 is a good album length.

Yeah! Deicide's "Once Upon the Cross" is way too short.
Slayer - Reign In Blood is also much too short!

"Reign In Blood" my be short, but it's a timeless classic!

Sometimes ya just gotta know when to end an LP regardless of the length, too much filler, or songs that just don't fit the landscape of the LP can ruin it.

Dressed to Kill by KISS but it's a masterpiece

I hate when albums are too long.

Temple of Blood wrote:

In the old days, lots of metal albums were only 7 or 8 real songs.

Melissa, Forbidden Evil, Mob Rules, etc. etc.

What's much more annoying to me is over-long albums with tons of filler.

Yes, I am more in agreement with this than albums being too short.

I liked it when albums were only 10 songs long. There was far less crap on albums back then. All killer no filler!

Hmmm, I'm seriously being educated as I read all these. And I'm really starting to think you're all right. KILLER no FILLER! Makes sense. I guess VR-Human Sacrifice is pretty short, but one of my all-time favorites. Barren Cross - Rock for The King, same thing. Okay...I'll back down to 10 songs, 40 minutes, but I'm not budging a minute less!

I'll take an album that's great and only 35 minutes long or so over a decent one that's 55-75 minutes long any day.

Reign in Blood is short for a reason.
There's far too many more important things, that do album great than how many minutes it lasts

I personally think albums should be no longer than 45 minutes and no shorter than 30. I don't mind short albums, as long as the songs are killer. Most of the classic are in the half hour range. See Black Sabbath - Masters of Reality.

hehehehe....brocas helm's black death lasts 'round 28 minutes and it's in my top10 albums of all time....seeing them 2 weeks ago for 2nd time was great.....

nevermore wrote:

I hate when albums are too long.

I agree totally!! There is nothing worse than destroying great songs with fillers..

Alex

Fat Freddy wrote:

I felt this way about the latest WASP album, DOMINATOR. I don't have the CD handy right now but I think it clocks in at just over a half an hour (one track of which is merely a "reprise" of an earlier song). I thought that was kind of a ripoff.

thats the same feeling i got from it... i liked what i heard, there just wasn't enough of it.

however...some bands only need 30 mins to obliterate your ass. Reign In Blood being the prime example.

I prefer albums with only 8 or 9 songs, definitely not more than 10. I also favor the 35-40 minute range, although 30-35 is good as well. Basically, like the old days of Combat, Metal Blade, Neat, etc. I also prefer song lengths of 3 to 4 minutes. Older bands like METALLICA and ANTHRAX could actually keep a song interesting beyond 5 minutes, but the average band can't.

Slayer's "Reign In Blood" was perfect, IMO. Just shy of 30 minutes, its 10 songs ripped with sheer ferocity like nothing has since. Even at less than 30 minutes, it still felt complete. It left you waiting with aniticipation until the next album. Their songs were 2-3 minute speedfests and it was cool like that. I have a couple of friends in the local NC band called Widow. Their first CD, "Midnight Strikes," released in 2003, was 8 songs at around the 30 minute mark. Unlike the brutality of Slayer, Widow are dual-melodic-guitar-driven traditional Metal. The overall feel in places reminds me of early Yngwie Malmsteen (Rising Force) or Silver Mountain. They keep my attention all the way through because their songs are great.

Also, if the older bands ever exceeded 45 minutes on an album, they usually kept your attention the whole way. Bands like Iron Maiden, Metallica and Anthrax regularly put out longer songs/records. But they seldom had any more than 1-2 songs of filler material, if that. Ever since the CD format became commonplace, I have despised the longer recordings. These days, you'll get a CD that has 13 or 14 tracks and only 1 or 2, maybe 3, songs that are really good. And as was mentioned, these days there's just so many things battling for our attention. No one really has time to devote an hour to an individual CD. Like many of you, when I was a teen in the 80's, I could sit and listen to an album and read the lyrics and thanks lists and just stare at the artwork in total satisfaction from beginning to end. Today, you just have to listen on the run, like when you're driving. It seems to be a different time and there's more going on.

Still, for me, keep it between 8-10 songs at around the 35-42 minute mark. If you plan on going over that, you better make sure that it's your band's version of "Master Of Puppets." lol

Fat Freddy wrote:

I felt this way about the latest WASP album, DOMINATOR. I don't have the CD handy right now but I think it clocks in at just over a half an hour (one track of which is merely a "reprise" of an earlier song). I thought that was kind of a ripoff.

A colleague of me said the same about that album. I don’t feel that way, because the songs on it are all good. I don’t mind if it is short or long – it must be good with no (or not much fillers). What really annoys me are hidden tracks this is silly.

Because I am a huge fan of orchestra flavored metal, when it comes to bands like Nightwish, Rhapsody Of Fire, Epica, After Forever, Saviour Machine, etc. I like the album to be over an hour. If it is more raw like Judas Priest, King Diamond, Dio, etc. then I tend to lean more towards shorter albums, like someone said, the real classic metal albums barely last 45-50 minutes let alone an hour. In the end it is not the length of an album that makes me like or dislike it, it is the quality of the music to my ears.