How many tracks do you think an avarage metal album should have?
- Thread starter IWP
- Start date
- Status
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Because the people who do the Grammys are fucking idiots and don't know what metal is
Einherjar86
Active Member
Ian Anderson: "The flute is a heavy METAL instrument."
Ah, Ian and your puns, I never tire of them.
But, I could sincerely say that I wouldn't mind a metal album that only had two tracks and was 45 minutes long if it was as badass as Thick As A Brick (such as Moonsorrow's newest record). But a Bob Dylan album or something like that? Now that would just be annoying.
Ah, Ian and your puns, I never tire of them.
But, I could sincerely say that I wouldn't mind a metal album that only had two tracks and was 45 minutes long if it was as badass as Thick As A Brick (such as Moonsorrow's newest record). But a Bob Dylan album or something like that? Now that would just be annoying.
Black Sentry
Metal Warrior Lady
I think an album should have 35-45 min of music....sometimes bands(bad bands) put into an album some useless tracks such as bad covers or something similar only to make more,it's so stupid.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
WeAreTheLastMen
Metacom
The grammys are based on popular opinion, and popular opinion, at least as far as it related to music, can never be wrong, or bad or whatever. It's just there.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
It isn't based on popular opinion because the fans themselves don't vote on it. The votes are cast by 12,000 people in the music business that pull a lot of weight.
Ender Rises
Wass sappening?
The metal category is an afterthought and a crap one at that. I think that there needs to be separate voters when it comes to specific genres.
Does metal have any kind of decent awards show? Or is it all just done by magazines?
Does metal have any kind of decent awards show? Or is it all just done by magazines?
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
i will say what i am sure has already been said: length definitely matters to me because i know an album with 15 songs will contain filler. i have only heard one album in my entire life with over 13 tracks where every track is magical and none is filler.
i want most albums to contain roughly 8 songs. instead of making an album of 12 songs with 7 great songs, 3 good songs, and 2 filler tracks id rather see a band write 7 or 8 songs and concentrate on making them the best they can be. i tend to prefer longer songs, too...at least 5 or 6 mins.
i want most albums to contain roughly 8 songs. instead of making an album of 12 songs with 7 great songs, 3 good songs, and 2 filler tracks id rather see a band write 7 or 8 songs and concentrate on making them the best they can be. i tend to prefer longer songs, too...at least 5 or 6 mins.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Nightmare_Heaven
Death Disco
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
Belligerent
Greekus Urungus
You're back.From Lemmingtroll?
Popular opinion? Who nominates and who votes? Besides which, popular opinion can't determine what's best because not everybody hears everything.
Metal doesn't need its own awards show.
I think, as many people already pointed out, it depends on the style of music, and album length as opposed to amount of tracks.
If the style of music of band doesn't really make use of much variation, then I'll want lesser of it. With death metal for example, I'd much rather prefer maybe 8 songs averaging 35-40mins in length, and with other genres I have different preferences for as well.
However, something I've just observed over the years is that I am more partial to liking a band who writes songs that are at least averaging 4-5mins or more. It's likely that I won't care much for albums who's songs are in the 3min range - they usually have less depth to them. Though maybe I view this as being more exclusive to non-metal bands. With non-metal bands I will usually prefer more tracks, than with metal bands.
If the style of music of band doesn't really make use of much variation, then I'll want lesser of it. With death metal for example, I'd much rather prefer maybe 8 songs averaging 35-40mins in length, and with other genres I have different preferences for as well.
However, something I've just observed over the years is that I am more partial to liking a band who writes songs that are at least averaging 4-5mins or more. It's likely that I won't care much for albums who's songs are in the 3min range - they usually have less depth to them. Though maybe I view this as being more exclusive to non-metal bands. With non-metal bands I will usually prefer more tracks, than with metal bands.
This is an interesting question that leads to another. Because of downloading, will less people buy albums and just pick and chosse the tracks they like? In a few years, will we have albums?
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
- Status
Similar threads
