So I've been working on an album for this band I want to get started and I'm getting closer and closer to finishing the writing process. Anyway, I've ended up with a ton of music, too much actually which I never thought would happen since I always felt I had writer's block. So right now the tracks/estimated track times are around 100 minutes. I'm really looking to shave it down to no more than 80 or so. I was thinking about taking maybe two tracks (most of these songs are long) and putting them on the next album but I would have a really hard time doing that. I've been working on some of this stuff for 2 years and I want to get it all out at once and start completely over for the next album. Also, I don't want 2 discs or anything, even then I would feel the album would be too long. Does anyone have any advice? I kind of shut down all my options haha.. Anyone have a similar experience?
Album length dilemma
- Thread starter Cacoph0ny
- Start date
most listeners get bored after a few minutes and fast forward to the next song anyways.
shorten your long songs. If you have alot of them leave maybe 1 or 2 of the strongest long but shorten the others, especially if they are doing parts multiple times.
shorten your long songs. If you have alot of them leave maybe 1 or 2 of the strongest long but shorten the others, especially if they are doing parts multiple times.
Fredrik-Ablaze
Member
I think the entombed guys said it best: if it can't fit on one side of a 90 minute tape, dont bother
That's a good idea.. especially since I feel some of the stuff doesn't fit in the album.
Thanks for the advice guys
I dunno about that, if it's still quality music I'd always much rather have it go right up the 80 minute mark! (more for the money
) Though I've never been one to necessarily obsess over listening to a whole album in one sitting or anything...
Erik Monsonis
Member
Damn, that's pretty short.
I don't mind long albums at all. Usually the more music, the better imo. As long as it doesn't feel like it's long for the sake of being long.
Anyway, the album should be around 60-70 minutes now which is right around where I wanted it.
joeritson
queenslander
Depends on the material. For instance, grindcore needs to be short and snappy - if the songs are long they lose their impact, and not many bands can keep the aggression levels up anyway. After 30 minutes or so, your ears just get tired of the constant barrage of noise anything beyond that becomes irrelevant. With gentler music, you can get away with longer songs and albums - songs that are melodically sung and especially lyrically-led you can make much longer because the listener gets sucked into the story and don't notice the length of the track.
Personally though, I can't take an 80 minute album - Lateralus is too long for me to take in one sitting because there's so much depth to it (whereas say Counting Crows often have 70 minute albums that are much easier to listen to to). I say record everything, or at least demo them, and then trim the fat - be that altering structures or cutting songs altogether. I never re-structure tracks, so I'd look at leaving a couple of songs out - for my band's latest album I demoed more than twice as many songs as we eventually recorded.
Steve
Personally though, I can't take an 80 minute album - Lateralus is too long for me to take in one sitting because there's so much depth to it (whereas say Counting Crows often have 70 minute albums that are much easier to listen to to). I say record everything, or at least demo them, and then trim the fat - be that altering structures or cutting songs altogether. I never re-structure tracks, so I'd look at leaving a couple of songs out - for my band's latest album I demoed more than twice as many songs as we eventually recorded.
Steve
I tend to disagree. "Lateralus" is one of my favorite records but it definitely feels slightly bloated. The Mars Volta's "Frances the Mute" is another good example. Great record that goes on about 15 minutes longer than it should. But hey, better to be slightly long than to be a reasonably-lengthened piece of shit
it depends upon its genre, really.
just to give an example: esoteric's "the maniacal vale" is ~105 mins. it's split into two discs, with more than half of the songs being 15+ mins (I believe the longest is 23mins). to me, this was the extreme metal album of 2008 - it was well worth the listen. but it's a funeral death/doom album, so it's definitely not everyone's favorite genre - plus it's definitely a tough listen because it's heavy as fuck and feels like a ton of bricks coming down on you.
go with what you feel.
just to give an example: esoteric's "the maniacal vale" is ~105 mins. it's split into two discs, with more than half of the songs being 15+ mins (I believe the longest is 23mins). to me, this was the extreme metal album of 2008 - it was well worth the listen. but it's a funeral death/doom album, so it's definitely not everyone's favorite genre - plus it's definitely a tough listen because it's heavy as fuck and feels like a ton of bricks coming down on you.
go with what you feel.
AudioGeekZine
arsehole know-it-all
I'd rather start it over than never make it to the end.
Lateralus is a cool album but you have to admit there is some filler near the end. I think I've only heard the last 2 songs of that album a few times, the beginning gets loads of plays.
Lateralus is a cool album but you have to admit there is some filler near the end. I think I've only heard the last 2 songs of that album a few times, the beginning gets loads of plays.
AeternusEternus
Member
- Oct 8, 2008
- 601
- 0
- 16
The new thing is digital release. Divide it into two discs but release everything digitally. 100 minutes isn't too long!
midget donkeys
Member
- Jan 11, 2007
- 938
- 0
- 16
egan.
daylightdies.com
I'm going to add that you shouldn't underestimate the time and effort that goes into every recorded minute of music at full album quality. The difference in effort between 60 minutes and 80 is extreme unless their is a bunch of filler crap.
Harry Hughes
âââ¬â¬
- Apr 25, 2009
- 4,353
- 0
- 36
Some bands pull off the long album thing, but a lot of the time I think something is better expressed in a shorter length of time.
Partly the reason why I've hated the last 3 DT albums and am not as impressed with SFAM as I could have been, because they are just too long when it's clear the band can't make a focused album for over 75 minutes. If they had cut out some of the garbage tracks and just made things to the point like they did with Images and Words (about 58 mins long IIRC) they might have been a lot better.
For me, even 60 minutes is pushing it. I think Colors by Between the Buried and Me pulled off 64 minutes well, but even at that length many bands fail and should stick to under 60 minutes.
You haven't even mentioned what style of music it is yet, so it's harder to judge.
In general I find something like progressive or even non prog tech death needs to be short, simply because it's not a style of music that uses extended ideas. 40 minutes is good good.
Whereas post metal (or well, bands like Tool that are fairly minimalistic at times but not necessary post metal) can get away with longer lengths because it's all about extended ideas. They generally can get away with 70 minute albums.
I'd say the band should leave some material off the album, put it on an EP later or another album.
As much as I love the idea of "artistic freedom, do you want " idealistic bullshit, fact is 100 minutes is just not going to be digestible by many listeners.
I'd rather cut out 40 minutes, sell 5 times as many copies so I have money for my future projects than sell shit all and have shit all money, but that's just me, but it's something to think about.
Partly the reason why I've hated the last 3 DT albums and am not as impressed with SFAM as I could have been, because they are just too long when it's clear the band can't make a focused album for over 75 minutes. If they had cut out some of the garbage tracks and just made things to the point like they did with Images and Words (about 58 mins long IIRC) they might have been a lot better.
For me, even 60 minutes is pushing it. I think Colors by Between the Buried and Me pulled off 64 minutes well, but even at that length many bands fail and should stick to under 60 minutes.
You haven't even mentioned what style of music it is yet, so it's harder to judge.
In general I find something like progressive or even non prog tech death needs to be short, simply because it's not a style of music that uses extended ideas. 40 minutes is good good.
Whereas post metal (or well, bands like Tool that are fairly minimalistic at times but not necessary post metal) can get away with longer lengths because it's all about extended ideas. They generally can get away with 70 minute albums.
I'd say the band should leave some material off the album, put it on an EP later or another album.
As much as I love the idea of "artistic freedom, do you want " idealistic bullshit, fact is 100 minutes is just not going to be digestible by many listeners.
I'd rather cut out 40 minutes, sell 5 times as many copies so I have money for my future projects than sell shit all and have shit all money, but that's just me, but it's something to think about.
Torniojaws
They call me Juha
The actual album is "just" 75 minutes, but they could've condensed it to 38 minutes of excellent material and competed for the album of the year status, alas they "had to" make it 70+ minute because "all" their other albums are too.
Personally, there is only ONE 70+ minute album in existence that does not bore me. That is Darkspace's Dark Space III (79 minutes). All the other 70+ minute albums contain at least half of the length in garbage, over-extended, or for-the-sake-of-length -tracks. If the bands would find the guts to tell themselves: "Nah, this song is not so good, let's leave it off"
There are pratically TENS of albums that would well be simply mindblowing and for sure in my Top 10 (if they could fit
), if only they would have removed 2-4 useless songs that anyone can hear are not up to scratch. I'm not against length per se, but it has to be meaningful length! But I also like the 60's - 70's style of keeping the albums to 6-8 great tracks around the 40-45 minute mark. And Reign In Blood is the perfect example of the length of a metal album. Very few people can concentrate attentively to more than 30 minutes, especially when you play really fast/extreme music.
