FRUGiHOYi
"Since 1981"
See, most of the time, I don't even pay attention to how long an album is. So Damnation is short? I have no idea at all how long it is. That is news to me. I think it's just right.
To you, what's the ideal running time for an album?
- Thread starter Sadguru
- Start date
Alcapoth
S t a r E
I think Damnation is just under 45 minutes, so it's actually not too short or too long. In fact, the length is just perfect. I consider an album that is 30 min or less to be rather short. Hehe, but yeah, I think it's best to do what you do and just not pay attention. I usually don't, either. But, if an album is noticeably short I'll take notice and be like, "wow, it's over already?"
Oh, and biggsy...Vast, huh? Cool av and good band. They have some cool stuff a buddy of mine introduced me to.
progmetaldan
Member
Sorry, let me clarify that statement. I don't mean ripped off in a monetary sense or anything like that, you can get some amazing albums that are only about half an hour, but I get to the end of those albums, and think "I wish there was more of it" For instance, my Marty Friedman- Dragon's Kiss album is one of my all time favourites, but it is only just over half an hour. That doesn't mean I am disappointed by it, I am just left wanting to hear more...
Don Corleone
Emre
stefan86
invariably off-topic
what im guessing is that they put the top class material in planetary confinement and damnation and scrapped what wasnt up to shape, which is quite the good decision imo
opeth_353
Member
Don Corleone
Emre
as much as i love patterson and everything he touched, that eternity part 24 is a huge let down for me.
For prog, metal, and classical usually well over an hour.
For jazz 40 minutes to and hour.
For modern and classic rock anywhere from 30 minutes to and hour depending on how repetitive it is.
For jazz 40 minutes to and hour.
For modern and classic rock anywhere from 30 minutes to and hour depending on how repetitive it is.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
Kenneth R.
Cináed
clearly it depends on the album. an album should continue until its artistic/creative merit is exhausted, and then no further. of course, ideally one would want as much music as possible from a listener perspective. so it is subjective
I admit to feeling like an album ought to use the full extent of the recording medium. I have thought that albums that clock in at under 40 minutes shouldn't cost the same as albums that clock in at over an hour. Longer books cost more than shorter books, for example. And I don't want to hear that it has to do with the fact that long books use more paper but long CD's use the same amount of plastic. We're talking about CONTENT. Digital copyrights. Intellectual property. Isn't that what we pay for? One thing that I think digital music providers get right is the whole "pay-by-song" model. Or even the (illegal?) allofmp3.com model of paying for albums by the size of the files.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
soundave like books, it's very hard to find an album whose content can't be conveniently cut down or summarised. If I can get the same outcome in 30 minutes rather than 80 then I save 50 minutes - great success! Right?
And if DVD audo became the common format for music, does that mean we have to hear hours and hours of repetitive and boring music simply because the artist feels he must use the whole medium?
And if DVD audo became the common format for music, does that mean we have to hear hours and hours of repetitive and boring music simply because the artist feels he must use the whole medium?
Great points! On the first, I am almost forced to agree as a former creative writing teacher. Typically, saying more with lesss is ideal. I just happen to prefer novels to short stories and short stories to poetry. Follow? I won't pay as much for a short story as I will for a novella, for example. I have a certain expectation. If I'm listening to an EP, I expect it to be short, and I have no problem with it. What I take exception to is an album that really is more like an EP, but is sold as an LP.On point 2, you are very clever. My hope is that DVD-A takes full advantage of the format by giving us higher fidelity (uncompressed?) sound, not more length. In other words, aim for a similar length but an increase in DEPTH. And perhaps the addition of some video, photos, etc. I'm not famililar with DVD-A (wish I could afford to be...) Anyone know the specs?
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
That's my hope too. I don't think it's possible yet with DVDs, because like CDs they can either use time (80 mins) or space (700 meg): temporal or spatial, both being independent of the other.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by them being independent of one another. They are, rather, inextricably linked (a reciprocal relationship). File size is dependent on sampling rate, bit depth, and length. CD's, at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz take up about 10 Megs a minute. An increase in sampling rate, bit depth, or length means that the file takes up more space. Or am I misunderstanding you?
My suggestion is that with higher bit depth and sampling rates, the file sizes will be larger, and that's why we need the DVD format at all for music.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
Okay I get it now, thanks. On a CD is it possible to increase quality so that it isn't able to fit 70 minutes on it?
NFU
I like pie.
kind of depends for me.
for instance...id like the burst album to be another hour worth of material.
but the latest deicide record could be 30 minutes tops and id already have my fill of what it needed to acomplish.
for instance...id like the burst album to be another hour worth of material.
but the latest deicide record could be 30 minutes tops and id already have my fill of what it needed to acomplish.
Fuck albums !
I am a 21st century tool !
I have 100 Gigs plus on my hardrive and 4 I-Pods on Shuffle all the time !!!
I am a 21st century tool !
I have 100 Gigs plus on my hardrive and 4 I-Pods on Shuffle all the time !!!
Well, as a CD-ROM, I suppose. The issue is with the playback device. It has to understand the Bit depth and the sampling rate. Hence, DVD-A and SACD players. I guess I just ought to google their specs to see what they're doing. Most pro digital recording these days is done at 24 bit, afaik. But it's recorded to a HD, and is played back by the recording software. CD's are only 16 bit, though. Not sure what SR people are gravitating to these days tbh. On a side note, I used to teach people how to use the Synclavier, and it was pretty amazing for its high sample rate. We used to do things like attempt to record things out of the range of human hearing (well beyond 20kHz) and pitch them down so they'd be audible. It required good mics, but it was pretty cool. Like using an "audio microscope".
EDIT:
Okay, from Wikipedia, DVD-A's increased storage capacity can be used for increased length of material, greater audio quality, or (duh...can't believe I forgot this part) more channels of audio. For 2 channel audio, it supports up to 24 bit 192kHz. For 5.1 audio (or any variation of surround, for that matter), 24 bit 96kHz.
Sounds pretty awesome to me. But is anyone making 2 channel music recorded at 24 bit/ 192 kHz? I'd love to hear it.
Similar threads
