I actually like it when albums have lots of songs. I'm a sucker for ambition, even if it doesn't work out. It's certainly nothing to complain about.

I agree with mark f about Blinking Lights.... It's not perfect, but to lose any of it would be a crime.

I also present three exhibits supporting the case for many songs on an album:

Exhibit A: Abbey Road
Exhibit B: London Calling
Exhibit C: Frank Black's Teenager of the Year, possibly the most underrated album of the 1990's.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
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.

Nobody said they wouldn't listen to an album with more than 12 songs on, many of us just stated that we prefer leaner albums that cut out the filler. My Morning Jacket's "Z" and Spoon's "Gimme Fiction" are pretty good examples from last year that only have 11 songs and flow tremendously well.

Of the albums you mentioned with more than a dozen songs, sure, they're mostly good albums, but I can think of tracks I'd cut from each to make them better.

As for "Illinois", I must be dumb, because I thought that album was loaded with filler. And not the decent kind.

quote:

Originally posted by BrinxJob:
I actually like it when albums have lots of songs. I'm a sucker for ambition, even if it doesn't work out. It's certainly nothing to complain about.

I agree with mark f about Blinking Lights.... It's not perfect, but to lose any of it would be a crime.

I also present three exhibits supporting the case for many songs on an album:

Exhibit A: Abbey Road
Exhibit B: London Calling
Exhibit C: Frank Black's Teenager of the Year, possibly the most underrated album of the 1990's.

Well, there's ambition that turned out fruitful, and there's ambition that didn't.

Not all bands with ambitious projects end up having the chops to create the album they envisioned.

The Beatles and the Clash certainly do. But, Devendra Banhart isn't Paul McCartney. When an artist's talent does not meet his ambition, it results in overlong, tedious albums that could have been better if they were condensed and filtered down a bit.

quote:

The Beatles and the Clash certainly do. But, Devendra Banhart isn't Paul McCartney. When an artist's talent does not meet his ambition, it results in overlong, tedious albums that could have been better if they were condensed and filtered down a bit.

Oh man, that is so correct. I mean, I got Rejoicing in the Hands because it was supposed to be his best, and I couldn't even tell you the name, melody or lyrics of any of the songs from the second half. I know some will disagree, but I find no reason that that album needs to be so damn long, and the fact that it is just seems, to me, very self indulgent.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the mecca of all long albums, The Magnetic Fields' 69 Love Songs. To me, the length of this album, in a way, removes it from typical listening habits. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it, but for example, if i was to say that 69 Love Songs is one of my favorite albums, something just feels incorrect about that. I'm not sure if it's because It feels like about 5 albums, but i think that that's by far the best example of length truly changing the feeling, mood and perception of an album.

I'd like to thank you all of you who backed me up regarding my Sufjan Stevens's line of him having too many songs, most of which were decent. I was busy at work. No hard feelings, though, FragilekidA. I still think Illinois' is way overrated.

69 Love Songs IS one of my fave albums, but since it's packaged as three individually-cased CDs, it's easy enough to play it as three separate CDs, even though it's "obviously" better (to me) when considered as 69 Love Songs and not 23 Love Songs X 3.

That booklet with all the photos and the Stephen Merritt interview where he discusses every single song in detail is one of the best album goodies I've ever seen.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
That booklet with all the photos and the Stephen Merritt interview where he discusses every single song in detail is one of the best album goodies I've ever seen.

I am so mad that i bought them all seperately, i almost want to pay 35 bucks for that damn book. Maybe I'll get it for someone as a present and conveniently slip it out.

Let's leave Sufjan alone for a few and focus on other examples. How about Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness? I love Siamese Dream and Pisces Iscariot. MC has the content to be classic. I never felt that the sloppy dreck which I refer to as the post-Mellon Collie catalog diminished the greatness of the Gish - MC albums. I DO feel that the song selection on Mellon Collie left a bit to be desired. It is still a great album and, although the great songs are still present, the poor/average songs weigh it down like a Popeye tattoo. It's definitely an example of an album that could have been trimmed down to a slam dunk classic via single disc format. The average of 100 and 0 is 50 every time.

quote:

Originally posted by P-Bo:
How about Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness? MC has the content to be classic. I DO feel that the song selection on Mellon Collie left a bit to be desired. It is still a great album and, although the great songs are still present, the poor/average songs weigh it down like a Popeye tattoo. It's definitely an example of an album that could have been trimmed down to a slam dunk classic via single disc format. The average of 100 and 0 is 50 every time.

MCIS was my first investment in alt-rock back in 1996. I agree, though. I usually only listen to half-2/3 of the album at the most. I can't imagine it being a single disc, though, as it somehow seems like it was meant to be a double disc release. I personally would cut some of the metal screamers like X.Y.U. and Tales of a Scorched Earth along with Lily... and some of the other less-essential slower songs. I think there was a near-flawless double album between MCIS and The Aeroplane Flies High boxset. A handful of those tracks in the right places could have made it a 5-star album in my books.

As an Orthrelm fan, I feel I must interject.

Orthrelm has turned out two fantastic efforts. One was 99 tracks long. The other, you've probably heard of OV, was one.

I do agree there are albums that kill themselves by being too long (Sufjan Stevens' A Sun Came!). There are also albums that could have been something had they tacked more on (AFX's Hangable Auto Bulb).

It's too rigid of a barometer to use. Now, if we were to talk minutes, perhaps an 80 minute album is too extensive, and a 30-35 minute album too short. But track numbers are largely irrelevant.

Yeah, time in minutes is probably a better gauge, but I think most of us were working on the assumption that the songs would average 3-5 minutes in length. If you're talking about an artist that writes short songs, like the Ramones, Guided by Voices, or Richard Buckner, 15-20 tracks isn't bad. Buncker's "Since" is only about 35 minutes long and contains 16 tracks.

Here's a theoretical question. Let's take two albums:

Album #1: 10 tracks, 40 minutes.
Album #2: 18 tracks, 70 minutes.

Let's say that theoretically all of the tracks on each album are equally good. Is one of the albums on the whole better or worse then the other? Does album #2 suffer on the whole because of it's monster length, or is it more impressive for having more good tracks then album #1?

This is obviously not a real situation, but I'm just curious what people think. I'm sort of on the side of album #1, personally. Often I get sort of tired of listening to something once it's been playing for, say, 50 minutes. Even if the last four or five tracks are very good, I just kind of want to move on to another record. So I guess my vote would be for album #1.

It's so tough to say "x amount of tracks" is good or bad because well, some bands (like Half-Handed Cloud) have 20 1-2 minute songs, and other bands (like Explosions in the Sky) have 5 10 minute songs.

I guess it would be best to ask if you like long (60-70 minute) albums or short albums.

A few albums that could have been better if edited down to 45 minutes:

Sonic Youth - Dirty
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois
Eminem - Marshall Mathers LP
REM - Up
Beck - Odelay
Smog - Dongs Of Sevotion
Paul Kelly - Comedy
Yo La Tengo - I'm Not Afraid Of You And I Will Beat Your Ass
Frank Black - Teenager Of The Year
John Lennon - Double Fantasy

A few albums that definitely don't adhere to the "concise is nice" stricture as measured by number of tracks or running time come to mind. In each case I don't believe they would be markedly improved with overzealous editing.

Minutemen-Double Nickles on the Dime

Clash-Sandinista

Bob Dylan-Blonde On Blonde

Cream-Wheels Of Fire

Jimi Hendrix-Electric Ladyland

Genesis-Lamb Lies Down On Broadway

In each case, I would prefer to tolerate potential excess for the chance to hear what was intended as an integrated whole.

Sometimes even lesser songs on albums contribute to the overall pacing and flow. For example I wouldn't want to do without Pressed Rat and Warthog or Whisky Bar just for the sake of brevity.

quote:

Originally posted by sans_success:
Here's a theoretical question. Let's take two albums:

Album #1: 10 tracks, 40 minutes.
Album #2: 18 tracks, 70 minutes.

I would prefer album #1, but if all the tracks on album #2 are good, then split it into two albums add some filler and release them a few months apart, ala kid a /amnesiac. Thats how I like it anyway.

Honestly I prefer the longer albums. I do most of my listening in the car, and I have a long commute, so I like to put in an album that will last an entire hour or more. I can get deeper into it. I like the feeling of really rolling into an album after 40 minutes, and realizing that it's only a little more than half over. I sometimes start it over before hearing the end and save the second half just to prolong the experience of listening to a new album. I love it.

But that doesn't mean I don't also enjoy shorter albums as well. I like watching Lord of the Rings, but sometimes I want to just watch a short quick sitcom on TV. It's a completely different experience is all. I do feel completely cheated when the album is less than 40 minutes though. I hate flipping a CD over and seeing the burn line only extend a quarter of the way up the disk.

I'm also curious what songs people consider to be filler on Illinois. It's perhaps one of my favorite albums ever, but I am not beyond accepting the fact that people could not be interested in it at all. But other than the obvious less than a minute long songs, what songs do Non-Sufjan-fans enjoy and not enjoy?

quote:

Originally posted by Shadrach:

I'm also curious what songs people consider to be filler on Illinois.

All of them