I've Noticed Lengths Of Albums Are Getting Shorter

[Splicer]

In the post physical media era we're in, I've noticed that a lot of band are bringing the length of albums back down to the less than an hour level. For my part, I think album lengths should be whatever an artist wants it to be. If 30 or 40 minutes of music is what they want to put out, then that's what they should put out. The idea that a certain length must be filled is nonsense or that songs should be cut because they make something longer than it can be due to physical limitations.

As an aside, I wouldn't mind seeing some Genesis albums re-released with a proper mixing and with songs that were cut for length put back in where they would've originally gone. Abacab is the prime example of the one that should be longer. Also perhaps (if the tapes exist) a version of ...And Then There Were Three without songs that fade-out so quickly.

[progmatist]

The resurgence of vinyl, along with the CD falling out of favor is likely part of the equation.

[SteveSly]

The resurgence of vinyl, along with the CD falling out of favor is likely part of the equation.

Agree, I think the fact that most albums are now being released on vinyl is the reason. Often CD / digital albums will contain "bonus tracks" now that probably would have been part of the main album in the CD era. Yes's most recent is a good example.

[chalkpie]

Good idea. Trimm the fatt.

[Splicer]

Good idea. Trimm the fatt.

Like I said, I leave that up to the artist. Some are clearly better at it than others. There are artists out there (I'm looking at you Flower Kings) who are writing the equivalent of those fantasy novels that look like bricks. 900 pages where it could've been half that and tell the same story.

Note: I've always loved the Flower Kings so I just say it the way I feel it.

[JKL2000]

The resurgence of vinyl, along with the CD falling out of favor is likely part of the equation.

No doubt, and also the download-only albums, where the lines between an “EP” and an “LP” can be blurred. I, too, think these changes are positive, and can help remove the problem of “filler” tracks. Although, the longer a song is, the proggier it is, still.

[Sputnik]

I've been noticing this too, for some time. It's clearly related to the vinyl resurgence.

I think it's a double edged sword. I think a lot of 90s/00s/10s albums were a bit too long, often trying to "fill up" a ~80 minute CD, or even going to ~60 minutes, which is still a lot of music. Some of those albums could justify that length, but many couldn't, and could have used some trimming. 45 - 50 minute albums I think are the sweet spot, and that's what sort of gets lost now as so many new records cap out at 40 minutes.

That said, if the music is really good, I can live with ~40 minutes. When it starts creeping down to 36 minutes or less, I get a little miffed, especially if I'm paying north of $12-$13 for the CD. That starts to feel a little unfair.

Bill

[markwoll]

I bought a vinyl LP record back in the day that had about 30 minutes total. I felt ripped off.
Less filler is good, but if labeled and album vs EP, I expect at least 50 min. Hopefully the band has enough material. Unless the band just releases singles on bandcamp, then it's on me.

[rcarlberg]

I bought a vinyl LP record back in the day that had about 30 minutes total. I felt ripped off.

Back in the day, 30-minute albums were not uncommon. Some half-speed-mastered and DMM LPs were more like 24.

I'm with Splicer on this. Some albums sound "just right" at 28 minutes, others can fill 79:59 and still leave me wanting more.

Glaad thee erra off "Fiilller Trackks" is ovverr.

[Shadow]

The older things get the shorter they get. Remember a half gallon of ice cream.

[boilk]

When it starts creeping down to 36 minutes or less, I get a little miffed, especially if I'm paying north of $12-$13 for the CD. That starts to feel a little unfair.

Bill

$12-$13...well, if I were still buying only CDs, I would be regularly be paying north of $30 Canadian, ha. So, I guess that I'd be even more miffed.

Neil

[rcarlberg]

The older things get the shorter they get.

Tell me about it. I used to be able to go all night... now I have to get up to go all night.

[boilk]

Less filler is good, but if labeled and album vs EP, I expect at least 50 min. Hopefully the band has enough material. Unless the band just releases singles on bandcamp, then it's on me.

Wow, expecting at least 50 seems a bit high. I'd still consider 40-45 very fair value, for an LP. It's when it gets under 35... especially much closer to 30, that it's a little disappointing.

Neil

[yodathedog]

I bought a vinyl LP record back in the day that had about 30 minutes total. I felt ripped off.
Less filler is good, but if labeled and album vs EP, I expect at least 50 min. Hopefully the band has enough material. Unless the band just releases singles on bandcamp, then it's on me.

I hope it wasn't a Beatles album.

[Koreabruce]

Many classic '70s Italian prog albums are 35 minutes or less (Per un Amico, Uomo Di Pezza, Felona E Sorona, Contrappunti, etc.), and other great ones are between 37 and 42 minutes (Io Sono Nato Libero, Principe di un Giorno, Campo di Marte, Palepoli, etc.) None are too long or short in my view.

[Bob Drake]

Interesting! I wonder if it's because more artists no longer feel the self-imposed obligation to fill up, on every album, by any means posisble, every available minute on a physical CD anymore? Perhaps the "non-physical" formats today like Bandcamp have helped, now that there isn't a "blank" or "empty" physical object with 70+ minutes leering at the artist to be filled up.

Between 1994 until around 2007, I used to record bands here at the house on a regular basis, in that time I recorded around 400 albums by mostly obscure or one-off bands. The group would come and stay at the house for 5, 10 days, and at the end of that period usually leave with a finished master in hand. I remember the disheartening trend that started in the late 90s, when many bands who came here started feeling pressure or obligation to use every available minute on a CD, and the "total length" of an album was often printed on the cover. Like feeling one has to making every album a double album.

In those days, it often happened that once a band had all the material they'd prepared for the album recorded, and everybody was happy, they'd ask "Hey Bob, what's the total time?" If it was 30 - 40 minutes of solid, strong music (perfect) the band would often be shocked and disappointed, and say oh dear, that means we have to come up with another 20 or 30 minutes more material in the next three days. Then might come some uninspired improvising, or digging up unfinished or unrehearsed material, diluting the impact of the whole picture. If I asked why they were doing this, the response was that they believed listeners would feel "ripped off" if an album wasn't 70+ minutes long.

That trend was around the same time as the "hidden track" before track 1

I also notice younger artists I am acquainted with or help out don't seem to feel that 70-minute-album need, and their albums are indeed generally the old classic album length. Not because they are releasing vinyl, which most of them can't afford to do, most are on Bandcamp.

BD
www.bdrak.com

[Trane]

In the post physical media era we're in, I've noticed that a lot of band are bringing the length of albums back down to the less than an hour level. For my part, I think album lengths should be whatever an artist wants it to be. If 30 or 40 minutes of music is what they want to put out, then that's what they should put out. The idea that a certain length must be filled is nonsense or that songs should be cut because they make something longer than it can be due to physical limitations.

Well, one of the things I did appreciate was that the 70's prog bands had albums usually above 45 minutes, so my proverbial laziness made it that I only had to get up every 22.5 minutes rather than every 15 minutes to flip over the record.

I've been noticing this too, for some time. It's clearly related to the vinyl resurgence.

I think it's a double edged sword. I think a lot of 90s/00s/10s albums were a bit too long, often trying to "fill up" a ~80 minute CD, or even going to ~60 minutes, which is still a lot of music. Some of those albums could justify that length, but many couldn't, and could have used some trimming. 45 - 50 minute albums I think are the sweet spot, and that's what sort of gets lost now as so many new records cap out at 40 minutes.

yup, a lot of 90 & 00's albums were too long, for sure.

Genesis 70's album sometimes veered over 50 minutes and Klaus Schulze's Timewind was nearly 60 minutes

I bought a vinyl LP record back in the day that had about 30 minutes total. I felt ripped off.
Less filler is good, but if labeled and album vs EP, I expect at least 50 min. Hopefully the band has enough material. Unless the band just releases singles on bandcamp, then it's on me.

Yeah, I felt cheated on albums below 30 mins, though - though this happened for French & Italian rock albums.
Elton lost a lawsuit because he delivered less than 30 mins of music to finish a recording contract with MCA ; so he went into his drawer and pulled out a couple of fillers to get rid of them.

Many classic '70s Italian prog albums are 35 minutes or less (Per un Amico, Uomo Di Pezza, Felona E Sorona, Contrappunti, etc.), and other great ones are between 37 and 42 minutes (Io Sono Nato Libero, Principe di un Giorno, Campo di Marte, Palepoli, etc.) None are too long or short in my view.

If memory serves, there are few below 30 mins as well (In France as well)

[Koreabruce]

If memory serves, there are few below 30 mins as well (In France as well)

Dalton, for one. I think it's around 28 minutes in total.

[rcarlberg]

45 - 50 minute albums I think are the sweet spot, and that's what sort of gets lost now as so many new records cap out at 40 minutes. That said, if the music is really good, I can live with ~40 minutes. When it starts creeping down to 36 minutes or less, I get a little miffed, especially if I'm paying north of $12-$13 for the CD. That starts to feel a little unfair.

Quality not quantity.

[Sputnik]

Many classic '70s Italian prog albums are 35 minutes or less (Per un Amico, Uomo Di Pezza, Felona E Sorona, Contrappunti, etc.), and other great ones are between 37 and 42 minutes (Io Sono Nato Libero, Principe di un Giorno, Campo di Marte, Palepoli, etc.) None are too long or short in my view.

It kind of depends on the album for me. You're right about the ones you mention that are 35 minutes or less, but in my mind, those are seminal classics, and there's so much packed into their 33 - 35 minutes that it is, actually, enough music. There are other records from that period where I come up wanting, for example Il Volo's albums, which are good, but I think would have benefited from a bit more music, or music that I felt was of consistently higher quality.

For modern albums, I'm not sure I've heard a single one that is sub 35 minutes that I feel sustains itself with that kind of quality. I'm usually satisfied if a band can produce a solid 40 - 45 minute album, but shaving off almost 10 minutes from that seems a bit paltry if it's not backed up by pretty amazing quality... and I just personally don't hear that level of quality these days. Fortunately, this is a pretty rare occurrence, but it's definitely started happening more than it did 5+ years ago.

Bill

[Sputnik]

Quality not quantity.

You posted this while I was writing my previous response. I agree with you, but if you don't hear the quality that justifies a really short release, then I think it's valid to feel a little jipped. I totally agree that no artist should feel obligated to full up an 80 minute CD, but I don't think 40 - 50 minutes, or 40 - 45, is such a big ask, though this is where the limitations of vinyl come into play.

It used to be that shorter records, EPs, were priced lower. I understand that EPs were like 20 - 25 minutes, but I think that concept could be applied to CDs, or even digital files, and the price better could reflect the amount of music provided if you're purchasing the entire album.

Bill

[IncogNeato]

The ushering in of the CD era created a LOT of bloat. I'm glad to see albums shortening again.

[battema]

If memory serves, back in the 90's the Future Sound of London would release EPs that were effectively albums just around or under 40 minutes and almost entirely new music...but due to the shorter length and designation as an EP meant they would cost less than a normal album for fans.

Apropos of nothing, really...just a fun fact.

[Trane]

The ushering in of the CD era created a LOT of bloat. I'm glad to see albums shortening again.

and loudness wars (and bad remastering)

[rcarlberg]

1223724[/URL]]The ushering in of the CD era created a LOT of bloat. I'm glad to see albums shortening again.

Does this mean "the era of the CD" is over???