I'm pretty bored out of mind right now, and so I felt like throwing this topic out there.

No matter how much I love a band, I get turned off when I see said band made an album with, say, 16 or 17 songs. I prefer no more than 12. Does anyone else care either way?

I feel the same way. I like shorter albums. For me, length is usually one of the key factors that keeps a good album from being a great album. More is usually not better. My favorite albums usually have 10-12 songs.

I was thinking about this last night as I was listening to Robert Pollard's From a Compound Eye. Maybe a third the songs are decent, but the majority of them sound like Bob dug them up from his basement and threw them on the disc. Just because you can think of 26 songs, doesn't mean they're all good.

Yeah, I think that also applies to Sufjan Stevens's Illinois. I felt there were way too many songs on that album, most of which were only decent anyway

I have always preferred 10 song albums. It's mathematical/symmetrical and just feels more organized. It also gave the album a chance to have two identities during the vinyl era. The sixth song would be a first song for the second side and a new beginning for the album. At times, as a child, I wouldn't differentiate between sides and would often think of song #6 as #1.

I agree that Sufjan Stevens seems to have some filler songs on his latest and he isn't alone. Ryan Adams also seems to prefer quantity to quality. I don't mind for 2 reasons though. One being that the price isn't affected. The second being that, at times, what others consider to be "filler", I consider diamonds in the rough.

I guess I prefer to have more than less and pick out my favorites from the group. It isn't nearly as annoying as it was in the cassette tape era when one bad song added an inconvenience to the entire album. I would pose this question to future viewers. Are albums with "filler" music or over-long albums worse than albums with limited content?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: P-Bo,

...but with a 10-11 songs album, some songs can be too long, like a 8 minutes song that should be 3 minutes because the last 5 are inpertinent. A 20 minutes can be so boring or so great, same thing for 2 minutes songs. The only "sad" thing is when you buy a CD over than 20$ and that it's less than 40 minutes...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: eggtweedyegg,

Very good point egg. Pink Floyd's Meddle
is an example of this. "Echoes" is an amazing song but nothing to listen to on a short drive. The fact that it consists of 6 songs, and one of them is more than half the album, leads me to believe that I got robbed. On the other hand, I consider it to be their best pre-moon effort based off the strength of 3 songs.

I say a band uses as many tracks as they can to get the job done. "Getting the job done" changes from genre to genre and band to band, so that's sorta vague.

If they can fit 40 tracks onto a 45 minute album and make it work, more power to them.

In general I say from 7-13 songs. 7 is the low end, reserved for jazz and extended funk/rhythmic music. 13 the high end for song-oriented releases. Yet even 13 can be a bit much, so that may allow for shorter interludes and so on. There are exceptions though. Pangaea and Agharta by Miles Davis and Co. work really well with anywhere from 2-5 tracks on a whole double album. So it really depends.

I think albums should be vinyl length again and cheaper to reflect the shortening. I've never listened to a short (35-40 min) album and thought "That was way too short," no matter how much I liked it. I rarely finish longer albums unless there's really something good at the end to hold out for. Except in the cases of collections and live albums, there is never any need for two discs. If you have that much material, just release two albums (Bright Eyes did it best, releasing a good album and a crappy album on the same day so we could just ignore the latter). I think it's rare for a double album to be essential, and more frequently they turn into a bloated mess (exhibit B: Blinking Lights...).

As far as number of songs, I don't really care. I really dig the Perfect From Now On model, with eight songs mostly ranging from 6-9 minutes each. But I also like the way Robert Pollard does things, because if you don't like one of the songs, that's fine, it'll be over in 90 seconds anyway. But with more standard song lengths, 13 is the max.

Also, hidden tracks should be made illegal.

Well, your bloated mess Exhibit B: blinking lights was far and away my number one album. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been trimmed before I heard it and that I'd find it just as entertaining and emotionally-satisfying, but once I heard and adopted it, I don't want to miss any of it.

I find the number of songs on an album irrelevant. I don't play music to fit into some schedule, so I don't care what I'm playing as far as how long or short it is. I just want to hear it, and unless there are some technical problems or personal emergencies, I'll listen to the whole thing.

Another album I believe that goes against the limited-song argument is Wire's Pink Flag, which has 21 songs in something close to 40 minutes. I sure wouldn't want to lose any of those songs OR change the order.

I personally don't care about the number of songs OR the length of the album, if the tracks are all good. There are plenty of albums that run 13 or more tracks that are solid all the way through. I don't like filler, so sometimes trimming some tracks off is a good idea, but I'd rather have more stuff to choose from, and simply skip the stuff I don't like, than less.

I think the most tragic thing is when an album could be classic, but it's just too damn long, or there are too many songs. Case in point: Cat Power's You Are Free. I feel like this album really could be an indy classic up there with the best of em, but the simple approach wears thin and starts to sound too similar towards the 11th track or so. Not only does it make the album feel long, it sort of cheapens the better part of the album, because it feels like she just repeats herself.

A lot of the time, long albums often seem like an artists inability to censor themselves. In the case of Ryan Adams, it's kind of wierd how he releases three albums a year, but he still feels the neeed to have 15 tracks or so when i think its quite obvious that they would benefit from some trimming.

An interesting thing that i just realized: Since rap became popular and existed in a time when Vinyl was starting to go out and CD players were coming in, it seems that rap albums are often up to 22 tracks long and more consistent (meaning it doesn't sound like there are two different sides)due to not being confined by the medium. The standard for rap albums seems to be at least more than 14 tracks (skits included), but 14 songs on a rock album is quite a lot. Conversely, having 9 songs on a rock album is exceptable if it's good enough, while i can't think of one rap album that has less then 10.

For me, it's not the number of tracks per album that matter, it's the quality of the tracks. Whether it's 2 or 3 extremely long songs on a Fela Kuti album or 31 short tunes on the Daniel Johnston & Jad Fair record, it's not how long they made the album, it's if they made a great album.

Then again, as mentioned above, I don't want to pay hard earned money on an album that's too much under 30 minutes unless every second of every song is brilliant. Also, I feel cheated on various artist cd comps that are less than an hour (unless it's a vinyl reissue where they couldn't add more music for a very good reason which they should explain).

I think 7 to 9 songs on an album is perfect (If you make good songs of course.

I really don't care about the number of songs on an album. When I turn a CD over and look at the songs, it's to look at the titles, not how many there are.

I don't care about number of tracks as much as I care about the length in minutes.

I'd say..40-50 minutes is ideal for most albums. But the album is good and diverse enough, 70 minutes can work. But it usually doesn't. Illinois is an album that I love most of the individual parts of, but get tired of if I try to listen to the whole thing straight through.

The important thing here is than nobody is implying that an album's worth can be judged by its length. It is more a thought in hindsight when, looking at the length and track numbers, one decides if the album was too lengthy or fattened like a Christmas goose with unnecessary filler. My liking of 10 is purely an obsessive compulsive preference and, after re-examining my collection, most of my favorites have 12-15 songs.

quote:

Originally posted by PRG:
I really don't care about the number of songs on an album. When I turn a CD over and look at the songs, it's to look at the titles, not how many there are.

This is exactly how I feel. If you are turning over the album to see how many songs are on there, then there is something wrong with the way you validate music.

Many of 2005’s best albums had more than twelve songs and many of those albums were some of the best, if not the best, of the year: Illinois, Late Registration, Get Behind Me Satan, LCD Soundsystem, Demon Days, Twin Cinema, Andrew Bird & the Mysterious Production of Eggs, and Silent Alarm. And if you say that only 8-10 is perfect than that pushes a lot others like Z, Be, I Am a Bird Now, Arular, I’m Wide Awake, It’s Morning, Guero, Gimme Fiction, The Mouse and the Mask, and Frances the Mute. I also think it’s really dumb when someone says that a lot of the songs on Illinois are just decent, what mediocre indie stuff are you listening to to make that comment?

Don’t get me started on some of the best of the 2000s that have more than 10-12 songs on them: The Marshall Mathers LP, Stankonia, Phrenology, Songs for the Deaf, Elephant, Boy in Da Corner, Hail to the Thief, Greetings from Michigan: The Great Lakes State, SMiLE, The College Dropout, and Madvillainy. All of the aforementioned albums are great and to know that someone didn’t listen to them because they have too many songs is just absurd.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
I also think it’s really dumb when someone says that a lot of the songs on Illinois are just decent, what mediocre indie stuff are you listening to to make that comment?

quote:

All of the aforementioned albums are great and to know that someone didn’t listen to them because they have too many songs is just absurd.

With all due respect KidA, nobody suggested this. I went back and re-read just to be sure. I must say, I have read opinions on this site that make me cringe but I wouldn't go as far as to call someone dumb because of their views. For the record, I also feel that Illinois is simply decent. I wouldn't call it classic and I wouldn't vote for it for album of the year. Many, including you, will disagree. I think Sufjan is talented and I am curious to see where he takes his music over the next few years, but I refuse to place him on a pedestal. If you enjoy him that much, then I am happy for you. I honestly believe that the reason music lovers have such strong opinions of the music they enjoy is because they want to share the feeling they get from listening with others. This is certainly a good thing. I'd only suggest that you approach the opinions of others with a little more tact and understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by purple:
Yeah, I think that also applies to Sufjan Stevens's Illinois. I felt there were way too many songs on that album, most of which were only decent anyway

There is one person that did say it, and even you said it was decent and that alot of it is filler. Filler usually means decent.

I agree that it was a bit much to say "dumb" but alot of people here talk like that. Some people have said some of the stuff I say is dumb or pretentious. A lot of people here aren't too tact and understanding either.
I guess I just don't like it because as indie-oriented as some people are, because they are so "indie, indie, indie," alot of good stuff like good rap and other good music is just pushed aside for those few mediocre albums by indie bands.

I guess if I could reword it, I would say "I think it's biased when someone says that alot of the songs on Illinois..."

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
There is one person that did say it, and even you said it was decent and that alot of it is filler. Filler usually means decent.

I agree that it was a bit much to say "dumb" but alot of people here talk like that. Some people have said some of the stuff I say is dumb or pretentious. A lot of people here aren't too tact and understanding either.
I guess I just don't like it because as indie-oriented as some people are, because they are so "indie, indie, indie," alot of good stuff like good rap and other good music is just pushed aside for those few mediocre albums by indie bands.

I guess if I could reword it, I would say "I think it's biased when someone says that alot of the songs on Illinois..."

I'll make two points:

1. For me, 'filler' is not decent. It may not be awful, but I won't listen to filler. If it were decent, I'd probably let it play through.

2. I think Illinois is chock full of filler. In fact, I think it's a record with a handful of excellent songs, a few decent ones, and a lot of (less than decent) filler. I appreciate that you backed away from your original statement, but it strikes me as very third-grade to call people 'dumb' simply because they don't like what you like. My assessment of Illinois should be clear...but I certainly won't insult you because you obviously think it is a staggering work of sheer genius.