how many of you prefer less tracks on a cd? i hate when i buy a cd and it has more than 13 tracks on it. most of the time, it's all filler and would be much stronger if there were fewer songs on it. i'm a huge fan of music from the 80's and when i buy old cds there are usually 8-10 tracks which is perfect! i wish these new artists would do the same.

You are a true music fan after my own heart. Your know of 80's jams is the bomb!!! I like less tracks or would rather have a extended verison of a song rather than filler.

Not strange at all (not in opinion anyway). I'd rather have quality than quantity. Some of these CDs with filler interludes don't really do it for me.

rachel3 said:

wow, thanks! that just put a smile on my face i'm happy to see that other people feel the same way. also there is a new trend maybe started missy elliot? where now artists are talking between songs. i just feel like saying shut up and sing!

10-12 tracks is plenty 'nuff.

Cloudbuster said:

I think it's just the right amount. I said earlier that they should keep it at no more than 13 but even that is too much.

dancerella said:

Depends how good that thirteenth song is, I suppose.

I hate CDs that are over an hour long. 45 minutes is ideal. The exceptions are greatest hits comps. In those cases, cram as many singles that can fit into 79 minutes.

depending on how many worthy tracks you have i think the ideal track number should be 9 or 10
but im not paying 18.99 for just a 9 track album

michael and janet both would have classics from each of their last few albums (except for damita jo and invincible) if they cut the beasts down to ten or eleven songs.....


same with mary j blige.....eryka badu's mama's gun could have been shorter yet afro feels like her juices were flowing and merrited a full lp...


i could go on and on and on and on....

I surely DON'T!

I'm a greedy mofo, gimmie a double-cd set album anytime.

I can't stand tracklists which are LESS than 14

Harlepolis said:

even if its craptastic Rave?

Harlepolis said:

My attention span isn't that long. After 55 minutes or so, I tend to start looking at my watch and the track listing to see how much longer and...uh, what was I saying again?

sosgemini said:

C'mon chile *chewing on coco puff* of course not!

It depends on what you offer.

Examples of albums I dig with more than 14 tracklist:

L-Boogie's BOTH albums.
Stevie's Songs In The Key Of Life
Mary J's self titled album
Jill's new album

and etc etc etc

sextonseven said:

Thats becoz I personaly NEVER listen to an album FULLY at once(unless I'm working on something, then I'll spin it full length at the background).

sextonseven said:

i'm the same way, most long albums can't hold my attention very long unless they are amazing which is rare. just keep it short n' sweet!

Harlepolis said:

No, I think to really experience an album the way you're supposed to, you have to listen to it from start to finish in one shot.

I like the fact that albums are longer these days but look what they are putting on them.....pure junk. I don't care how many tracks are on the album or how long they are but I want good tracks.

I would have loved it back in the day if the albums were the length they are now. Music was good back then and I believe artists could have filled the full 80 minutes up with good tracks. Just look at Prince's "1999" double album. The whole album was good and it even overflowed into B Sides. I'm sorry but I am a glutton and with all this good music, I still wanted more.

only if its starting to suck then i wish it was the cd was shorter.

A cd player is programmable.

HrdwcH said:

Not the one in my car.

dancerella said:

U hit the nail on teh head!!!

I wish artists would release a good 40 minute cd, like in the past.

People look at me like I'm crazy.
I can't stand when I fall asleep on a cd, then wake up the sh** still playin'.

Then I'm like, "DAMN! this album ain't over yet?!"

It's all about quality.

sosgemini said:

After listening to Invincible again-- It could have been better with just 10 songs. I may not have liked all off them, but the majority of it would have ben awesome. But as whole, I'm not feeling it.

musicman said:

I would gladly prefer a 40 minute CD priced at below $10 over an 80 minute CD priced at $18.
.
[Edited 11/10/04 9:16am]