Should albums be shorter?

[Vincent Vega]

Back in the 60s, 70s (and yes I know it was mainly due to space restrictions) an "album" consisted of anywhere from 6-9 songs. Today that'd be considered a mini album or EP, with albums averaging 12-16 songs today. But I contend that less is better in this instance. If you've only got 40 some odd minutes and can ONLY do 6-9 songs, you'd be more liable to ensure that those 6-9 songs are all worth the cut; less room for filler. I mean today bands probably purposely just put half hearted numbers in there just to stretch the albums out to the average length. I just think if bands went to shorter albums with less songs, we might get better albums for it.

[Rovim]

I think it depends on how much the artist had to say. Artistically, you can look at it sort of like you had to eat a certain amount of food cause you were really hungry, or another time you had to eat less cause you only needed that amount to be full.

It's not really about meeting a specific number of songs. It's about creating a piece of art that will make the songs work together as a whole.

No fillers, just what the artist felt was needed to be on the album. Just like a specific part of a song had to be there to make the song work.

[Vincent Vega]

I think it depends on how much the artist had to say. Artistically, you can look at it sort of like you had to eat a certain amount of food cause you were really hungry, or another time you had to eat less cause you only needed that amount to be full.

It's not really about meeting a specific number of songs. It's about creating a piece of art that will make the songs work together as a whole.

No fillers, just what the artist felt was needed to be on the album. Just like a specific part of a song had to be there to make the song work.

I just think if say you give an audience a short album of 7 rocking songs (while you've written say 20-30), not only will it leave the audience hungry for more and whet their appetite, but it'd also give you a longer career. I mean imagine if say Led Zeppelin's albums had each been 12-16 songs, they'd have blowed their load a lot quicker and the quality would've went faster.

I agree with you on your other points. But I think working in the mindset of just making a 7 or 8 album set sort of puts you in the headspace to make those 7 or 8 numbers count. You know?

[Rovim]

I think it depends on how much the artist had to say. Artistically, you can look at it sort of like you had to eat a certain amount of food cause you were really hungry, or another time you had to eat less cause you only needed that amount to be full.

It's not really about meeting a specific number of songs. It's about creating a piece of art that will make the songs work together as a whole.

No fillers, just what the artist felt was needed to be on the album. Just like a specific part of a song had to be there to make the song work.

I just think if say you give an audience a short album of 7 rocking songs (while you've written say 20-30), not only will it leave the audience hungry for more and whet their appetite, but it'd also give you a longer career. I mean imagine if say Led Zeppelin's albums had each been 12-16 songs, they'd have blowed their load a lot quicker and the quality would've went faster.

I agree with you on your other points. But I think working in the mindset of just making a 7 or 8 album set sort of puts you in the headspace to make those 7 or 8 numbers count. You know?

I see your point, but what if say the band just happened to write 12 rocking songs, instead of 7? And those 12 songs are just as good and don't fall in quality compared to those 7 songs?

All im saying is that if you listen to what the band created, as an album and it only contains 7 songs or it's a double album with no fillers that you just feel every song had to be there, then the number of songs isn't really relevant imo.

The artist should be in the mindset to release what he feels will be a complete work, regardless of the amount of music he managed to come up with. Again, in the condition that it's enough to make the listener feel nothing more was needed to be added to make it better or more complete.

An album is an artistic statement. It's bigger then how much there is to listen to on the disc or whatever.

Some people can paint you the full picture with 2 sentences and it will be better then talking for 2 hours. It all depends on the content and your specific way you can deliver what you have to say.

Others will need way more words to do it, but the result will be of high quality as well.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Rovim

[Vincent Vega]

I think it depends on how much the artist had to say. Artistically, you can look at it sort of like you had to eat a certain amount of food cause you were really hungry, or another time you had to eat less cause you only needed that amount to be full.

It's not really about meeting a specific number of songs. It's about creating a piece of art that will make the songs work together as a whole.

No fillers, just what the artist felt was needed to be on the album. Just like a specific part of a song had to be there to make the song work.

I just think if say you give an audience a short album of 7 rocking songs (while you've written say 20-30), not only will it leave the audience hungry for more and whet their appetite, but it'd also give you a longer career. I mean imagine if say Led Zeppelin's albums had each been 12-16 songs, they'd have blowed their load a lot quicker and the quality would've went faster.

I agree with you on your other points. But I think working in the mindset of just making a 7 or 8 album set sort of puts you in the headspace to make those 7 or 8 numbers count. You know?

I see your point, but what if say the band just happened to write 12 rocking songs, instead of 7? And those 12 songs are just as good and don't fall in quality compared to those 7 songs?

All im saying is that if you listen to what the band created, as an album and it only contains 7 songs or it's a double album with no fillers that you just feel every song had to be there, then the numbers of songs isn't really relevant imo.

The artist should be in the mindset to release what he feels will be a complete work, regardless of the amount of music he managed to come up with. Again, in the condition that it's enough to make the listener feel nothing more was needed to be added to make it better or more complete.

An album is an artistic statement. It's bigger then how much there is to listen to on the disc or whatever.

Some people can paint you the full picture with 2 sentences and it will be better then talking for 2 hours. It all depends on the content and your specific way you can deliver what you have to say.

Others will need way more words to do it, but the result will be of high quality as well.

If they wrote 12 rocking songs, they could take 7 for one album and save 4 for another, to be added to later...And then you have a longer career duration. I also think since we live in an age where people's attention spans are generally shorter, short albums might be a route worth pursuing. I mean if the songs are that good they can easily be held over for another record which will be just as rocking in that case and keep the audience wowed, like "damn, these guys keep coming out with awesome songs."

[TombRaider]

I think so. 8 songs is enough.

[Coma16]

40-45 minutes is plenty, and fits on a single LP. That's my preference.

If the songs are 3-4 minutes then that be a 10-12 song LP.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Coma16

[Rovim]

I think it depends on how much the artist had to say. Artistically, you can look at it sort of like you had to eat a certain amount of food cause you were really hungry, or another time you had to eat less cause you only needed that amount to be full.

It's not really about meeting a specific number of songs. It's about creating a piece of art that will make the songs work together as a whole.

No fillers, just what the artist felt was needed to be on the album. Just like a specific part of a song had to be there to make the song work.

I just think if say you give an audience a short album of 7 rocking songs (while you've written say 20-30), not only will it leave the audience hungry for more and whet their appetite, but it'd also give you a longer career. I mean imagine if say Led Zeppelin's albums had each been 12-16 songs, they'd have blowed their load a lot quicker and the quality would've went faster.

I agree with you on your other points. But I think working in the mindset of just making a 7 or 8 album set sort of puts you in the headspace to make those 7 or 8 numbers count. You know?

I see your point, but what if say the band just happened to write 12 rocking songs, instead of 7? And those 12 songs are just as good and don't fall in quality compared to those 7 songs?

All im saying is that if you listen to what the band created, as an album and it only contains 7 songs or it's a double album with no fillers that you just feel every song had to be there, then the numbers of songs isn't really relevant imo.

The artist should be in the mindset to release what he feels will be a complete work, regardless of the amount of music he managed to come up with. Again, in the condition that it's enough to make the listener feel nothing more was needed to be added to make it better or more complete.

An album is an artistic statement. It's bigger then how much there is to listen to on the disc or whatever.

Some people can paint you the full picture with 2 sentences and it will be better then talking for 2 hours. It all depends on the content and your specific way you can deliver what you have to say.

Others will need way more words to do it, but the result will be of high quality as well.

If they wrote 12 rocking songs, they could take 7 for one album and save 4 for another, to be added to later...And then you have a longer career duration. I also think since we live in an age where people's attention spans are generally shorter, short albums might be a route worth pursuing. I mean if the songs are that good they can easily be held over for another record which will be just as rocking in that case and keep the audience wowed, like "damn, these guys keep coming out with awesome songs."

Sure, but only if those 7 songs can work on their own to form a cohesive, complete work. And again, it all depends on the big picture: will the 12 songs form a better album compared to only 7 of them?

What will a real artist do? Surely they'll want to make the best album they can and not even think about what will come after that.

Btw, using 7 out of 12 songs will leave you with 5 songs, not just 4.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Rovim

[Vincent Vega]

40-45 minutes is plenty, and fits on a single LP. That's my preference.

If the songs are 3-4 minutes then that be a 10-12 song LP.

I also think rock songs should be shorter. You have today ROCK songs, not epics or anything, that are like 5 or 6 minutes long.

If a song is good enough, it'll say what it has to say in three minutes or less. Yet another way rock could be revitalized. Shorter, simpler songs to the point.

[Rovim]

40-45 minutes is plenty, and fits on a single LP. That's my preference.

If the songs are 3-4 minutes then that be a 10-12 song LP.

I also think rock songs should be shorter. You have today ROCK songs, not epics or anything, that are like 5 or 6 minutes long.

If a song is good enough, it'll say what it has to say in three minutes or less. Yet another way rock could be revitalized. Shorter, simpler songs to the point.

But that's just the thing: You can't judge how good is an idea just based on how long it took to 'get there'.

Longer songs just need to present a certain amount of ideas and work in a specific way toward their conclusion, but the outcome can be brilliant and only achievable in that particular amount of time.

There is no right way to write a song, cause there are many possible, different great results. It's all about if it worked for you when you finished listening to the song, if it met it's purpose.

[ManetsBR]

I already thought about that. What if the Guns N' Roses albums were as short as Zep's?

Appetite For Destruction I (1987)

Welcome To The Jungle

It's So Easy

Nightrain

Out Ta Get Me

Mr. Brownstone

Paradise City

Appetite For Destruction II (1988)

My Michelle

Think About You

Sweet Child O' Mine

You're Crazy

Anything Goes

Rocket Queen

Lies (1989)

Reckless Life

Nice Boys

Move To The City

Mama Kin

Patience

Used To Love Her

You're Crazy

One In A Million

Use Your Illusion I (1990)

Right Next Door To Hell

Dust N' Bones

Live And Let Die

Don't Cry I

Perfect Crime

You Ain't The First

Bad Obsession

Back Off Bitch

Use Your Illusion II (1991)

Double Talkin' Jive

November Rain

The Garden

Garden Of Eden

Don't Damn Me

Bad Apples

Dead Horse

Coma

Use Your Illusion III (1992)

Civil War

14 Years

Yesterdays

Knocking On Heaven's Door

Get In The Ring

Shotgun Blues

Breakdown

Use Your Illusion IV (1993)

Pretty Tied Up

Locomotive

So Fine

Estranged

You Could Be Mine

Don't Cry II

My World

7 albums, almost as much as Zep.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Fuck that, i want as much as i can get for my money.

[Vincent Vega]

Fuck that, i want as much as i can get for my money.

1) Make albums shorter, higher quality.

2) Make album prices cheaper in turn

3) ????

4) Profit!

Edited July 2, 2013 by Vincent Vega

[Guest Len B'stard]

Shorter songs, more basic, more to the roots, careful Miser, careful

[DieselDaisy]

When CDs arrived, it created the tendency to maximise the extra room and throw all the eggs into one basket. If it was a choice between say, 4 forty mins albums in four years (one per year) or, 1 80 mins album followed four years down the road by another 80 mins album, I take the former option. Most of my favourite albums are short affairs.

[ManetsBR]

Would you rather if GNR had released their albums the way I posted then? I think it would have kept things more interesting for more time.

Edited July 2, 2013 by ManetsBR

[DieselDaisy]

I would have applied something similar with the Illusions.

I would have kept Appetite as it is (55m is about correct for a compact disc), put out a 1989 album with the older songs which ended-up on Illusion (e.g. Don't Cry etc) and split the Illusion material over something like you proposed (or as b-sides). Illusion certainly suffers from the disease I mentioned above.

[LightningBolt]

My ideal album time is 35-45 minutes. Number of songs probably between 8 and 12. Honestly, I just think most bands aren't capable of being interesting for much longer than 40 or so minutes. I'm someone who listens to music almost only by way of full album listens, and anything longer than 45 minutes can be a turnoff. Even something like Appetite For Destruction can get pretty boring when it starts hitting "You're Crazy" and "Anything Goes".

[DieselDaisy]

But what if you replace Anything Goes with You Could Be Mine? I do not know why they didn't just shove Anything Goes out on Lies. I have a hazy memory of reading something which stated that Zutaut pushed for its inclusion (the band were not so sure).

[sweetness]

Records shouldn't be anything other than what the artist intends them to be

[dalsh327]

It all depends on the artist and the era they put albums out in. I've brought this up about classic rock reissues - Roger Waters had to trim a little bit of The Wall down and move songs around, but was it the album he envisioned? He's had 30 years to make changes.

I think in cases like Prince, he put out "1999" as a double album when he was still up and coming, but when he put "Purple Rain" out, it was a single album, even though he had 30 or 40 songs he could have put on there. It's around "Diamonds and Pearls" where you can tell he was thinking more about CD length.

Album lengths don't matter anymore, artists can put a 100 song album out or 7 song album. If Springsteen had digital downloads in 1978, "Darkness on the Edge of Town" probably would have been a 50 song release, as it stands, he put the double album "River" out, which had some DOTEOT outtakes.

I'd actually like to see bands do what The Smiths or The Beatles did, if they have tons of material - put singles out every couple of months, and make the album a separate entity, and after about 4 years, put a singles collection out for those that want the physical product.

We have no b-sides anymore, they just put that stuff out on deluxe editions or re-releases.

[GivenToFly]

They also used to release albums more frequently back then so the total output might actually have been larger in the vinyl era.

It's about money too, isn't it? (Everything is.) back then you made money from selling records so you had to make lots of records to sell. Today you make money from live performances so you have to free your schedule for touring. You don't want to waste months in the studio spending money when you could be on stage instead, earning it.

[Coma16]

Records shouldn't be anything other than what the artist intends them to be

The artists don't usually call the shots.

[SunnyDRE]

I think so. 8 songs is enough.

agreed 100%.

great thread miser.

as someone who still buys "the album"(CD's), i've thought this for years.

10 songs please.

Edited July 2, 2013 by SunnyDRE

[bacardimayne]

The thing I hate most is when there are 5 different special editions (Wal-Mart, iTunes, K-Mart, Target, etc.) with a different bonus track on each one. Makes downloading them all a bitch.

Edited July 2, 2013 by bacardimayne