Can Length Ruin An Album?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-11-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

Album A: 10 songs, all of them good
Album B: 15 songs, 12 of them good

I'd take album B. Sure, it may be "too long" and have some stuff I'm not wild about...but I'm 2 good songs richer, as far as I'm concerned.

What if the 10 song album lasts longer than the 15 song album? Do you then think 'oh it's more music so i'm getting more money's worth'?

I've heard many 'unreleased tracks' of songs that were left of albums & given as extras for re-masters. And I would say 99 times out of 100 there's a perfectly good reason they were unreleased, that was they weren't very good and would have added nothing to the finished article.

Minstrel · 09-11-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

For me it depends a lot on what the format is. Having some crappy songs in the mix on an album I have as MP3s isn't that big a deal but on vinyl it becomes a totally different story and I would absolutely go with album A in your example. I guess because I grew up in the vinyl and cassette era have a lot of holdover feelings that filler really does detract from my listening experience quite a bit.

I can see that. As I recall, we're around the same age...as a kid, it was all vinyl and cassettes, but I was about 12-13 when CDs really began to be the dominant form (around 1990 or so), so the majority of my music-aware life has been with CDs. Even prior to mp3s, it was possible to program past weaker tracks.

I understand the preference for "pristine albums," but, especially at this point when I listen to almost everything in iTunes or on an iPod, I just want as many good songs as possible. I still have an automatic connection to album format...most of my listening is done on a per-album basis, rather that mixes of disparate tracks. But I feel no remorse in cutting out weak tracks on an album.

Guybrush · 09-11-2009, 08:04 AM

^You could easily argue that you are no longer listening to the albums though. You're listening to collections of songs. If you buy an album on the strength of some songs, you're not spending money to get the album, you're spending money to get a collection of songs extracted from that product.

You should still base an overall opinion of an album on all it's tracks, I think - even if you only usually listen to half of them.

Minstrel · 09-11-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

What if the 10 song album lasts longer than the 15 song album? Do you then think 'oh it's more music so i'm getting more money's worth'?

Possibly. It depends on whether the songs are longer due to simple repetition. Any song can be extended arbitrarily long by repeating the hook more times. So, it depends on whether the 10 longer songs really feel like they're giving me more music experience.

Quote:

I've heard many 'unreleased tracks' of songs that were left of albums & given as extras for re-masters. And I would say 99 times out of 100 there's a perfectly good reason they were unreleased, that was they weren't very good and would have added nothing to the finished article.

Leaving aside percentage hit rate on "potential album material," my opinion is, feel free to stick it on. If it's any good, I'm better off. If it's not, I'll ignore it. No-risk proposition for me, as far as I'm concerned.

Minstrel · 09-11-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

^You could easily argue that you are no longer listening to the albums though. You're listening to collections of songs. If you buy an album on the strength of some songs, you're not spending money to get the album, you're spending money to get a collection of songs extracted from that product.

Sure. You can phrase it any way you want. I don't consider there to be anything sacred about "the album."

I'm buying songs from artists. These days, they come packaged as albums. At times in the past, the dominant form of music purchase was singles, not albums. In the future, it may well be individual songs bought over the net. It's really not that important to me how music acquisition is organized.

Quote:

You should still base an overall opinion of an album on all it's tracks, I think - even if you only ever listen to half of them.

I don't disagree with that. But "how good an album is" isn't a key issue to me. If an artist has released 50 of my favourite songs, but none of their "albums" are classics to me, I'd still consider that a great artist...an artist that has given me a lot of musical pleasure.

Guybrush · 09-11-2009, 08:10 AM

The dumb thing about the tracks approach is that it's entirely relative. If you were to take it to the extreme, you could say an album with only 1 good track and 14 bad ones was a good album.

Noone does that (I hope), but where would you draw the line? If you were serious about your opinions - say your job was to write album reviews - then I think it would be good to have firmer criteria than that for how you score albums.

edit :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

I don't disagree with that. But "how good an album is" isn't a key issue to me. If an artist has released 50 of my favourite songs, but none of their "albums" are classics to me, I'd still consider that a great artist...an artist that has given me a lot of musical pleasure.

I think it's an important consideration for anyone who are serious about communicating their opinions. I agree that for personal enjoyment, it doesn't really matter that much.

**Janszoon** · 09-11-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

I can see that. As I recall, we're around the same age...as a kid, it was all vinyl and cassettes, but I was about 12-13 when CDs really began to be the dominant form (around 1990 or so), so the majority of my music-aware life has been with CDs. Even prior to mp3s, it was possible to program past weaker tracks.

I understand the preference for "pristine albums," but, especially at this point when I listen to almost everything in iTunes or on an iPod, I just want as many good songs as possible. I still have an automatic connection to album format...most of my listening is done on a per-album basis, rather that mixes of disparate tracks. But I feel no remorse in cutting out weak tracks on an album.

Sounds like we're pretty much the exact same age (I was 13 in 1990). But I didn't own a CD player until I was 15 and I had tapedecks in my cars, which were the main places I listened to music, all the way into my early 20s (at which point I stopped owning cars) so the impact of cassettes on me was pretty substantial throughout my formative years.

Minstrel · 09-11-2009, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

The dumb thing about the tracks approach is that it's entirely relative. If you were to take it to the extreme, you could say an album with only 1 good track and 14 bad ones was a good album.

Noone does that (I hope), but where would you draw the line? If you were serious about your opinions - say your job was to write album reviews - then I think it would be good to have firmer criteria than that for how you score albums.

I think you're a little confused about what I'm saying. None of what I am saying refers to how one should grade an album. I'm simply saying that I'd prefer to get more songs for the same price then less, because I can ignore weaker "extra" tracks and enjoy any good "extra" tracks.

Guybrush · 09-11-2009, 08:15 AM

^No, I know that. I mean - if you're not ever gonna communicate your opinion, it doesn't matter so much what you base it on as long as it works for you.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-11-2009, 08:19 AM

Well if we're comparing albums Metallica's And Justice For All is over an hour long, Slayer's Reign in Blood is 28 mins long.
I actually paid more for the Slayer album because at the time you could only buy it on CD via import.

I actually consider the Slayer album more value for money simply because it gets played by me far far more often than that Metallica album ever does.

09-11-2009, 08:04 AM	#43 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	^You could easily argue that you are no longer listening to the albums though. You're listening to collections of songs. If you buy an album on the strength of some songs, you're not spending money to get the album, you're spending money to get a collection of songs extracted from that product. You should still base an overall opinion of an album on all it's tracks, I think - even if you only usually listen to half of them. __________________ Something Completely Different

09-11-2009, 08:15 AM	#49 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	^No, I know that. I mean - if you're not ever gonna communicate your opinion, it doesn't matter so much what you base it on as long as it works for you. __________________ Something Completely Different

09-11-2009, 08:19 AM	#50 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Well if we're comparing albums Metallica's And Justice For All is over an hour long, Slayer's Reign in Blood is 28 mins long. I actually paid more for the Slayer album because at the time you could only buy it on CD via import. I actually consider the Slayer album more value for money simply because it gets played by me far far more often than that Metallica album ever does. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.