| Urban Hat€monger ? |
09-29-2008 05:23 PM |
I know I included vinyl earlier in the list but I think this is one area where it was better than CDs.
I prefered it much better when your average album contained 8-10 songs and was only about 30-45 minutes in length and you had one come out every year.
I would much rather a band went into the studio once a year and recorded say 12 songs (10 for the album , 2 for B sides) rather than recording anything from 12 to 15 songs for a CD plus a load other songs to release on various media. It's not uncommon for a band to record around 20-25 songs in one go and then not record anything for another 3 or 4 years.
I think because of this you get a lot more filler on albums because of having to record that amount of material in one go. I think recording smaller amounts more often keeps things a lot fresher & more spontaneous.
Plus sometimes I get really bored listening to some albums even by bands I enjoy , there's nothing worse than getting to the 9th or 10th track on an album & coming to the realisation that the rest of the album is just a load of samey sounding dross that's just there to fill up an 80 minute CD.
It always annoys me when people moan about album lengths such as when albums are barely half an hour long. I always think with albums you should leave people wanting more , not bore them halfway through. Reign In Blood by Slayer is only 28 minutes long and I never felt once that it should cost any less than an album twice it's length , I think it was worth every penny I paid for it. In fact I think it's 28 minutes of the most perfect metal I have ever heard and I wouldn't change a thing about it. |
