Since the massive onslaught of cds, albums tended to increase the length...with filler material!

I've noticed this listening to some 80's albums (in cd ) that where released
originally in vinyl! Some 90's albums are full of filler!! even tori filled her Beekeeper with some filler (but would be excelent bee-sides...fans love b-sides!

DISCUSS!

What inspired this thread:


[Edited 6/14/06 4:16am]

miguelbulcao said:

That's not the right Eurythmics album to revere as an example of an album devoid of filler, but your point is a good one nonetheless! It's rare that an album over 60 minutes can grab hold of me throughout. Perhaps I just have a short attention span.

2 sides of 22 minutes / 5 songs is a really good length.
A double album of 4 sides of 20 minutes works much better than a continuous 80min disc.
But saying that i love my ipod with 8,000 plus songs on shuffle

Moonbeam said:

I didn't say that this album is filler! It's an example of a good album with almost 45 minutes!!!!

miguelbulcao said:

You got me wrong! I thought you were implying that Be Yourself Tonight was free of any filler, but I think "Here Comes That Sinking Feeling" and, to a lesser degree, "Better to Have Lost in Love (Than Never To Have Loved At All)" could qualify as filler. I still like those songs and the album, but I think there are more consistent Eurythmics albums out there.

It really depends on the album and artist, but alot of 80 min albums are boring because of filler material. On the other hand some albums have no filler and should be longer than 80 mins!

If a CD will hold 80 minutes, an artist should fill it full. There have been great double albums in the past during the vinyl era such as Prince's "1999", Donna Summer's "Bad Girls", and Stevie Wonder's "Songs In The Key Of Life".

People have the potential to make great long albums. Unfortunately, most people with that potential today, don't have record deals. As far as "filler" goes, one person's filler may be another person's jam.

Also, when there is a good artist today (which is rare), I want the longest album possible with the most songs because it will be a looooong time before I get to hear something from another good artist these days.
.
.
[Edited 6/14/06 6:20am]

The problem is that what used to pass as a double album (80 minutes) seems to be the norm for a standard album release.

I completely detest the trend of overly long albums, and I'm glad that it seems to be on the wane.

I've stopped caring.

BlaqueKnight said:

But how do feel about albums getting longer?

sextonseven said:

I think song length plays an important part in that and the stadards of quality are suffering because of it. The ONLY ones benefiting from this are labels. Its become so standard people don't even think about it. Artists have to write more material to add and they won't even make proper royalties for the amount of songs they will be writing. The public gets cheated with sub-par material designed to give the cliff notes of a song instead of the full deal. Just because a CD holds more doesn't mean it should be filled. Consumers may think so but its not a fair and just system. ASCAP & BMI aren't going to change what's working for them; labels aren't going to change what makes them more money. I'd say stop caring at all and let the artist decide. As long as you get your 10 songs per CD, you should be happy, really. We as a culture are greedy and spoiled. We want an 80 minute CD of quality single-worthy songs free for download.
[Edited 6/14/06 8:51am]

IMO it's simply a matter of quality...
I agree that sometimes 80 minutes CDs are full of fillers, but "1.Outside" by David Bowie is 80 minutes long, and I wouldn't cut any single second from it.
Just my opinion.

ask The Mars Volta

DiamondGirl said:

How 'bout we ask YOU?

BlaqueKnight said:

Then I say: shorter cd length with more quality material and less filler.

DiamondGirl said:

It would be so much better if everyone felt as you do. I suspect many people do, they just don't know what to do about it.

DiamondGirl said:

I agree. Generally, anything more than an hour is too long. I think between 40 and 50 minutes is ideal.

Generally speaking, I prefer albums around 50 minutes or so.

That being said, there are examples of FANTASTIC albums with no filler like The Cure's "Disintegration", Tori Amos "The Beekeeper" and "Boys for Pele," Prince's "The Gold Experience," and others that are well over 60 minutes.


But for most artists, they are capable of 50 minutes or so per album.

Yeah, the longer the album the longer the enjoyment I get after downloading it.

Novabreaker said:

You're wrong for that.

80 minutes by one artist is generally too long to keep my attention, unless it's a concert. I'd rather have it be broken in two discs in that case.

What's the difference? Probably just psychological, but the difference applys to the artists who then must make seperate, cohesive, shorter discs rather than one long connected disc.

But have you noticed that some old albums are ridiculously short? It feels like a ripoff buying a cd with 8 songs that's 33 minutes.

Longer isn't always better.

BlaqueKnight said:

True, but I don't want my stuff Super Sized either. It's very shallow, yes, but $15 for 30 minutes feels a bit steep, considering lp's always cost less than cd's.

CinisterCee said:

larger is!

I might have a unique take on this, having grown up in a roller rink.

It seems back in the album's heyday, one side would get more attention than the other. That 20 minutes (Sadly: Asia, Boston or some-such fare) was perfect for getting all the rental skates passed out and an approprite time to transition to 45's (Couples Only - Careless Whisper or something like that). At an early age, I was accustomed to hearing one side of a record repeatedly, hearing the second side as an occasional novelty. I grew up thinking there was a 'good' & 'not as good' side to each album.

I wonder if there's been a change in the intensity with which we listen. What's being served up today amounts to a quadrupling of what I used to hear. The music is no longer giving us the prompting at 15-20 minutes whether we want to continue or change the music or not listen at all.

There's also less fanfare around a double album. This distinction is hazy at best.

Most criticisms might revolve around filler with the new format...lack of an editor, ease of execution, ability to provide more material with today's media...but my preferences are more tied with the type of music I'm listening to and the spirit with which an album is created. With Pop Music, I'm inclined toward brevity. If there's some jamming going on, length is vital.

.

If it's a great album, I'll want it longer... the length doesn't really matter if the material is shit...

albums that came out in the 60's and 70's depending on the length of what a record would hold.. they would have put more matertial on the album if it was all possible, or extended the songs.

The Beatles in paticular

A good example of length issues is Emancipation..


geez, the first song felt like I listened to the whole damn album.. i was tired after one damn song..