Album Length

[YaYo]

Ok, i bought Eternal Tears of Sorrow the other day.. the album "A Virgin and a Whore"... 43 minutes long... and considering most of the riffs are just chord progressions that last for quite few bars at a slow tempo, well i just felt like there wasnt anything to the album. Sure the music was nice enough i liked the sound of it, not what i was really hoping for but oh well. I just mean theres more to listen to in a single opeth song than there is in this entire album and i feel like ive paid good money for half a product.

So the question is what do you consider a good album length? Is 40 minutes of music enough to satisfy you? Where is the line drawn?


I guess if the band was one of those crazy technical bands like nile who pile 30,0000,002 riffs into a minute and each riff is continually changing and progressing (ive only heard "Serpent Headed Mask" so thats all im going by.. i found more to listen to in that song than in this ETOS album) then 40 minutes of music would probably be enough. But i dunno, i just expect at least 60 minutes of music, anything more is a bonus, anything less is a rip off.

 

[YourFuneral]

Same here... 60 minutes is around what I prefer... I've only had a couple albums that were less than 60 that were ok, but they were usually special albums or something... (Live albums or something like that... I.e. A Change Of Seasons/Dream Theater)

 

[Lutz]

40 is enough for an album.

 

[Brutalizer]

Fast, crazy, gut-wrenchin' and speedy albums should be 30-40 mins long! Not more than that!
Slow, atmospheric, relaxing and varied albums should be like 50-60 mins long.

If an album is monotonous, but still great, it should be short. Otherwise you loose the interest in it, fast. That's why it should be short...hmm...

Anyway, it feels like i am talking to myself now!

 

[~Zeanra~]

I also think that around 60 mins is a good lenght.

 

[[KOTNO]Narrot]

45 minutes is great....fitting on a tape...

 

[svenske kocken]

40 minutes is perfect. Is an album longer than that I get bored (apart from Opeth and Dream Theater, of course).

 

[Katatonic]

borknagar's quintessence album is only 43 mins long - i felt gipped when i bought it

 

[groteZk]

the length of the album depends on the music and the quality of the songs, off corpse.
i consider the opeth albums as perfect regarding the length.
but if a band releases an album with some good songs and the rest fillers, they should consider releasing an ep instead....yes, i know it also depends on your personal taste, so it's a difficult topic....

but what struck my mind is that slayer's reign in blood is a masterpiece after all, even if it's less than 30 minutes long!

 

[Orchid]

I think 45 minutes is the minimum, considering the prices of full albums these days. The more the merrier, of course.

 

[Demonspell]

Unless every song is great, any album under fifty minutes is a ripoff.

 

[Blood On My Hands]

I also enjoy CD's that are around 60 minutes long. That is the length that I prefer, but it's not limited only to that. I enjoy CD's that are around 30-40 minutes, which most thrash metal is around. It all depends on the band in my opinion.

 

[Duvall]

I like at least an hour in length. Any less, and the cd's over before I reach my destination on the bus (depending on where I'm going, of course..)

I like Lateralus.. 79 minutes long Now THAT's my money's worth.

 

[Opet]

It comes down to the cost being equivalent to the length for me. I haven't been having many problems though with costs lately with The End. The only way I'll spend more money than I think its worth is if I'm "insane" about owning the album or if I think its a rare find.

I personally like them 60 or more. Lateralus is 79 minutes! Damn, I completely overlooked that. What's some of the longest albums out there? I wonder...

 

[O'blivion]

I guess if the band was one of those crazy technical bands like nile who pile 30,0000,002 riffs into a minute and each riff is continually changing and progressing (ive only heard "Serpent Headed Mask" so thats all im going by.. i found more to listen to in that song than in this ETOS album)

Exactly. Amongst the Catacombs of Nephren-Ka is only 33 minutes long, but the amount of music packed in there is more than many bands have in their entire discography. The same can be said for Cryptopsy's None So Vile and Whisper Surpremacy (both around 32 min). For those bands, the album length is acceptable. If Nile put out an hour-long album, it would take them years to compose and perfect all the material. Especially considering that "Multitude of Foes" took Karl Sanders over a year to arrange, and it's only a two-minute song! On the other hand, some bands put out albums that definitely leave you feeing gypped (such as Borknagar's The Archaic Course, which should be longer IMO.) So there isn't an ideal album length, it just varies with the band and style. Tool's last two efforts were both nearly 80 minutes in length. That seems to be the natural length for them. ie. I can sit through the entire 80 min without losing interest at any point.

 

[Jim LotFP]

Fuck.

Music is no different than potato chips, hmmm? "Well, I paid this much and there was only that amount of chips in a bag."

Sixty minutes is TOO LONG for most albums.

40-45 minutes is ideal. Long enough for a good hard listen, not long enough for an album to wear out its welcome.

30-35 minutes, well, let's be honest, some albums at 35 minutes are already too long.

Bands should feel ZERO pressure, NONE, to fill a 'time quota' on their CDs.

You are not buying a 'product' when you are buying CDs, you are buying art.

Good bands tell YOU how long is long enough by only putting so much on a CD.

I can't wait until different formats come in. Now, because a CD can fit 80 minutes, people expect 80 minutes. What next? If a format allows 5 hours, do you complain that a band only made an album that was three hours long?

 

[MetalManCPA]

I, too, feel one hour is a decent album length. I hate those 30-40 min. albums - that just tells me the artist doesn't have enough material, or was in a hurry to make money as opposed to artistic impression (IMO).

 

[Zpeed]

Somewhere between 60 and 74 minutes.
Less than 60 and it would be to
short for the train ride.
Longer than 74 and it would'nt fit on a minidisk.

 

[brightoffski]

For a progressive album, the longer the better, but the depth needs to be there.

I happen to be listening to a progressive album now. I can't provide a more generic answer.

 

[YaYo]

Originally posted by Jim LotFP
Fuck.

Music is no different than potato chips, hmmm? "Well, I paid this much and there was only that amount of chips in a bag."

Sixty minutes is TOO LONG for most albums.

40-45 minutes is ideal. Long enough for a good hard listen, not long enough for an album to wear out its welcome.

30-35 minutes, well, let's be honest, some albums at 35 minutes are already too long.

Bands should feel ZERO pressure, NONE, to fill a 'time quota' on their CDs.

You are not buying a 'product' when you are buying CDs, you are buying art.

Good bands tell YOU how long is long enough by only putting so much on a CD.

I can't wait until different formats come in. Now, because a CD can fit 80 minutes, people expect 80 minutes. What next? If a format allows 5 hours, do you complain that a band only made an album that was three hours long?

You are right in a way... but if they arent expected to release a certain ammount of material then they shouldnt expect us to pay $AUS30 for 30 minutes of music when a 80 minute masterpiece goes for the same price.

What id really love is a music system where we pay what we feel the CD is worth, based on ammount of material and quality and completeness of the album. Obviously its impossible, but at the least artists should charge what they expect their work is worth. If a 20 minute album is complete and achieves what the artist wants then that is great, but they cant then go and expect $AUS30 for it. This is probably more to do with how the industry works and record labels and such, but i mean still....

With this ETOS CD i had no idea how long it was, it ended and i felt like a hadnt heard a complete collection of songs. I then checked the time on my CD player and saw it was only 43 minutes long. If id felt like id had a complete experience then i wouldnt be complaining.

I hate those 30-40 min. albums - that just tells me the artist doesn't have enough material, or was in a hurry to make money as opposed to artistic impression (IMO).

Yep, this is what im talking about, if the art calls for an album to be 30 or 40 minutes then that is good, but in many cases (not all, maybe not even majority) i dont think its the case, i think its just a case of "hmm 40 minutes, thatll be enough i cant be bothered doing any more and we wont get paid any extra anyway".