FEATURED CD: Walrus - s/t

[Kai]

Apparently some of those Italian one shot bands from the seventies made some albums that clock in around 33 minutes. I can't think of which ones specifically off the top of my head though but I've heard about them.

Antares: Sea of Tranquility, 27 minutes.
Franco Battiato: M. elle le "Gladiator", 31,5 minutes, and Juke Box, under 27 minutes.
Dalton: Riflessioni, 28+ minutes.
Formula 3: La Grande Casa, just under 31 minutes.
Goblin: Suspiria, about 32,5 minutes in its original guise, and I think so were most of Goblin's soundtrack releases.
Le Orme: Uomo di Pezza, 32,5 minutes (and Felona and Contrappunti are both about 33,5).
Sangiuliano: Take Off, 32,5 minutes.
The Trip: Atlantide, just under 31 minutes.
Il Volo: the first one is just under 33 minutes and I don't think the second was much longer.

I'm sure there are others, but those were the first ones to come to mind. I use to feel that an album under 40 minutes was too short. Then I got into Italian progressive rock. If I had held on to my original notion, I wouldn't have had much to listen.

[Sputnik]

Antares: Sea of Tranquility, 27 minutes.
Franco Battiato: M. elle le "Gladiator", 31,5 minutes, and Juke Box, under 27 minutes.
Dalton: Riflessioni, 28+ minutes.
Formula 3: La Grande Casa, just under 31 minutes.
Goblin: Suspiria, about 32,5 minutes in its original guise, and I think so were most of Goblin's soundtrack releases.
Le Orme: Uomo di Pezza, 32,5 minutes (and Felona and Contrappunti are both about 33,5).
Sangiuliano: Take Off, 32,5 minutes.
The Trip: Atlantide, just under 31 minutes.
Il Volo: the first one is just under 33 minutes and I don't think the second was much longer.

I'm sure there are others, but those were the first ones to come to mind. I use to feel that an album under 40 minutes was too short. Then I got into Italian progressive rock. If I had held on to my original notion, I wouldn't have had much to listen.

IMO, none of those albums are such "glorious masterpieces" that they couldn't have benefited from another track or so. 40-ish minutes doesn't seem outlandish, even in the 70s. Far closer to perfection (IMO) are some of Area's and GG's albums that are 35 minutes or under, and even there I wouldn't have been disappointed in having another track or two to bring it closer to 40 minutes.

But all that is irrelevant. The standards were different in the 60s and 70s and I don't have the same expectations I do of a modern release. I also don't think the Walrus is such a glorious masterpiece that it couldn't have benefited from another track or two. I'm not generally a fan of CDs that are much longer than 50 - 55 minutes, but I don't think 40 - 45 is too much to ask for a standard release. Again, YMMV, but I think pointing out the shortness of some 70s releases misses the point.

Bill

[webbcity]

I like this a lot. Hadn't heard of it before..which is why these "Featured CD" threads are great. Nice feeling and mood to this.

As for complaining about 33 minutes, to me that's the same thing as saying "I like the Mona Lisa, but wish it was larger."...???

I'm feeling deja vu here...I'm sure this discussion has already happened and I was a part of it. But the point is...music is art, not just product. Therefore it's quality-- how it makes you feel-- that counts, not quantity.

[Sputnik]

As for complaining about 33 minutes, to me that's the same thing as saying "I like the Mona Lisa, but wish it was larger."...???

Um, no, it's actually not like that at all.

music is art, not just product. Therefore it's quality-- how it makes you feel-- that counts, not quantity.

Music that is sold in CD (or other) form to the consuming public is both art and product. There are numerous factors that "count," and some factors will count more than others to different listeners/consumers. There is no one, overriding and objective factor. Ignoring the basic norm that CDs today are longer than they were in the 70s invites exactly the criticism this CD has received. Some care, others don't, but there isn't one "right" answer.

And surely those who feel Walrus' album is too short don't want a bigger Mona Lisa or fewer notes in a Mozart composition. They fully understand the difference between works of artistic brilliance that represent the best of what Western culture has to offer, and a freaking rock and roll album. This album is one among many that is competing for the consumer dollars in the modern marketplace. If the 33 minutes here thrill you and you feel you got your money's worth, great! But if this album leaves you saying, "it's OK, but it's a bit short by modern standards, especially given the quality of music that is here," I think that is perfectly valid criticism; one that has nothing to do with wanting the Mona Lisa to be expanded to mural size.

Bill

[webbcity]

Well...I just don't see it the same way. But to each his own. But I didn't say music wasn't art and product, I said it was not *just* product.

[Digital_Man]

[but I think pointing out the shortness of some 70s releases misses the point.]


And what is the point? That a band in the seventies could get away with it but a modern band can't? Why stretch an album out if you don't have enough solid material just to make it longer?

[Sputnik]

But I didn't say music wasn't art and product, I said it was not *just* product.

Fair enough, I may have interpreted that a bit differently (as in "it should only be considered as art and not at all as product"). So clearly I agree with you, it's both, and both elements are important in their own way. So I'm not sure anymore what we disagree on.

[but I think pointing out the shortness of some 70s releases misses the point.]

And what is the point? That a band in the seventies could get away with it but a modern band can't?

Sort of, yeah. I guess for me, the point is that by today's standards 33 minutes is pretty short and I was expecting more for my money. The fact that artists in the 60s/70s did such short albums is irrelevant to me because it isn't the 60s or the 70s today and the standard has changed.

Why stretch an album out if you don't have enough solid material just to make it longer?

Why release it at that time, why not wait until you have enough solid material? It's not like anyone had a gun to their heads to get the album out the door. And again, I'd say "minimally long" rather than longer, because I certainly don't feel that longer is always better (in fact it often hurts). But to me there is a general minimum length that this album fails to meet.

This isn't new, lots of bands from the 60s/70s talked about needing "another song" or "more material" to complete their albums back in the day. With vinyl limitations you don't see many above 50 minutes, but you see remarkably few below 30, and most are easily in the high 30-45 minute range as you progress through the 70s. So the concept of "general minimum" isn't a new one, and that general minimum has clearly evolved over time.

Bill

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

Wonderful album - very easy on the ear - nice sonics, nice grooves.

[Digital_Man]

Fair enough, I may have interpreted that a bit differently (as in "it should only be considered as art and not at all as product"). So clearly I agree with you, it's both, and both elements are important in their own way. So I'm not sure anymore what we disagree on.


Sort of, yeah. I guess for me, the point is that by today's standards 33 minutes is pretty short and I was expecting more for my money. The fact that artists in the 60s/70s did such short albums is irrelevant to me because it isn't the 60s or the 70s today and the standard has changed.


Why release it at that time, why not wait until you have enough solid material? It's not like anyone had a gun to their heads to get the album out the door. And again, I'd say "minimally long" rather than longer, because I certainly don't feel that longer is always better (in fact it often hurts). But to me there is a general minimum length that this album fails to meet.

This isn't new, lots of bands from the 60s/70s talked about needing "another song" or "more material" to complete their albums back in the day. With vinyl limitations you don't see many above 50 minutes, but you see remarkably few below 30, and most are easily in the high 30-45 minute range as you progress through the 70s. So the concept of "general minimum" isn't a new one, and that general minimum has clearly evolved over time.

Bill

Hey here's a suggestion. Let the band do what they want!

Actually, I do see where you're coming from. However, I think that if a band doesn't have enough material they shouldn't be forced or obligated to wait for more material. They can just do what a lot(if not most)bands do in that situation which is they can call it an ep. Yay! Everybody wins!

[notallwhowander]

Actually, I do see where you're coming from. However, I think that if a band doesn't have enough material they shouldn't be forced or obligated to wait for more material.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I landed about it too.

[Sputnik]

Hey here's a suggestion. Let the band do what they want!

Hey, they can absolutely do what they want! But hey, I can feel however I want about what they do, and express that if I'm displeased with what they want to do! Hey!

Actually, I do see where you're coming from. However, I think that if a band doesn't have enough material they shouldn't be forced or obligated to wait for more material. They can just do what a lot(if not most)bands do in that situation which is they can call it an ep. Yay! Everybody wins!

Yay, they certainly can! But they didn't bill this as an EP, so I thought I was getting a full length CD for the money I paid. So not everybody won! Yay! I mean, boo.

[Digital_Man]

Well maybe you should take that up with the band or maybe get your money back or send it back or something if it's that big of a deal to you. But yeah something under 40 minutes these days should be labelled as an ep imo or maybe 35 or under. If it's not labelled that way they should still make it cheaper. A cd under full length ( whatever is currently considered full length)should be cheaper so I agree with you there. You made me see your point so you should feel very proud of yourself now. Hey maybe you can be a lawyer and win court cases and even get your money back from bands who you feel wronged you.

[Sputnik]

But yeah something under 40 minutes these days should be labelled as an ep imo or maybe 35 or under. If it's not labelled that way they should still make it cheaper. A cd under full length ( whatever is currently considered full length)should be cheaper so I agree with you there. You made me see your point so you should feel very proud of yourself now. Hey maybe you can be a lawyer and win court cases and even get your money back from bands who you feel wronged you.

LOL and Hallelujah! I am relieved I finally got my point across. Actually, you don't see a post like yours very often on PE that is simultaneously contrite, snarky, and humorous. Well done!!

It's actually not that big a deal to me. I made my point in my first post and I was done with it. The only reason I've hung with this thread so long is to clarify some misconceptions about what I was saying, which it appears I have done. The band knows how I (and others) feel about the issue, Matthias is on this thread. So they can make whatever decision they want to make about their next album. It is, as you said, totally up to them.

I don't expect a refund, caveat emptor. But in a forum like this, consumers of the artists' product can and will mention the factors they like or dislike, and I mentioned this as one that I found off-putting. If artists can do whatever they want, then consumers should have the same latitude. That's how it goes.

Cheers!

Bill

[Digital_Man]

[Actually, you don't see a post like yours very often on PE that is simultaneously contrite, snarky, and humorous. Well done!!]


I don't do it often. Usually I kind of walk on eggshells around here. You seemed like you could handle it though.

Yeah you can't play modern baseball with the same rules they used in the twenties. Well actually you can since baseball hasn't changed much. I guess football or basketball would be better examples.

You bring up valid points. I think if bands mentioned on their website how long the cd is that would be a good thing. If not then vendors should alert customers that their cd is not very long. This way if they are going to pay full price(the same price of cds that are longer)then they should know about it before hand.

[ashratom]

I should know better than to jump in on this... but just to set the record straight, and perhaps it may help explain the running length.

It came out first on LP. As in LP only, no CD.

Because of that situation, I bought the LP (I always buy CD's of new albums unless I have no other choice). RateYourMusic for their part labeled it an EP, based on the running length and 4 tracks. I argued on there that it should be listed as an LP, as I believe that was the band's intention and it's in line with LP's from an earlier era. It is still listed on RYM as an EP demonstrating my immense influence over there.

6 months (or more... or less) later, out came the blasted CD. With no extras. I bought it anyway, because I really like the album. And so I now own both formats.

Anyway, there's the history. Not sure that lessens the blow for the afflicted but somehow I'm still happy to have both copies.

[Digital_Man]

[It is still listed on RYM as an EP demonstrating my immense influence over there.]

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here Tom?

[spacefreak]

It came out first on LP. As in LP only, no CD.

Exactly, and speaking personally, it suits me to be on that particular format and length...