Why is the new Erykah Badu album called an "EP"? It has 10 songs. I don't get it.
[This message was edited Thu Sep 25 0:19:09 PDT 2003 by TRON]

It's probably longer than the new Peaches album, which is only about 35 minutes and is being called a full-length. Go know.

Anxiety said:

Yeah. I heard it was even longer than "Mama's Gun".

Worldwide isnt longer than Mama's gun.

People are stupid, i dont know. When Music came out by Madonna, nobody said that was "not a real album" but oooh when Erykah cum out with a REGULAR LENTH LP THEN it;s a crim...stank mutha fukas

:confused:

that is odd...I'm actually happy with the 10 track "ep"

I think one problem with music is that CD length has caused many artists to consistently release 60-75 minutes of music per CD

often, the CD would flow better as a "45 minute effort" with the duller songs being bsides...

It's like each artist is required to always put out what used to be considered a 'double album's' amount of material on each release...I think it's lowered the total quality of many releases

This is true. More albums should be 45 minutes. They're much more listenable that way.

paisleypark4 said:

i did.



too short, and too varied. sounds like a mix tape.

actually, the length is fine. it's great. show me an album over 45 minutes and i'll show you some filler

but axing 2 songs, and expanding on the remaining 8 would have helped it hang together better. (i have the same opinion about Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic).

which was probably the point, but that's the least album-like album of all her albums.

AaronMaximus said:

yeah but Modonna & Like A Virgin remain with about 7 songs and it is classic. I agree with u though, Music was tacky except for 3 songs...especially "What It Feels Like.."

TRON said:

It was initially planned as an EP in its earlier versions, but Kedar kept sending Erykah back into studio to add more songs.

What she came back with was essentially extended jams + a "remix" of "Love of My Life" + a Dead Prez song "The Grind" so I can see why some folks would feel it was more an appetizer than a substantive meal.

TRON said:

I may be in the minority,but I actually prefer longer CDs with more songs.I want the most for my money.Yes,I know that all the songs won't be that great,but if I'm a fan of the artist,I still would rather have these songs.One thing that annoys me is when I hear about outtakes that were left off a CD,especially if the CD is especially short (such as Madonna's last two albums).

My only real problem with Madonna's 'Music' is that it is simply too short.A measly ten songs? That reminds me of the vinyl days,when an album could only hold about ten songs (five on each side).Madonna had the right idea with 'Erotica',which clocked in at over 70 minutes,I believe.Not every song is a masterpiece but it's a "feast" of an album,wouldn't you agree? 'Music',on the other hand,leaves me a little hungry for more.

DavidEye said:

I guess it's just a different perspective...

I'd rather be left hungry for more than end up so full I can't finish my plate...






....edit, these artists need to edit themselves...
[This message was edited Fri Sep 26 6:12:14 PDT 2003 by endorphin74]

endorphin74 said:

Yeah,but this is Madonna we're talking about...lol...we can always find room to digest everything she serves up,right?

DavidEye said:

true...so true...dammit!

ps...I'm finally getting a copy of the Oprah show from last week! I haven't seen it yet!

wooohooo!

TRON said:

well,
your puzzlement is actually what her marketers wanted to happen

why was grafitti bridge CD considered a double album -and priced at $20.99- when o(+>, which runs even longer than GB, is not a double? answer: because GB was released during the last days of the vinyl era.
it seems that in the CD era, when we can fit up to 79:57 on one disk, that becomes the norm. no such thing as a double album any more, unless you're talking 2 CDs worth of music. so today when an artist uses only half the maximum length -how long is erikha's?- people talk EP or mini-album. 20 years ago this wasn't the case. an album lasted 30-44 minutes. today, anything less than 10 songs/40 minutes seems like less than an album.

paisleypark4 said:

disagree, pretty much completely.

i think that Madonna's debut would have benefitted from containing all of the single edits of the song, and perhaps 1 or 2 more to round it out to 40 minutes, or so. the individual tracks on it suffer from the same thing i think "1999" does. all of the tracks are good, but they tend to wear out their welcome, for the kind of albums they are.


LAV is utter crap. i hate that album. it should have had the following tracklisting, and it would have been truly the classic album that it seems to have become by way of being in the right place at the right time.

Material Girl
Angel
Like A Virgin
Over And Over
Love Don't Live Here Anymore
Into The Groove
Dress You Up
Crazy For You
Gambler
Stay


as much as i dislike Dress You Up and Gambler, they're preferable to Shoo-Bee-Doo and Stay.



as for the Music album, WIFLFAG is actually one of the stronger tracks, in my opinion. the ones that either bore me or don't belong there are Runaway Lover, I Deserve It, and Paradise (and Nobody's Perfect isn't top-notch, but it fits the feel of the album better than the other 2 ballads i'd scrap).

Something tells me that she called it an EP, not Motwown (or whatever label she is on). I'm sure she can explain why. It does seem odd that only are there 10 tracks but one is over 10 mins long and others are pretty lengthy too. Maybe she called it an EP as a goof. To me it definately feels a liek a full album and a great one at that. I gotta check out her earlier stuff which I always meant to buy.