Don't know about you guys, but most of the newer albums I've bought / downloaded haven't been that long. Those really long albums with 15-18 tracks were more common between 1995-2005. That might vary according to genre, but it seems like a CD with just 10 tracks is quite common again.

Those rules include shooting new videos for classic tracks from the Public Enemy back catalog, .

.

kitbradley said:

SoulAlive said:

For some artists,it seems pointless to make an entire album.Alot of these newer "artists" who don't sell alot of CDs should just stick with singles.I'm talking about someone like Ciara,whose latest CD sold sold less than 40k during its first week.She should have just released two or three singles and saved herself alot of trouble.

Longtime,legendary artists with a huge,loyal fanbase (Bruce Springsteen,for example) should continue making full CDs but the Ciaras and the Nellys should just stop.

Ciara should just stop recording music altogether. Singles, albums and all!

novabrkr said:

Don't know about you guys, but most of the newer albums I've bought / downloaded haven't been that long. Those really long albums with 15-18 tracks were more common between 1995-2005. That might vary according to genre, but it seems like a CD with just 10 tracks is quite common again.

totally agree, i mean the new Duran Duran is 9 tracks close to 38 minutes and thats perf ect. Problem is that the whole "fill up 80 minutes" thing was something the consumers were bitching for, they felt that cd's were overpriced for the amount of music on them, so to play along labels/artists, started to push the whole 18 track 79 minute cds, which is why you will NEVER find any of these albums to be perfect and skip free (meaning that u can listen to them over and over in its form).

But the last few years i have been finding that released works from artists that im into at least timewise has dopped into that 40-45 minute range, occasionally a 14 track cd but often track 13-14 are remixes or acoustic versions which normally would have been b sides.

phunkdaddy said:

PDogz said:

That was my thought exactly. Nobody told these kids they HAD to start making CD's with 18 songs, complete with intros and outros, segues, and skits, (along with a bonus hidden track) lol. A whole album back in the day could run 38 minutes, and you'd love nearly every song on it.

I understand where you coming from PDogz but we have to put this in perspective.

Back in the day artists like the Isleys, Commodores, Barkays, etc. were releasing albums

once and in some cases twice a year. Why? Because they had a collection of 30 tracks or

more too spread out over two albums within 2 years. The music industry doesn't work like

that now. If i got to wait 3 years to hear a new music from some of my favorite artists then

yes i want 15 tracks on the cd not including interludes and such.

Good point regarding the difference in how albums have been released over time. And like now: I've been waiting a damned long time for CAMEO to release their next album, and I'd be steamed if they finally release it and it only has 6 songs, lol.

PurpleDiamond2009 said:

Albums are outdated. Everything's on ITunes now. CDs are Dinosaur now.

That's scary. I hate mp3's. They totally take away from the whole music experience for me.

BlaqueKnight said:

TonyVanDam said:

Instead of albums, most artists are better off releasing EPs. A EP release of only 6 songs is enough.

What's an EP now used to be an album.

Example: [img:$uid]http://www.shallownation.com/images/morris-day-and-the-time-debut-album-cover-1981.jpg[/img:$uid]

I'm not sure I'd want to hear 10 minute songs of today's popular music.

I have to disagree i think the reason why no one has ever had a perfect 16-18 track cd is because no one wants all that shit, seriously i want artists to be able to get music out that shows they worked on it, i dont want to hear an album with 18tracks, where 6 are good 3 are decent and the rest should have been cut, but you wanted to fill up the cd, sorry, but back in the day when i use to make a mix cd for someone that wanted some new music i didnt give them half good half lame shit to fill up 80 minutes. The goal of any artist should be to be able to HOLD the listener through a record, im not saying that every album should be a statement, but give me 10 tracks 40 minutes of stuff you busted it on and im happy regardless if it took a year or four. Id rather not have a cd that has interludes and your studio conversations and pee breaks on them, i mean are you an artist or a 9 year old.

lastdecember said:

Id rather not have a cd that has interludes and your studio conversations and pee breaks on them.

That's mainly what these were, but many people bought them anyway.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

Id rather not have a cd that has interludes and your studio conversations and pee breaks on them.

That's mainly what these were, but many people bought them anyway.

Yeah but those arent real albums, they are collections which should be filled, thats what box sets and anthologies are for. But no ones new album should be treated like its a greatest hits and have 18 tracks on it. Double albums used to be something of a statement, but with cds, almost everything in the 90's would have been double and triple vinyl albums, and 99% of them were not worthy.

But recently didnt Public Enemy just get paid some money by the fans through their website to make a new album?

londonmale said:

But recently didnt Public Enemy just get paid some money by the fans through their website to make a new album?

Timmy84 said:

londonmale said:

But recently didnt Public Enemy just get paid some money by the fans through their website to make a new album?

did they raise enough? i lost track of what was going on with that or was that the reason for this anti-album stance, cant raise enough money.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

did they raise enough? i lost track of what was going on with that or was that the reason for this anti-album stance, cant raise enough money.

I don't know, I know someone posted about that, I'll try to find the archives.

^ Found it:

http://prince.org/msg/8/346528

TD3 said:

SoulAlive said:

For some artists,it seems pointless to make an entire album.Alot of these newer "artists" who don't sell alot of CDs should just stick with singles.I'm talking about someone like Ciara,whose latest CD sold sold less than 40k during its first week.She should have just released two or three singles and saved herself alot of trouble.

Longtime,legendary artists with a huge,loyal fanbase (Bruce Springsteen,for example) should continue making full CDs but the Ciaras and the Nellys should just stop.

Bingo. I really don't know why this is such a hard concept.

not every artist can be an "album artist".Today's pop music is so disposable and fans really only care about the singles anyway.Certain artists should just stopping doing albums and simply put out a few singles every six months or so.

SoulAlive said:

TD3 said:

Bingo. I really don't know why this is such a hard concept.

not every artist can be an "album artist".Today's pop music is so disposable and fans really only care about the singles anyway.Certain artists should just stopping doing albums and simply put out a few singles every six months or so.

You see i agree on that BUT there is this huge seperation now between the two, Someone like Flo-rida can break download records but can sell an album, because his audience is very "oh thats catchy" and the music is very throwaway now, because its so easy and cheap no one is doing anything that someone else cant do. BUT what this is causing is the lack of artists, i mean for every Ryan Adams and Norah Jones that come along there are about a thousand of "so called" artists that drop off the face of the earth. And to me this is bringing the scene down overall, because you are counting on one thing, you arent developing if you cut a song every year. But with that said you have this huge seperation between singles artists and album artists, the singles artists are what labels LOVE, because its throwaway and theres no invest just easy coin made for them, a label doesnt want a Ryan Adams or Norah Jones because there more interested in "art" and not staying the same and pushing themselves, i mean granted Norah sold 20 million of her debut worldwide, but that was a fluke, when i first knew of Norah she was selling her cd gigs for 5 bucks and opening for Joan Rivers, but still was an "artist". So these so called singles artists are limited, they cant tour, because no one wants to pay 75 bucks to hear someone do one song? i mean you cant get someone to spend 9 bucks on a Flo-rida cd why would they spend hundreds to come to a concert. So its all having a poor effect and dumbing the industry down if thats fair to say.

Look at who was this years top tour....Again Bon Jovi "The Circle" tour, now that album was gold here and sold 3 million worldwide and yet had no "hit" single, but they still put asses in seats, which at the end of the day, should be why you do it.

The pop stars should do EPs or release just singles, not full albums. The other acts like the more serious artists in any genre and the legendary artists, continue to put out albums.

Timmy84 said:

The pop stars should do EPs or release just singles, not full albums. The other acts like the more serious artists in any genre and the legendary artists, continue to put out albums.

Too Bad making a cd means putting 20 min of good music with 60 minutes of garbage. What artists should do from the start is make it clear what the album is, and then fill up the rest with the "bonus" tracks. An artist could have the 9 songs of the album followed by 9 alternate takes or demos to see where the album came from, and then depending on length another few songs that did not make the album. For example, I would've loved the new Michael Jackson to have the rough demos of all the songs. Michael used to always have 70 min of music on nearly all of his cds dating back to Bad if you count the special editions.

PurpleDiamond2009 said:

Albums are outdated. Everything's on ITunes now. CDs are Dinosaur now.

Not for me. An Mp3 file can't compare to the pleasure of holding a physical CD, perusing the liner notes, adding it to your collection and doing it all over again.

Identity said:

PurpleDiamond2009 said:

Albums are outdated. Everything's on ITunes now. CDs are Dinosaur now.

Not for me. An Mp3 file can't compare to the pleasure of holding a physical CD, perusing the liner notes, adding it to your collection and doing it all over again.

I buy records, I buy the CD if I can't find a vinyl version or if the CD has an extra track or two. But I have never downloaded, neither pay nor free. A record has better sound quality and larger artwork. Records (& cassettes and 8-tracks) are what I grew up with.

It can't be either/or. Musical acts have to embrace both the album and single mentality.

Prince's model of releasing a full album every year is not really practical - yes, HE can do it but most would argue that his quantity harms his quality.

Instead, an album every 2 - 2.5 years would be ideal, but with a few songs released in the interim via download.

Se7en said:

It can't be either/or. Musical acts have to embrace both the album and single mentality.

Prince's model of releasing a full album every year is not really practical - yes, HE can do it but most would argue that his quantity harms his quality.

Instead, an album every 2 - 2.5 years would be ideal, but with a few songs released in the interim via download.

Back in the 1960's (and the decades before that) many acts released 45 singles only, especially doo-wop and girl groups. Small labels rarely released albums at the time. The majors mostly released albums on really popular acts, classical, and jazz performers. Other acts like The Beatles didn't release songs from albums as singles, and recorded separate songs for 45's. With some acts that had a really popular song (ie. Chubby Checker's Twist), a record label would have them record a bunch of similar songs or filler to compile an album with to cash in. Motown & King Records would have many of their acts record the same songs written by their staff writers for their albums and/or singles. Motown would even have some of their acts record whole albums of another non-Motown act songs (The Beatles, Sam Cooke, Broadway tunes, etc). As far as frequency of releases, before the mid-1980's most acts released an album every year, before the 70's, they released multiple albums a year, especially James Brown. Capitol in the USA would chop up The Beatles British albums and make 2 or 3 albums from each one to make more money. That's why the group did that butcher babies album cover, because they didn't like that.

Se7en said:

It can't be either/or. Musical acts have to embrace both the album and single mentality.

Prince's model of releasing a full album every year is not really practical - yes, HE can do it but most would argue that his quantity harms his quality.

Instead, an album every 2 - 2.5 years would be ideal, but with a few songs released in the interim via download.

What are you talking about? Like lastdecember said, most artists prior to the 1980's were releasing two to three albums a year, and even during the 80's it wasn't that unusual to see artists releasing an album a year or releasing an album and putting out an additional EP or appearing on movie soundtracks. The difference is that albums prior to the CD age were 30 to 40 minutes long, had only 8 to 10 tracks, and usually featured the most well-crafted songs on it. What the advent of the CD did was force artists to put additional tracks on the album which did not fit the theme or were obvious filler tracks that added nothing to the listening experience. It also introduced the additional interludes and skits which were just there to fill time. But if artists go back to just releasing 8 to 10 decent tracks on an album, there's no reason why they couldn't put out an album each year.

I think going back to a 8, 9, 10-song album would be good. Sometimes 16 songs can be too many and adding in extra junk don't help in the listening experience.

Plus I think those born between 1980 and 1990 were spoiled because the CDs released then were of good quality. Now you just got a bunch of junk.

Timmy84 said:

I think going back to a 8, 9, 10-song album would be good. Sometimes 16 songs can be too many and adding in extra junk don't help in the listening experience.

Plus I think those born between 1980 and 1990 were spoiled because the CDs released then were of good quality. Now you just got a bunch of junk.

Yup!