back when there was just vinyl and cassette, the average album topped out at about 43-45 minutes, given the space limitations of those media. when the cd format started getting big, we started seeing all these 60, 70 and 75 minute albums, with a lot of filler and longer songs. the last few cd's i've listened to and/or bought all are now topping off at the 40-50 minute range (justin, beyonce, janet, natalie cole, musicology, 3121 etc).
anybody think the record companies are doing this on purpose, to make leaner, user friendly albums again, with downloads usually available for tracks that didn't make it on to the final version of the album?

I noticed this too. I think artists realize that just because CD as a media could hold 80 minutes, that doesn't mean they have to fill the disc.

Also, the trend towards paying for downloads of separate tracks, less "filler" is probably a smarter option, and also easier on the consumer's download time.

Nevermind the fact that some of those 76 minute albums turned into DOUBLE VINYL, which we have seen consumers return to as a format. Double vinyl just is not as cost effective for record companies to produce.









[Edited 9/30/06 12:53pm]

Fury said:

Add The Roots latest tp that short length list.

I for one was at first feeling cheated at the lack of length/music put on some of these cds. But actually it's been a good thing. Concise, rare filler, succint music. Leavin ya wanting more is a good thing actually.

I am too overwhelmed by some releases that I don't even want to put them in the player.

why can't artist make 78 minutes of great music instead of 40?

40 minutes is a cop out!

electric ladyland is 75 min and 73 mins of it is excellent!

yes, thank god. show me an album over 50 minutes and i'll show you some filler.

mikek1 said:

Also, consider the fact that it takes at least twice as long to release an album as it used to!

I'm so happy albums are shorter. Sure some artists back in the day could have made great 73 min albums. But most of these cats today are lucky to get 3 good songs out.

I always said they need to trim the fat. Im good with a 45-50 minute cd. It make me want to listen to it repeatedly.

Since Prince is the only artist I buy that makes new music, he needs to fill the CD with as much music as it will hold. Hell, he needs to put out 5 CD sets every year. Why not? There's nothing else new out there to listen to until his next album comes out.

vainandy said:

I agree apart from thye chili peppers but thier albums are unlistenable because of the mastering!

vainandy said:

hell to the fuck no...dont force us to buy filler full album's just cause you can't expand your musical boundries...




an album can be a work of art...throw in filler crap just cause you can ruins the music experience...now, if you actually have two cds worth of quality then go for it...

but most folks *dont*.

The less poop, the better.....it's poop-lite.

vainandy said:

yeah, we really need more of "We Gets Up" and "Jughead" and "Everyday Is A Winding Road" to pad out Prince albums.

I think vainandy was being facetious.

iconsweat said:

Not even.

Prince's last work of art album for me was "Purple Rain" so I don't expect any more of those. He still has kept it coming though throughout the years with plenty of funk. He's about the only one that has. That's why he needs to keep it coming with as much music as possible as often as possible.

Since he insisted on creating himself a fanbase that has sooooo many different tastes, there's always going to be something on the album that someone considers filler because he has too many people to please. He even has sellout moments such as "Incense and Candles". That's why I've learned to hit the "skip" button on my CD player for such moments. Now, if we're talking five albums a year full of material like "The Truth" or "NEWS", that's a different story. That's when Prince needs to go on and retire.

I like "We Gets Up". For those other two songs, I simply hit "skip".

Maybe your attention span is just getting longer!

The best example is Fiona. 3 BRILLIANT albums with only 10 songs each (11 with the added track on EM). She rules. 10 top notch actual SONGS with thoughtful lyrics, decipherable themes, and distinguishing moods.

Tessa said:

Will you show your boobs as well?

MartyMcFly said:

show me your "filler" first

Tessa said:

Just heard a Dj announcing a "mini" album of 8 tracks
Yeah , 80-minute cd's have definitely grown to a standard format .

albums are getting shorter again, but i think thats in part down to the nostalgia of the new rock bands who base their sound on punk new wave and 70's rock, so they're making these cool little 40 minute albums.

Im all for it. I love Dirty Mind so much because its concise, efficient and maintains my concentration. I just cant handle 80 minutes of music at once, not just because i have a shitty concentration for it, but because as many people have pointed out, most of it is just filler. Its no coincidence that the death of the b-side coincided with the over-long, over filled, 80 minute album.

The point about artists not releasing as many albums is true, but id rather have more shorter albums, rather than a few longer drawn out records. A new album is a chance to discover a new sound or concept - these long records end up just being a mess lacking in cohesion.

Well, albums in the 1980s were around 40 to 45 minutes long. They also costed around $7.99. Artists also released an album every year back then. Artists these days release an album every two years and albums cost around $15.99. If they are going to shorten the length of music on the albums back to the 1980s length, then they need to go back to the 1980s prices as well. While we're at it, give me some damn 1980s quality also.

We're being fucked these days. We are getting half the amount of music as the 1980s (45 minutes to last two years) and double the price.
.
.
[Edited 10/4/06 11:31am]

mikek1 said:

how long are his other records?

used to be that double albums were put out every once in a while by our greatest artists--like Jimi, Beatles, Dylan.

I think 45 minutes is a good length, and let every artist do one, maybe two, double albums in their careers. Of course everyone can do what they want, but not many people can pull off a 75 minute album.

Another issue is that LP's broke the 80m minutes into 4 sides, which was more manageable than one straight listen. Even if you had a record changer, you still had to flip them over to hear the other sides.

vainandy said:

oh please...you know what inflation is...

I sure do. Most of them can't even beat on tin cans but still have inflated egos.

vainandy said:

Here's an example of an album that need to be "trimmed":



~Why Tori...why Tori?