What is your opinion on this?

Some of my favourites had to be spread on two vinyl lps, like Sign O The Times and 1999. But usually, I think one of the good things with his shorter albums like Dirty Mind, Parade, Purple Rain and Around The World In A Day, is that they are edited to fit two sides of one vinyl. It's a way of getting rid of fillers. Especially today, when he doesn't really have much to prove anymore. What do you think?

[Edited 1/22/16 7:27am]

Replica said:

What is your opinion on this?

Some of my favourites had to be spread on two vinyl lps, like Sign O The Times and 1999. But usually, I think one of the good things with his shorter albums like Dirty Mind, Parade, Purple Rain and Around The World In A Day, is that they are edited to fit two sides of one vinyl. It's a way of getting rid of fillers. Especially today, when he doesn't really have much to prove anymore. What do you think?

[Edited 1/22/16 7:27am]

So just to be clear: You're not talking about sound quality, but song quality?

garneren said:

Replica said:

What is your opinion on this?

Some of my favourites had to be spread on two vinyl lps, like Sign O The Times and 1999. But usually, I think one of the good things with his shorter albums like Dirty Mind, Parade, Purple Rain and Around The World In A Day, is that they are edited to fit two sides of one vinyl. It's a way of getting rid of fillers. Especially today, when he doesn't really have much to prove anymore. What do you think?

[Edited 1/22/16 7:27am]

So just to be clear: You're not talking about sound quality, but song quality?

You've got a point about the sound quality too though. The sound quality gets better if you spread songs that would fit one lp, on two lps. But my point was more on the length of the albums. When he makes albums that are shorter than 45 minutes... he usually gets rid of less important songs.

To some extent I agree with you, but this apply to many releases post-CD by many musical artists, not only P.

How do you feel about the short albums by Vanity 6 and Apollonia 6?

Cinny said:

How do you feel about the short albums by Vanity 6 and Apollonia 6?

Side A Vanity
Side B Apollobia

Done

Replica said:

What is your opinion on this?

Some of my favourites had to be spread on two vinyl lps, like Sign O The Times and 1999. But usually, I think one of the good things with his shorter albums like Dirty Mind, Parade, Purple Rain and Around The World In A Day, is that they are edited to fit two sides of one vinyl. It's a way of getting rid of fillers. Especially today, when he doesn't really have much to prove anymore. What do you think?

[Edited 1/22/16 7:27am]

Shorter albums are usually easier to enjoy. In general, when I just like but not love an album, I prefer 45-50 mn albums to longer ones.

.

However regarding the concept of fillers I think there's a strong misunderstanding.

.

A filler is a weak track put on an album by an artist who has to... fill an album and doesn't have enough good tracks. For a song to qualify as a filler, it has to be assumed with reasons that the artist lacked material and decided to put weaker songs in full knowledge of what he was doing, because they had no other alternative. I know some records where it's pretty obvious that an artist was just using what they had because they didn't have anything else.

.

Given the shitload of tracks Prince records all the time and has in store, AND the fact that up to this day he kept releasing short albums on a constant basis (30 to 45 minutes), and always did even in the 90's when the fashion was to fill all 80 minutes of CD's, I don't think he ever included a filler in any of his albums. Obviously, everytime he felt 45 or 30 minutes was enough, he stood to that, so whenever he made it longer (whether 70 minutes or 3 hours), it's because he felt the material was strong enough and that its inclusion made sense in the larger context of the album. Was he right, was he wrong? That's another debate, but the word "filler" is out of place in that debate.

.

People here keep calling "fillers"... the song they don't like or personally deem weaker that the rest of the album. It's a misleaded (and misleading) term in that case, because that's not what filler means.

.

Now for example I'd rather have 50 minutes of Phase Two than 30 minutes of Phase One, so it also depends on how much one digs an album. As I said in the beginning the albums I don't get a bit bored with after 45 minutes are the ones I'm totally into, Prince or otherwise. I guess it's the same for everybody and that's why the 45 minute length has become popular again in the 2000's.

show me an album over 45 minutes, and I'll show you some filler.

databank said:

Replica said:

What is your opinion on this?

Some of my favourites had to be spread on two vinyl lps, like Sign O The Times and 1999. But usually, I think one of the good things with his shorter albums like Dirty Mind, Parade, Purple Rain and Around The World In A Day, is that they are edited to fit two sides of one vinyl. It's a way of getting rid of fillers. Especially today, when he doesn't really have much to prove anymore. What do you think?

[Edited 1/22/16 7:27am]

Shorter albums are usually easier to enjoy. In general, when I just like but not love an album, I prefer 45-50 mn albums to longer ones.

.

However regarding the concept of fillers I think there's a strong misunderstanding.

.

A filler is a weak track put on an album by an artist who has to... fill an album and doesn't have enough good tracks. For a song to qualify as a filler, it has to be assumed with reasons that the artist lacked material and decided to put weaker songs in full knowledge of what he was doing, because they had no other alternative. I know some records where it's pretty obvious that an artist was just using what they had because they didn't have anything else.

.

Given the shitload of tracks Prince records all the time and has in store, AND the fact that up to this day he kept releasing short albums on a constant basis (30 to 45 minutes), and always did even in the 90's when the fashion was to fill all 80 minutes of CD's, I don't think he ever included a filler in any of his albums. Obviously, everytime he felt 45 or 30 minutes was enough, he stood to that, so whenever he made it longer (whether 70 minutes or 3 hours), it's because he felt the material was strong enough and that its inclusion made sense in the larger context of the album. Was he right, was he wrong? That's another debate, but the word "filler" is out of place in that debate.

.

People here keep calling "fillers"... the song they don't like or personally deem weaker that the rest of the album. It's a misleaded (and misleading) term in that case, because that's not what filler means.

.

Now for example I'd rather have 50 minutes of Phase Two than 30 minutes of Phase One, so it also depends on how much one digs an album. As I said in the beginning the albums I don't get a bit bored with after 45 minutes are the ones I'm totally into, Prince or otherwise. I guess it's the same for everybody and that's why the 45 minute length has become popular again in the 2000's.

A filler is not always a bad song. But just an unnecessary song. If you have 9 songs, serving the purpose of the album... then you just add a few more pretty good ones in the same vein as the other onese, just because you know they have a similar sound, are pretty damn good, and would fit... I'd say it could be a filler.

Sign O The Times is one of those albums that are perfect as they are. However, it could work better in a commercial sense as a shorter album, and would be more digestible. And not lack the quality of the "full length". Let's not forget that SOTT was already edited down to two disks, as his label thought he had too much material. Two disks was probably a compromise. I'm sure they wanted one disc.

As much as I love 1999, and as much as I love almost every song, I'm sure I could edit it down to 1 vinyl. I know he has a short version already. But It lacks some of his best stuff.

I'm very aware that these are just opinions, and that people love different songs. But sometimes you'll have 2-3 songs that will serve the same purpose. Sometimes it might be unnecessary. It's just because we want more and more from this brilliant musician, that we would want songs like electric intercourse on Purple Rain. It's probably in my top 20. But still I think he chose the right songs for the album. It would fit a bonus disc.

Askani said:

show me an album over 45 minutes, and I'll show you some filler.

On this site,we all use the term "filler" but is that really a valid term? What exactly is "filler"? A song on an album that we don't like? When 1999 was released,I saw a review in which the critic labeled "All The Critics Love U In New York" and "DMSR" as the filler tracks and I was very surprised.To me,those are two of the best songs on the album! So anyway...I disgree with the idea that every "long" album (45 minutes or more) has bad songs on it.

SoulAlive said:

I agree with you that I enjoy a shorter album better. In case of 1999 and SoTT it could have been done because for most of the tracks a edit (single) version excists.

You might argue if they represent the original version just as good, but most of the time I like the edits on an album and leave the original/extendeds for single releases and b-sides.

(What I don't like are tracks that have an album version for example 5:00 minutes, a radio edit of 3:30 and an extended for 7:00 as you see a lot in EDM albums lately. Just too much versions..).

Replica said:

databank said:

Shorter albums are usually easier to enjoy. In general, when I just like but not love an album, I prefer 45-50 mn albums to longer ones.

.

However regarding the concept of fillers I think there's a strong misunderstanding.

.

A filler is a weak track put on an album by an artist who has to... fill an album and doesn't have enough good tracks. For a song to qualify as a filler, it has to be assumed with reasons that the artist lacked material and decided to put weaker songs in full knowledge of what he was doing, because they had no other alternative. I know some records where it's pretty obvious that an artist was just using what they had because they didn't have anything else.

.

Given the shitload of tracks Prince records all the time and has in store, AND the fact that up to this day he kept releasing short albums on a constant basis (30 to 45 minutes), and always did even in the 90's when the fashion was to fill all 80 minutes of CD's, I don't think he ever included a filler in any of his albums. Obviously, everytime he felt 45 or 30 minutes was enough, he stood to that, so whenever he made it longer (whether 70 minutes or 3 hours), it's because he felt the material was strong enough and that its inclusion made sense in the larger context of the album. Was he right, was he wrong? That's another debate, but the word "filler" is out of place in that debate.

.

People here keep calling "fillers"... the song they don't like or personally deem weaker that the rest of the album. It's a misleaded (and misleading) term in that case, because that's not what filler means.

.

Now for example I'd rather have 50 minutes of Phase Two than 30 minutes of Phase One, so it also depends on how much one digs an album. As I said in the beginning the albums I don't get a bit bored with after 45 minutes are the ones I'm totally into, Prince or otherwise. I guess it's the same for everybody and that's why the 45 minute length has become popular again in the 2000's.

A filler is not always a bad song. But just an unnecessary song. If you have 9 songs, serving the purpose of the album... then you just add a few more pretty good ones in the same vein as the other onese, just because you know they have a similar sound, are pretty damn good, and would fit... I'd say it could be a filler.

Sign O The Times is one of those albums that are perfect as they are. However, it could work better in a commercial sense as a shorter album, and would be more digestible. And not lack the quality of the "full length". Let's not forget that SOTT was already edited down to two disks, as his label thought he had too much material. Two disks was probably a compromise. I'm sure they wanted one disc.

As much as I love 1999, and as much as I love almost every song, I'm sure I could edit it down to 1 vinyl. I know he has a short version already. But It lacks some of his best stuff.

I'm very aware that these are just opinions, and that people love different songs. But sometimes you'll have 2-3 songs that will serve the same purpose. Sometimes it might be unnecessary. It's just because we want more and more from this brilliant musician, that we would want songs like electric intercourse on Purple Rain. It's probably in my top 20. But still I think he chose the right songs for the album. It would fit a bonus disc.

That's the key here. I think it depends on the concept.

Example:

Purple Rain, 45 minutes hit and run album, EI would indeed have been redundant and TBO was the better choice.

Emancipation, 3 hours magnus opus, here putting 10 different love songs about Mayte was part of the concept, as in exploring the different aspects of a passionate relationship, so not redundant.

I kinda took 2 extreme examples but u c my point.

SoulAlive said:

skipthecharades said:

I agree with you that I enjoy a shorter album better. In case of 1999 and SoTT it could have been done because for most of the tracks a edit (single) version excists.

You might argue if they represent the original version just as good, but most of the time I like the edits on an album and leave the original/extendeds for single releases and b-sides.

(What I don't like are tracks that have an album version for example 5:00 minutes, a radio edit of 3:30 and an extended for 7:00 as you see a lot in EDM albums lately. Just too much versions..).

Never post here again.

skipthecharades said:

I agree with you that I enjoy a shorter album better. In case of 1999 and SoTT it could have been done because for most of the tracks a edit (single) version excists.

You might argue if they represent the original version just as good, but most of the time I like the edits on an album and leave the original/extendeds for single releases and b-sides.

(What I don't like are tracks that have an album version for example 5:00 minutes, a radio edit of 3:30 and an extended for 7:00 as you see a lot in EDM albums lately. Just too much versions..).

It's not really about being the original or what. Some songs were edited in the time of LP's because room was needed for another track (Computer Blue is a proven example), but most of the time single edits were made after the album was completed, only because they were a business necessity. I don't think most of the single edits we have would ever have been made at all, based on artistic reasons, if not for radios demanding such versions for airplay.

.

Oppositely my take is that tracks that have been shortened for an album would be shortened either for the reason above (space problem) or because Prince felt they worked better in the context of the album if they were shorter. Some tracks he must have felt simply couldn't be edited without being butchered and that's how we have 7 or 9 minutes long songs on some albums. But I guess sometimes he felt it would have unbalanced the album to include a 7 minutes version of a song that worked perfectly, and didn't lose its meaning, when edited to 4 minutes.

.

A lot goes on in the mind of an artist when making decisions such as editing parts out or leaving them (a song, a movie, a book), and often they involve the artist thinking of the whole thing's balance. Some directors admitted they have edited out some of their favorite scenes in a movie because they felt they didn't work out in the general pace of the movie. Faulkner said "kill your darling", i.e. don't focus on what you like the most but on what you think works or does not work.

I could not disagree more! An album release should be regarded as an artistic expression. And sometimes a painter uses the bigger canvas,sometimes the smaller. Would you also prefer that all his songs were of the same length? Nonsense.

Genesia said:

databank said:

skipthecharades said:

I agree with you that I enjoy a shorter album better. In case of 1999 and SoTT it could have been done because for most of the tracks a edit (single) version excists.

You might argue if they represent the original version just as good, but most of the time I like the edits on an album and leave the original/extendeds for single releases and b-sides.

(What I don't like are tracks that have an album version for example 5:00 minutes, a radio edit of 3:30 and an extended for 7:00 as you see a lot in EDM albums lately. Just too much versions..).

It's not really about being the original or what. Some songs were edited in the time of LP's because room was needed for another track (Computer Blue is a proven example), but most of the time single edits were made after the album was completed, only because they were a business necessity. I don't think most of the single edits we have would ever have been made at all, based on artistic reasons, if not for radios demanding such versions for airplay.

.

Oppositely my take is that tracks that have been shortened for an album would be shortened either for the reason above (space problem) or because Prince felt they worked better in the context of the album if they were shorter. Some tracks he must have felt simply couldn't be edited without being butchered and that's how we have 7 or 9 minutes long songs on some albums. But I guess sometimes he felt it would have unbalanced the album to include a 7 minutes version of a song that worked perfectly, and didn't lose its meaning, when edited to 4 minutes.

.

A lot goes on in the mind of an artist when making decisions such as editing parts out or leaving them (a song, a movie, a book), and often they involve the artist thinking of the whole thing's balance. Some directors admitted they have edited out some of their favorite scenes in a movie because they felt they didn't work out in the general pace of the movie. Faulkner said "kill your darling", i.e. don't focus on what you like the most but on what you think works or does not work.

That's my point when I'm thinking "fillers". In a specific context, a good song doesn't necessarily fit well, or make the listening experience of a whole album any better. So in that particular context, it's a filler. I enjoy many albums that are longer than what will fit a vinyl lp. I just think it's interesting to know how people think about stuff like that, as I'm also considering myself a musician and producer. I'm thinking about concepts all the time. And many of my concepts are conflicting, and wouldn't make a "good movie", no matter how good the "scenes" were/are.

[Edited 1/27/16 11:27am]