Please bear with me. I'm going to try to keep this first post short, but I hope it will generate thoughtful discussion.

I believe we have threads which discuss how albums may be starting to have too many songs. I don't buy that one. I've loved The Beatles for about 38 years now, and just last year, I loved eels' Blinking Lights..., which, at least for me, took everything E ever did before, added a few revelations and made everything the eels have ever done much more meaningful.

I know we have threads talking about 2006 albums not cutting it. I don't buy this one either, but for those who disagree, are they not cutting it because they're too long? Are they too long because the songs themselves are too long? Many albums seen to have songs which are rarely less than five minutes. (Yikes!) Are they too long because there's too much filler or that the songs near the end are "weaker"? Are they too long because the album just doesn't seem to be sequenced (paced) properly?

With regards to the last thought, have bands/producers lost the creativity to sequence their albums for maximum impact because of the iPod/Random world most people live in?

Do people not really care anymore about running lengths or dead spots on albums because they just don't really listen to albums the old-fashioned way? I realize that a lot of this is old news, but I'm not sure that we have a thread which compiles all these thoughts regarding the way music is going, the way we listen to it, and what you think about the "sanctity" or not of the record album.

For the record, I personally don't believe in conformity. I realize that most of my posts might betray that comment, but if I'm exposed to something, I honestly give it respect and a chance. I don't believe there is one way for music to be, even if it seems like I mostly enjoy a limited spectrum of it. If I heard an album with one hour-long song, and it was the most-incredible, emotional thing I've ever experienced, I would tell you. If a fast-paced, guitar-driven pop-rock album is ho-hum, I'll tell you.

Now, you guys go ahead and tell me and everybody else. What do you think? Am I hyperventilating or is there something new to say?

mark, as someone who cut their musical teeth on Top 40 radio and the LP, I must admit that my heart sinks when I put a cd on and discover that it contains 62 minutes of music. I think my reaction is just the result of decades of conditioning - logically, 62 minutes of good music should be preferable to 45 minutes of same, so the overall length of an album shouldn't be an issue.

As a non-ipod person (God, I miss not being able to play "Random Rules"!), when I buy an album I want to listen to that album in its entirety, hopefully devoid of filler and poor sequencing (although the programming facility on cd players obviates the need to tolerate inappropriate sequencing). Maybe younger people aren't interested in doing this as much nowadays. I certainly notice a lot of people with ipods appearing to listen to a bit of a song before moving on to the next selection.

I do wonder about song length, though. Are artists making songs longer because a cd holds so much more music than an LP, and they don't want to "cheat" their fans by releasing a 40-minute album? Take "Stadium Arcadium". I reckon that every song could be a minute shorter without scarificing anything (and they apparently had enough material for 3 cds!)

Out of interest, do you know how much effort bands/producers used to put into sequencing an album? I'v never given that issue any thought.
An example of an album with perfect sequencing (not necessarily a perfect album) - Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs

No, I don't really have any inside info on how the oldtimers sequenced albums. I just know that, in general, they did a damn fine job. As time goes on, I seem to get flabbergasted sometimes. For example, I'll notice "let's pile our weak songs in the middle", or maybe, "let's put one every third/fourth/fifth song." I told you I was into conspiracy theories!!

Or maybe it's the Jerry Maguire Syndrome. I produced your shit. Show me the money! This isn't racist; just the truth, Ruth!

I think about this stuff often. I am still young at 28, but I've had the problem for a while. Music has ruled my life for about 12 years now. I have friends who do the buy-an-album-for-the-one-song-that's-good thing, and it's always dissappointed me. Just like when I see someone's Ipod and I scroll through to find Radiohead's OK Computer...but look further to see only Karma Police has made it to the ipod.

In the past, when I purchased a cd, I would put my headphones on and listen from start to finish. I always felt like I couldn't critique an album otherwise. I want albums to work as a whole. Not just a bunch of songs slapped together. Not "here's one good song and 10 bad ones as filler". If an album didn't work as a whole, I generally lost interest in it. Kid A should be listened to in it's entirety, so should YHF for example.

Since I have purchased an ipod, I am sad to say that I generally resort to playlists, and often feel either "I don't have time for a whole album", or "I have too much music to listen to". The "too much to listen to" theoretically shouldn't be a problem, but it is. I have 4500+ songs on my ipod. It's overwhelming.

When I purchase a cd, I still try to give it a full listen before I put it on my ipod, but sadly, I have been doing this less and less often. I don't wish it to be this way, but it keeps getting worse. I love the access an ipod gives me. Imagine walking around with 500+ cd's....or even LPs....that's nuts, yet, that's exactly what I keep in my pocket. It's the double-edged knife in a life full of excess. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

That said, I think that record companies/artists are noticing. I find more and more albums have uneccessary filler. The most recent example is the new Beck album, The Information. While there are some great songs on there, it is waaay tooo long with 15 songs, and with a useless concept song at the end. I love concepts, but seriously, try listening to that track and tell me it's not useless and a waste of 10 minutes. The words are something like "he's in a spaceship...but also is the spaceship. Kinda like an exoskeleton"....Maybe for a KISS album, but not here. I honestly believe they are thinking "we'll give it to them and if they don't want to listen, they don't have to"....I'd much prefer an artist say "this is my/our vision, we hope you enjoy it as much as we do"....

I love the Shins. Chutes Too Narrow is brilliant and clocks in at 34 minutes. It's perfect. Do I think that they only had 34 mins of good material? No. I think that it's easy to digest and take as a whole and there is no filler. I'd much prefer an artist leave me wanting more rather than make me feel oversaturated an bloated and wanting to fast forward.

Mark, this is a very interesting thread and somthing I have a passion for....but there is far too much to discuss here, and I feel like I'm trying to cram ten ideas into one. My thoughts are all over the map. However, it's a load of fun to discuss this.

Sorry if my writing has a lot of filler....I'm now part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Musicalifragilistic:
I'd much prefer an artist leave me wanting more rather than make me feel oversaturated an bloated and wanting to fast forward.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've always been a member of the less-is-more school.

I read an interview with Devendra Banhart earlier this year, and he seemed to think slapping 22 tracks on an album was giving his fans their money's worth. I had to disagree. While I enjoyed last year's Cripple Crow, I usually never made it past "Chinese Children". After that, it just seemed like a series of tossed off tracks he pasted on the end.

For me to really love an album, it has to be pretty solid. If I have to skip more than a track or two when listening to it, chances are it won't make my top 20 list, unless the rest of the songs are insanely good.

One of my favorite albums this year is the Thermals' The Body, The Blood, The Machine. It's 10 songs, with most hovering in the 2-3 minute range. Every track fits their statement, and there's absolutely no filler.

Interesting thread, Mark.
I generally don't have a preference when it comes to album length; as long as I can listen to it all the way through and not get bored I'm happy. I sometimes find the shorter albums that leave me wanting more tend to stay with me longer, though.
I agree that iPods have changed the way I listen to music, specifically on the road. I rarely use playlists or shuffle, but having hundreds of albums on hand at any time rarely affords me the time to enjoy everything to its fullest. It used to be I had 3 to 5 cd's/tapes in the car and would abuse those albums until I could listen no more.
As such, I generally only have time to listen to half an album at a time now, and many albums are judged based on the first 4 or 5 songs. I try to give every album a full 2 or 3 listens, but with the advent of music forums, downloads, etc, I'm listening to MUCH more music than I ever have.
So if the Junior Boys didn't reach out and grab me the first few listens (which it didn't), I was soon onto 3 more albums that catered more to my immediate tastes.
I guess where I'm going with this is, for me, unless an album really kicks ass all the way through, there is less of a chance that I will hear all of it. I wish it weren't that way, but it is. And I bet I'm not the only one listens this way. Maybe record producers are saving the worst songs for last, maybe they're not. But I think the pressure is on to get the best stuff out in front so people continue to listen.
I remember an interview with Thom Yorke before either Kid A or Amnesiac was released where he said they tried to keep the album around 45 minutes because he didn't think people could stand their sound for much longer. At the time I was thinking, "No! I want as much Radiohead as possible!" Now I can't imagine either album with another song on it.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

I agree wholeheartedly. I've always been a member of the less-is-more school.

I read an interview with Devendra Banhart earlier this year, and he seemed to think slapping 22 tracks on an album was giving his fans their money's worth. I had to disagree. While I enjoyed last year's Cripple Crow, I usually never made it past "Chinese Children". After that, it just seemed like a series of tossed off tracks he pasted on the end.

There are moments on that album where Devendra really shines, but the afterthoughts made me think of Illinois. I'd like both albums a lot more if they finished with exclamation points instead of ellipses.

Please, please, question mark.

*Ahem*

My favorite album of the year runs 37 minutes. A personal favorite (Afghan Whigs 1965) runs 41 minutes. I really think that 45-50 minutes is the best running time, but there are exceptions to the rule.

My favorite album of the year, Boys and Girls in America, is 40 minutes. My favorite album of all-time, Rain Dogs, is a perfectly paced 53 minutes. Interludes (instrumental, spoken word, whatever) make a world of difference in turning an album into an experience, in my opinion.

Very true. I can't imagine an album like "In the aeroplan..." not having that sequencing and having the songs run into each other.

quote:

Originally posted by Musicalifragilistic:
. . . In the past, when I purchased a cd, I would put my headphones on and listen from start to finish. I always felt like I couldn't critique an album otherwise. I want albums to work as a whole. Not just a bunch of songs slapped together. Not "here's one good song and 10 bad ones as filler". If an album didn't work as a whole, I generally lost interest in it. . . .

Same here. I'm 39, and continue to have that sort of holistic approach to listening to albums. My teenaged daughter is an avid iPod user and constantly encourages me to get one because I have so many CDs. She has hundreds of songs downloaded and has even downloaded many of my son's favorites despite the fact that he's only 2-1/2 and can't tolerate those little earplug headphones!

As a whole, of course the music industry is becoming less album oriented. This is a natural extension of technology, and I don't think it is necessarily good or bad (doesn't mean the music isn't necessarily good or bad). There is no ideal length of a record or a song or anything; to say there is such an ideal length is silly. That being said, there are still plenty of musicians making well-sequenced, full-length albums. They just aren't the more mainstream ones.

Can I mention bonus tracks? I hate it when a bonus track appears on the end of the final song. Doesn't matter whether 10 seconds or 10 minutes seperates the the final song from the bonus one, the extra tune should be a numbered track on its own. Maybe a 10 second dead track can come between final real song and bonus track(s), that'd be fine by me, long as those bonus tracks are music. Not like 30 dead tracks at the end of an album, regardless of length, that sucks.

quote:

Originally posted by crazed:
Not like 30 dead tracks at the end of an album, regardless of length, that sucks.

lol. This reminds me of Cracker's Kerosene Hat. 99 tracks, with bonus songs interspersed throughout, the highlight of which is "Eurotrash Girl" at track 69.

You don't like Easter Eggs on DVDs either, do you?

crazed, were you referring to Return to Cookie Mountain?

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
You don't like Easter Eggs on DVDs either, do you?

crazed, were you referring to Return to Cookie Mountain?

The TV On the Radio album is just one of several cds that frustrates with keeping the good stuff concealed. Guess I'm that oddball that sometimes prefers the hidden and bonus tracks over the regular album tunes. The bonus songs way up the track list on Return to Cookie Mountain are my favorites on the album. I found these songs much more fun and loose than what came before. Maybe they wouldn't fit in with the other offerings on that album but darnitt they deserve to be closer to the final proper track and with titles provided.

But at least those songs have their own slot. The hidden (tacked-on) track co-joined to the last song is so annoying it ruins both songs. Even worse when the hidden track is the best thing on the album and I have to remember it's starting time isn't 0:00 but 16:26. Grrrr! Yank the damn thing out and give it it's own space. Or give us a bonus cd with extra songs. Equal rights for extra tracks! Okay, done with rant.

And no, Easter Eggs stay hidden on crazed's DVDs.

Maybe albums will lose favour with individual tracks taking over.

However, in a reverse trend, the end of year best albums lists phenomenon seems to be getting bigger and bigger every year. It used to be that the top ten of the year was enough for a publication, now it's 50, pretty soon it'll probably be 100.

Definitely agree with Musicalfragilistic, the new Beck album has great songs and terrible songs. I think "1000bpm" is the worst thing I've heard this year.

This talk makes me think of the Super Furry Animals album, Guerilla. If any of you own it, check this out, it's the ultimate frustration. It's the hidden track to end all hidden tracks. I owned the album for 4 years before I discovered it. Put the cd in and immediately hold rewind...the album will actually go from 0:00 to minus around 5 mins. There are two bad things here. The song is actually quite good. The other is that I can't get the track on my ipod. itunes can't have a song start at -5mins....argghhh. Why would they do that?!? I have to sit there and hold rewind just to get to the beginning of the track...I feel like I'm skipping through my old cassette player.

The aspect of this discussion that interests me most is the idea of sequencing and how much it has to do, consciously or not, with the greatness of an album. Take any album you think is great from start to finish and rearrange the songs. Does it remain as great an album, or does some of the greatness we assign to it have to do with the expectation of hearing the songs in a set order? Think if you rearrange Sgt. Pepper's and "A Day in the Life" is the fifth song, is it just as good? We'd probably all say no and perhaps argue it's not even the same album, but I think it's hard to imagine with albums we have known and come to love. A better experiment would be to listen to an album you've never heard before on shuffle a couple times and then in the order it was produced. Would there be some level of genius apparent only when it was listened to in order?

I personally love my iPod. I have about 5000 songs on it constantly on shuffle while at work. But I also will listen to an entire album if the mood strikes. I think the mp3 player has maybe lifted some of the pressure to compose a singularly great album every time, but I wish it hadn't. Even with itunes, I buy complete cd's used for less than I can even download them.

I'm thinking of Kid A straight away because its probably my favourite album as an album and not a collection of songs. OkC reaches more climaxes but Kid A just has this eerie distilled theme that you only get from listening to it as a whole, the same with amnesiac which is more of a twisted satisfaction.

I always judge artists by their albums as a whole. I really value the experience of tracks like optimistic, motion picture soundtrack, and treefingers tranformed by the shape of the album.