About long albums

[9999]

I don't know if there has been a similar thread before, but am I the only one who thinks long (and by long I mean over an hour) albums tend to be very inconsistent? I think that most long records I've heard include too much filler and would have been way better had it been shorter. Some examples that come to mind:


London Calling by The Clash


The Beatles (The White Album) by The Beatles


Red House Painters (Rollercoaster) by R...e Painters


American Dream by LCD Soundsystem


The Wall by Pink Floyd


Selected Ambient Works 85-92 by Aphex Twin


To Be Kind by Swans


Illinois by Sufjan Stevens

Don't give me wrong, I like all these albums, but I feel they would all benefit from being shorter. But I wanted to know what you guys think. Do these albums justify their lenght? Would they be better if they were shorter? Would they be worse? What other albums do you think are overly long?

[Romanelli]

I have no problem with the lengths of any of those albums. And if any of them have flaws, I wouldn't list lack of consistency among them.

I think you could make a much better case with these:


Out Of The Blue by Electric Light Orchestra


Frampton Comes Alive! by Peter Frampton


Tusk by Fleetwood Mac


Warehouse: Songs And Stories by Hüsker Dü


Sandinista! by The Clash
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

[bobbyb5]

I agree. I like all these albums, and some I love, but to me they all would have been better with less tracks. But on the other hand, I know people who like everything on them. And I can think of a couple of long or double albums that I myself think are good just the way they are. And actually, when albums switched from Vinyl to CD, they became roughly about 15 minutes longer. And I felt that the majority of most new albums would have been much better at the old 40 or 45 minute length. It seemed like they were padded out with too many filler tracks.

[craola]

personally, even if i like every track on an album, i'm not a fan of "long" albums. generally, if an album goes past 14 tracks and/or 50ish minutes, it's just too much for me to digest. examples:

RADIOHEAD :: Hail to the Thief (14 tracks / 56:35 minutes)

i love every track on this album, but even thm agrees it's too long. i almost don't even care which tracks had been cut (this is totally not true). i just wish it was 10-12 songs and ~45 minutes.

MODEST MOUSE :: The Lonesome Crowded West (15 tracks / 73:58 minutes)

once again, i can't name a track on this album i don't love, but 15 tracks is too much. ~74 minutes is waaay too much. for me. granted, i have a short attention span...but still.

BOARDS OF CANADA :: Music Has A Right To Children (17 tracks / 62:58)

so much to digest. too much. if you've got 63 minutes of incredible, please please please please please release two short albums or an LP-EP combo. i just can't remember what i listened to 60 minutes ago. i can't. and so i have to listen twelve times before i get a feel for the album, and it's daunting. and i'm overreacting. and i love this album so i should just shut up. but man, on a personal level, i just can't see myself doing it this way.

keep in mind, i went to art school, and in art school, they'll drill into your head that "less is more" every chance they can get, so you can argue that i have been trained to think this way.
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.

[Tap]

just pretend you're watching a short movie

[Puncture Repair]

yo what filler does illinois have?

[craola]

[bobbyb5]

[YoungPunk]

The longer an album the greater the chance it'll be truly great for me. What is greater? Shakespeare's Hamlet or a single one of his sonnets? Length is directly correlated with greatness. My favorite all time single work is 14-15 hours long btw, so you can see this in my charts. On the other hand, being like Stephen King and not editing out enough can also be a problem, but only if you don't have the material like my favorite music artists with long works did...

[Fischman]

It only makes sense... the more you put out there, the more likely it is that some part of it will fall short.

I think pretty much every double album will have a large number of fans/critics who think it may have been better if some tracks had been omitted.

Here's a few as yet unmentioned on this thread; albums I love, but I'm usually gonna' skip a few tracks:







About the only doubles I really like throughout are live albums, but that's something altogether different as they program usually includes known winners from across an artist's catalog.