To you, what's the ideal running time for an album?

[Sadguru]

Pretty much self-explanatory. Make your choice!

 

[Liquid Diamonds]

50 to 60, but I didn't read the last one, which I would have picked had I read it.

 

[Scourge of Malice]

For me it depends. Theres some albums I love that are only around 30 minutes, and its great because its not a tedious listen. Others, I prefer to sit back and take in as a full 60 -80 minute epic album.

 

[BurningSky]

I never go into a CD thinking "man, i hope this cd is <insert amount of time> long." I expect Opeth albums to be near 60 minutes, i certain other bands to run close to 40 minutes, and so on. Different bands and listening experiences give me different expectations, but i dont ever desire a certain length.

 

[all_sins_undone]

obviously depends on genre/artist. meaningless and dumbfounded poll

 

[Don Corleone]

60-70

 

[Korlich]

60-70

.

 

[wwallinga]

I would think that normally 30 minutes would be way to short for an album, and in the case of Rush - Feedback, it is. But, in the case of Slayer - Reign in Blood, it isn't. So, yeah, it depends.

 

[stefan86]

I'm going with depends on the music. For extreme music 40 to 50 mins can be a good running time while more progressive/fancy-pancy stuff surely can be far over 60 thanks to song lenghts etc.

 

[FRUGiHOYi]

I don't think there is an ideal running time for an album, and I don't think the genre has anything to do with it either. All that matters is if it is good. There are some great 30 minute albums and I don't care at all that they are short because they are all good, and I would much rather have a short album that is all good, than a long one that has some crappy parts. A perfect example would be the new Korn album. I think most of it is shit and I would be much happier with it if they only included the good songs, even though it would probably be only 30 minutes long (maybe even less, there's a lot of crap on it )

 

[Alcapoth]

Hehe, yeah, I agree. Just check out how short albums like Opeth's Damnation or Antimatter's Planetary Confinement are, and I wouldn't want them any longer than they were at all.

The thing is, I think I usually do favour the more indepth, lengthier albums - Opeth, Virgin Black, In the Woods... - you know, stuff like that. But, their music suites the epic length of their respective albums and in the end, it really doesn't matter. Music is music, and so long as it's effective and moves me I will embrace it wholeheartedly.

 

[stefan86]

Good call on Damnation and Planetary Confinement. The key for greatness is the lack of boring material. I'd prefer it shorter and 100&#37; filled with great material instead of inserting other stuff to make it longer

 

[progmetaldan]

I like between 50 and 70 minutes worth. Anything less than 40 though I feel ripped off...

 

[all_sins_undone]

if a short album makes you feel "ripped off", you're listening to music for entirely the wrong reasons.

 

[Albatros]

Come on man! this is music we are taking about! not orgasm! time loses its meaning when you listen to an album. Each album defers and needs more or less time.

 

[biggsy]

depends. id have loved damnation to go longer.

 

[Braighs]

30-50 minutes is where most of my favorites lie.
If an artist can express in 20 minutes what another expresses in 40 minutes, the former is twice as accomplished imo. For example, Primordial released four 40 minute albums of pure epic black metal. Their fifth was a full hour and rather than feeling charged, I felt drained. I only listen to the last 3 tracks - 25 minutes of great music.

 

[stefan86]

depends. id have loved damnation to go longer.

at the cost of the rest of the material being of lesser quality?

 

[winters epilogue]

50 to 60, but I didn't read the last one, which I would have picked had I read it.

+1

 

[biggsy]

at the cost of the rest of the material being of lesser quality?

thats not what i said.