How many tracks do you think an avarage metal album should have?

[IWP]

Here's a question I was thinking about the other day that I thought would make an interesting discussion. How many tracks do you think a typical metal album should have?

For me, I think a typical metal album shouldn't have more than 8-10 tracks, because most of time at least in my opinion, most albums that have more than 10 tracks tend to have plenty of filler, and sometimes, this could totally ruin an otherwise great album. Though, even 7 tracks wouldn't even be that bad. It worked for Vio-Lence's Eternal Nightmare, Helloween's Keeper of the Seven Keys Part 1, and Slayer's Hell Awaits. Usually, if an album has too many tracks, the band will tend to either run out of ideas, or the album tends to get too repetative. Well, this is my two cents.

Discuss.

 

[waif]

Depends...
Between 6 and 12, usually...
Length and # of tracks are not equal
Length is more important
An album should be at least 35 minutes

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

The number of tracks on an album is irrelevant to me. To me, the length of an album often largely contributes to the overall impression I receive from the album as a whole, so I really just try to assess if the length of the album is sufficient and compliments the atmosphere/general feel of the album when listened to in its entirety.

That was worded like shit. Oh well, you know what I mean.

 

[Anom@nder Rake]

most of the albums i have are 5-9 songs (not counting intro tracks). i don't really care how many tracks there are unless the album is only 1 track because then i usually don't listen to the whole thing. i'll become familiar with the first 20-30 minutes of it and then i'll either have shit to do or feel like listening to something else.

 

[Winter.]

About 12 tracks roughly. Not particularly fussed on that though. I'm in agreement with everyone else that the length of the album is more important.

 

[Ender Rises]

You're a douche.

Ten quality tracks are preferred, other than Opeth, where I expect 6 due to the length of their songs, obviously. I can tolerate 2 filler tracks pretty easily, more than that and I get pissed off. I usually just skip filler tracks after the first few spins.

 

[XSASweet]

Depends upon the price. If I am getting charged $10, then I want at least 10 FULL songs. If I am getting charged $20, then I want at least 19 songs.

What I DO NOT WANT is to get charged $10-$20 for a CD of a whopping four or five songs just because the band felt lazy enough to screw over their fans.

That is stupid logic. so you wouldn't mind get a 10 minute CD with 20 tracks?

as said, length is most important. Usually 40-60, but 30 and 70 can be good if it's all interesting, or a conceptual thing.

 

[Ender Rises]

OK, seriously dude, what is your problem? You're the kind of "fan" that makes bands quit making music. Why these stupid standards? There is good, and there is not good... there shouldn't be any fucking standards. There are plenty of great fucking songs that are 2 minutes long. There are plenty of incomplete, stupid songs that are 4 minutes long. It depends on the band. So why have these standards to your listening? If you're so obsessed with not fueling a band's "coke and prostitute habit" then fucking pirate the music.

 

[Mort Divine]

Note how I said I wanted FULL songs there, pal? I do not consider a song to be full unless it goes into at least three minutes (anything over 10 minutes is generally sleep music or a complete waste of time).

If I am going to spend money in order to fuel the band's coke and prostitute habit then I expect my money's worth. Otherwise I am content to just buy single songs from sites like Itunes, combine them with good songs from other bands, and make my own custom CDs and the band can just take it artistic vision and general laziness and go fuck itself.

Get an attention span you retard.

 

[Winter.]

OK, seriously dude, what is your problem? You're the kind of "fan" that makes bands quit making music. Why these stupid standards? There is good, and there is not good... there shouldn't be any fucking standards. There are plenty of great fucking songs that are 2 minutes long. There are plenty of incomplete, stupid songs that are 4 minutes long. It depends on the band. So why have these standards to your listening? If you're so obsessed with not fueling a band's "coke and prostitute habit" then fucking pirate the music.

 

[Vilden]

Note how I said I wanted FULL songs there, pal? I do not consider a song to be full unless it goes into at least three minutes (anything over 10 minutes is generally sleep music or a complete waste of time).

If I am going to spend money in order to fuel the band's coke and prostitute habit then I expect my money's worth. Otherwise I am content to just buy single songs from sites like Itunes, combine them with good songs from other bands, and make my own custom CDs and the band can just take it artistic vision and general laziness and go fuck itself.

Why are you posting on a metal board when you obviously are a mainstream pop fan. :>

 

[The Butt]

Depends on the band and the songs. I want at least 35 minutes of music, 60 at most. However many tracks this is split into, is irrelevant to me. (So long as I don't get something fucking stupid like 20 1-and-a-half minute tracks)

Note how I said I wanted FULL songs there, pal? I do not consider a song to be full unless it goes into at least three minutes (anything over 10 minutes is generally sleep music or a complete waste of time).

If I am going to spend money in order to fuel the band's coke and prostitute habit then I expect my money's worth. Otherwise I am content to just buy single songs from sites like Itunes, combine them with good songs from other bands, and make my own custom CDs and the band can just take it artistic vision and general laziness and go fuck itself.

This is the second time you've given me the urge to post the "Failboat" macro tonight.

 

[Mentok]

Im agreeing with most posts. The only thing that really matters is Album length. I need atleast 35-40 mins to be satisfied with it.

 

[tagradh]

If the music is okay then I don't care how many tracks/length, I'm just happy to hear more good music.

 

[Zephyrus]

Doesn't matter. I'm generally accustomed to an album being between 40 minutes and an hour in length. How many songs make that up totally depends on the length of each song. So the number of songs is irrelevant.

 

[The Ozzman]

10-12 tracks is usually fine. Some albums have more or less but still rock, but 10-12 on average is what it should have.

 

[waif]

Note how I said I wanted FULL songs there, pal? I do not consider a song to be full unless it goes into at least three minutes (anything over 10 minutes is generally sleep music or a complete waste of time).

If I am going to spend money in order to fuel the band's coke and prostitute habit then I expect my money's worth. Otherwise I am content to just buy single songs from sites like Itunes, combine them with good songs from other bands, and make my own custom CDs and the band can just take it artistic vision and general laziness and go fuck itself.

I'm gonna assume based on the fact that every post I've seen from you is illogical, stupid, and designed to piss people off, that you're just a fucking troll.
If not, then you might want to pipe down. I can tell you're gonna get banned.

 

[seedofvengeance]

I don't think number has nearly as much to do with time. I'd say a good metal album (or any album, for that matter) needs to have at least 45 minutes of material. Which is bad for me, being an avid listener to Grindcore.

 

[AchrisK]

I am with the majority here. Album length is more important, and a good album to me is 30-45 minutes. Some bands can pull off longer albums, especially doom bands, but generally I prefer them in the range above. Depending on style, 5-10 tracks is appropriate for the preferred time.

 

[The Ozzman]

I think a shorter amount of tracks is acceptable for doom metal bands. Reverend Bizarre's first album is only 6 tracks, but it's a decent album so whatever.