double album that would have made a better single - Music

LittleM1971

Gender: Male
Age: 52
Location: Nottingham

stangetzaway wrote:

Little M your in the right ball park but during the vinyl era the industry standard for a double album was 65 minutes or over. Of that I'm pretty certain. The only anomaly was London Calling which clocked in at 64.59! Whats confusing now that is that since the comeback of vinyl albums much shorter in length are being released as doubles for no other reason I can see but to drain pockets. I think Currents was released as a double and it's barely 50 minutes long.

During the vinyl/cassette era majority of albums 45 mins or less to fit on a side of a cassette, or then over 65 minutes for the rare double album. Few albums between 45 and 65 minutes were released proportionately speaking as I have a feeling the more you squeezed on an a 33 inch disc there was some detrimental effect such as poorer sound quality but I'm not 100% sure.

That's interesting, I didn't realise the standard was 65 mins and over for a double album and you're quite right mentioning London Calling as an anomaly to the rule as most doubles clock in at 70+ minutes. For sound quality you don't really want to be going over 27 minutes per side. I remember buying Blur's Modern Life Is Rubbish on vinyl and at close to 60 minutes it sounded really flat and you had to crank up the volume to get it up to normal levels for an LP. Even cheapo compilations such as 'Now that's what I call music' would tend to come in at under 30 minutes per side for this reason.

The arrival of the CD has certainly clouded what is a double and what isn't. Take The Cure's Disintegration as an example clocking in at around 71 minutes. Perfect for CD but the original single vinyl version had to lose a couple of tracks. Recent vinyl reissues of this album have correctly been issued as a double giving room for the two songs to be added so for me this album should be classed as a double LP.

On the other hand the double album Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me lost a track so it could fit onto a single CD as the record company didn't want to issue it as a double CD. Ryan Adams wanted Gold to be a double album but the record company wanted it as a single disc due to costs but did run a limited bonus disc which should have been side 4. Ryan Adams was pretty unhappy about this apparently.

Then you have something like Spiritualized's debut Lazer Guided Melodies which was clearly imagined as a double album despite only being 61 minutes long. Even the CD was programmed so you could only flick between each side (1-4) rather than the individual tracks (1-12)

For me anything over 55 minutes in length should be issued in a double album format for sound quality purposes, but does that make it a true double album?

Anything less than 55 mins should sound fine as a single album and there really is no need for albums clocking in at less than 55 minutes to be issued as a double unless issued as a 2x45rpm pressing which can sound even better.

LittleM1971

Gender: Male
Age: 52
Location: Nottingham

[quote="bobbyb5"]

LittleM1971 wrote:

Actually, in the 90s almost all albums were over an hour. In the vinyl era, most albums had 10 to 12 tracks. But with 90s and after CDs, this jumped to about 14 or 15 to make use of the larger capacity. People felt ripped off if an album was less than an hour. So when vinyl era albums were reissued on CD, they loaded them with bonus tracks, alternate versions, etc. to make them more desirable.

Nail on head...they were making use of a larger capacity rather than creating a traditional pre CD double album. But should we now start to view these albums over 60 minutes as doubles once again...after all they physically exist in double vinyl format so why not?

jackbrown8786

Every single double album ever. I don't listen to them b/c when I have enough time on my hands it's always better to just listen to 2 great single albums. Let It Bleed + Sticky Fingers > Exile On Main Street. Revolver + Abbey Road > The White Album. Dark Side Of The Moon + Wish You Were Here > The Wall. Highway 61 Revisited + The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan > Blonde On Blonde.

That being said, I wouldn't want any songs from those albums to vanish, but if there were just 2 single albums released in quick succession like The White Album pt 1 and The White Album pt 2, I'd listen to them way more often. I know I could just listen to half the album at a time but I don't like doing that.

I feel like listening to a double album is like listening to 2 regular LPs except you don't even get to choose the 2nd one, it's locked in every time. This probably sounds stupid, but really I don't think anyone can argue that it's just better to listen to Revolver and then have your choice of any album after that. Maybe you want more Beatles immediately after but also maybe you'll be in the mood for absolutely anything else.

No one else seems to have my problem. Maybe others don't have as much of a problem listening to just half an album. Or maybe others listen on digital formats and normally only listen to their fav songs anyway but I listen on a record player - there's no skipping around.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

lleon79 wrote:

Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness. I think there's waaaay too much filler in there. If it had been a single LP it would've been so much better in my opinion. Anyway, as it stands I like it. There are great songs here and there. But I'll never listen to it in its entirety ever again in my life.

I'd have to agree the first few times I listened to it... and then all that "filler" turned out to be more and more interesting. I was expecting Siamese Dream and the singles the whole time and turned out a whole new musical journey was waiting for me and I ignored it.

Probably still not THAT amazing. But as far as double albums go, it's a top 5 double album for me.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

jackbrown8786 wrote:

Every single double album ever. I don't listen to them b/c when I have enough time on my hands it's always better to just listen to 2 great single albums. Let It Bleed + Sticky Fingers > Exile On Main Street. Revolver + Abbey Road > The White Album. Dark Side Of The Moon + Wish You Were Here > The Wall. Highway 61 Revisited + The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan > Blonde On Blonde.

That being said, I wouldn't want any songs from those albums to vanish, but if there were just 2 single albums released in quick succession like The White Album pt 1 and The White Album pt 2, I'd listen to them way more often. I know I could just listen to half the album at a time but I don't like doing that.

I feel like listening to a double album is like listening to 2 regular LPs except you don't even get to choose the 2nd one, it's locked in every time. This probably sounds stupid, but really I don't think anyone can argue that it's just better to listen to Revolver and then have your choice of any album after that. Maybe you want more Beatles immediately after but also maybe you'll be in the mood for absolutely anything else.

No one else seems to have my problem. Maybe others don't have as much of a problem listening to just half an album. Or maybe others listen on digital formats and normally only listen to their fav songs anyway but I listen on a record player - there's no skipping around.

Part of me was exclaiming blasphemy and part of me was like, yeah, I totally agree.

craola
crayon master

Location: pdx

double albums that would have made a better EP

the lamb lies down on bro-o-oadway

melon collie and the infinity sadface
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.

stangetzaway

Gender: Male
Age: 53
Location: Melbourne

Double albums that'd make a good frisbee (or 2) Trout Mask Replica.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

All double albums should be released as a radio single.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

stangetzaway wrote:

Double albums that'd make a good frisbee (or 2) Trout Mask Replica.

I have yet to really appreciate this as well. Maybe it'll click someday. For now I'll chock it up to, "you don't understand real art, do you?" - Andy Warhol is the only real artist.

bobbyb5

Gender: Male
Location: New York

sethmadsen wrote:

I have yet to really appreciate this as well. Maybe it'll click someday. For now I'll chock it up to, "you don't understand real art, do you?" - Andy Warhol is the only real artist.

I know. The praise heaped upon Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa was as baffling to me as the praise heaped upon Radiohead or Nirvana today. Its so overblown.