When it comes to albums, how long is too long?
For those who still listen to music albums, what is your ideal length? Is it 40 minutes? 50? Or 78?
When I started listening to music, longer albums were always, in my opinion, better. The long-playing record, or LP, could accommodate up to 50 minutes or so of music. If I was paying, I wanted 50 minutes or as close to that as possible.
A 33-minute album felt as though I was being shortchanged. Where's the other 12 minutes, my brain would demand. Part of this was a particular Midwestern trait of seeking good value: More of a good thing is a good thing.
Now I understand that reasoning isn't always correct. Sometimes more of a thing is just more.
If a song is great at 3 minutes, it won't necessarily be better at 5 or 8.
Likewise, if an album is 37 minutes long and wonderful, it won't necessarily be better if it is 55 minutes long.
This commercial music equation changed with the arrival of the compact disc. When CDs first arrived, about 74 minutes of music could be encoded into its pits. Suddenly, inevitably, albums began to get longer. If longer was better, then this had to be a good thing, right?
Wrong.
Titles did get longer. Discs had more tracks and individual tracks were longer. But certainly it is true that merely being longer did not make a work better. What it meant was that an artist might include several tracks on an album that previously might have been left behind on the cutting room floor. In addition, the tracks got longer. Three-minute songs became five. Five became eight. Artists were not bound by the same time limitation as before. And many artists were conscious that more tracks and longer runtimes sometimes seem to equal greater value. However artificial that 50 minute limit was, it might have encouraged discipline And so we end up with a lot of 70-plus minute CDs that contain filler. Sometimes it's a little filler. Sometimes it's a lot. Titles now often run 60 minutes or so.
Lately I have particularly noticed how much I enjoy a good, punchy, short album. Some of my favorites this year are below or just over 30 minutes. "Breakup Song" by Deerhoof is clever, witty, energetic and concise at 29 minutes. It works at 29 minutes and it's a pure pleasure. Why would I want any more?
"Lex Hives" by The Hives is another dose of intravenous adrenaline from the Swedish punk band. It clocks in at just over 31 minutes. Given the energy it expends, it would be absurd to demand more.
Jeff Lynne, the man behind the Electric Light Orchestra, recently released "Long Wave." It is only 27 minutes and change and yet it feels complete at that length. Why inflate it and risk its quality?
So what seems like the correct length of an album to you? Do you pay any attention to the length of songs and the number of tracks on an album? My guess is that many folks don't even buy albums any longer, preferring to pick up only individual tracks they particularly like. But if you do buy discs, does the length matter? Or, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein: A good album is a good album is a good album (no matter the length).
Please share your thoughts with us.
Follow Shawn Sensiba on Twitter @shawnsensiba.
Nov 3, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
How about themed albums?
Tull's " Thick as a Brick" is a complete story front to back. Or is it a collection of short stories?
Short songs are for the general public's short attention span. Made for radio as it were.
Anyone remember when the FM dial was just starting to gain popularity? DJ's picked out their own music and would plop on "Knights in White Satin" when they needed an extended bathroom break.
Nov 3, 2012 at 6:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
so true, Panama, about the digitally recorded music. I think it has more to do with poor use of technology than the technology itself. Producers have been traveling down a bad road as far as what they "think" is a good sound. Recording music use to be about recreating the live sound. Now its about taking some other persons song, played by some other persons musicians, and packaging it into a synthesized sound that fits the mold of the suits.
Nov 2, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
I gotta go with saxcat on the Traffic choice. They had some great extended jams. Personally I can't get enough of the Allman Bros. "Live at Fillmore East" yet one of my favorite albums is JJ Cale's "Naturally" which clocks in at just over 30 minutes. I've always preferred quality over quantity. Nothing matches the depth of sound you get from vinyl, except maybe reel to reel. I believe advanced technology has diminished the "true" sound of what the artist produced compared to what consumers hear. IMO digitally recorded music sucks but it has made it easier to obtain hard to find recordings. Like snirt says, music is like a time machine transporting the listener to another place and time.
Nov 2, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don't know if these qualify. Have two three short albums (four songs)that I purchased overseas in the sixties. Elvis, The Beatles, etc. Haven't thought about them in years. They are pieces of younger years that gave me a touch of home when I was very far away.
Nov 2, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
When you mention long songs all I can think of Meatloaf...paradise by the dash board lights is one in particular.
Nov 2, 2012 at 3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
As long as all the songs are good it doesn't matter.
Didn't the Beetles do a45 second song?
Nov 2, 2012 at 1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
I tend to prefer shorter tunes. As far as long tune go, I give, Low Spark of High Heeled Boys the nod. great melody,solo,jam. I think a 15 track recording at 3:30 per song is just about right. that's about a 50-60 minute disc.
Nov 2, 2012 at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
I haven't bought an "album" since the 1970s. Do they still make those? I listen to people on YouTube today. Right now I'm listening to YACHT - Shangri-La.
http://youtu.be/q7fTXKp6TDM
Nov 2, 2012 at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
I don't understand how the public can dictate how long songs are supposed to be. If an artist makes a song that's 12 minutes long, so be it! If the artist chooses to make a song 3 minutes long, then the song is 3 minutes long. It's entirely up to the artist. Stairway To Heaven by Led Zeppelin is about 8 minutes long. Cherish by The Association is just under 3 and 1/2 minutes long. Are you trying to say that one or the other is just plain wrong? This whole topic, to me, is totally absurd!
Nov 2, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
In my experience, 40-42 minutes seems optimal. It gives an artist just enough time for 10-12, 3.5-4 minute diddies.
Now live music is another story altogether. Take that 4-minute song and give me 8-12 minutes and I'm in heaven.
Nov 2, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
a few other good long albums, one from the 60's is Inna-gadda-da-vidda and one from the 70's Closer to home by Grand Funk Railroad. Jammin!
Nov 2, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
A lot of cool vinyl from early to mid-1960s such as Dave Clark Five and Beach Boys LPs clock in at less than 30 minutes. Those are some fun records. But then you have some of the Fleetwood Mac stuff where the records were cut soft, the microsonic recordings where they just jammed 90 minutes of tunes on a single record. For my money, 35 to 45 minutes does it for anything new. Great topic, by the way, Shawn.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.