Vincent Vega Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Back in the 1960s and 1970s, most albums were typically composed of 6-10 songs, mostly for space reasons; We'd call them mini albums today. Sure, you had your double and triple records which could go for 25 songs or so, but for most artists only one album or so was a double or triple.But was perhaps the smaller amount of songs per record not only better for the artist (let's say the artist wrote 50 songs; with 10 songs per record, that's enough for five records right there), but also for the material--The less songs, the less filler? Today artists are expected to release 12-16 song albums; to release an 8 song record would not be taken well, and so they're forced to pad out the albums with more songs, sometimes lesser songs or even outtakes.Was perhaps the older way--shorter albums--better? The "less is more" mindset? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.