The idea of a album is gone. Many death metal bands and grindcore bands just put 8-14 songs on a album. There are no slow opening tracks or no grand closing tracks. A album should be a experance not just a bunch of tracks.
are albums getting shorter?
- Thread starter genocide roach
- Start date
Alteredmindeath
Wasteland Survivor
I have noticed this on many albums in some metal scenes especially Finnish, Death, and black metal.The record labels are rushing artists to release products when the artist is not done yet. it should be...release the "painting" when its done, (not) when they tell you when your "painting" is done and when its going to come out.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
This is nothing new, but rather a case of looking to the past in rose tinted glasses. There were plenty of bands exactly as you describe in the 80s and 90s.
Yes but more often now as more sub-genres are becoming. I love odious mortem but as i listen to there albums all the songs dont sound like a album but more like a compulation.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
Mr. Nekrophetamine
Expendable Youth
Quality over quantity indeed.
However, if it is a reason you're looking for, I say no to "quick cash-in" or the idea of a band being "rushed". (I'm not ruling those out entirely though)
Whether or not a band cares about P2P these days... everyone realizes their music is going to get online eventually; with or without them. Knowing that, maybe it's not so much that a band doesn't want to put in the effort for more tracks, but that they know their music is a larger experience meant for an audience that goes beyond the scope of a CD resting on a store rack.
However, if it is a reason you're looking for, I say no to "quick cash-in" or the idea of a band being "rushed". (I'm not ruling those out entirely though)
Whether or not a band cares about P2P these days... everyone realizes their music is going to get online eventually; with or without them. Knowing that, maybe it's not so much that a band doesn't want to put in the effort for more tracks, but that they know their music is a larger experience meant for an audience that goes beyond the scope of a CD resting on a store rack.
MasterOLightning
Optimator
I can't see how this is a trend at all. When LPs were common, albums couldn't exceed 40 mins. or so. Now it's quite common to go well beyond that.
Albums that are less than 30 minutes are really too short, and beyond 50 minutes can be a bit much for me. Around 40 is preferable, and the shorter the album, the more plays it will get from me.
Albums that are less than 30 minutes are really too short, and beyond 50 minutes can be a bit much for me. Around 40 is preferable, and the shorter the album, the more plays it will get from me.
Son of Evil
Member
- Feb 10, 2007
- 260
- 2
- 18
Eh, it varies with the band. Kamelot this year decided to cut down the time, but bands like Pain of Salvation & Dream Theater released lengthy albums. I don't see any pattern here.
byrne
Certavi et vici
i agree with satanstoenail. see God Macabre - The Winterlong for near perfect execution of a "short" album.
Pelata
FINAL SIGN
That's what I was thinking. Single albums back in the day were 30-40 minutes tops. 'Reign In Blood' barely cracks 30 minutes...a lot of early Van Halen barely hit 30 minutes as well...happened all the time in the 80's. I'd see 17 minutes or less printed on each side of a cassette all the time on almost everything I bought.
When I got 'Hysteria' in 1987 (which is over 60 minutes) I thought "GOD what a long album!!"
Similar threads
