It really depends on the album. Some just wouldn't work as well if they were shorter. For instance, you mentioned To Be King. That is such an intimating, overwhelming album, and it is intentionally so, and I feel like if it were only 45 minutes long and didn't have that same exhausting effect that a 2 hour album has it wouldn't be as great of an album. The same with lots of other super long albums, super draining albums, like Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness, Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas To Heaven, and just about every album Swans has released since 1991. Some, like Have One On Me, Double Nickels On The Dime, and Orphans: Brawlers, Bawlers & Bastards are less like one album and more like a collection of shorter albums or EPs that are connected to each other in theme and sequencing yet also function when split up into smaller parts. Then there are those albums that, despite being long, just have nothing that is worth being cut because it's just too consistent, like Illinois, London Calling (which really isn't even all that long), or - controversial opinions incoming - The Wall (every track on there is essential to the story and flow of the album) and The White Album (even though just about anyone will tell you that it should be a single album, nobody can ever agree on which tracks should stay and which should be cut). The one time that I really have a problem with long albums is with hip hop - I think that about 75% of classic hip hop albums could be improved by cutting out a good 30 minutes while losing little of value - The College Dropout, Ready To Die, Only Built 4 Cuban Lynx, Black On Both Sides, The Marshall Mathers LP, Speakerboxxx/The Love Below, even The Infamous and Aquemini could be shorter.
I also wouldn't cut The White album but I agree Frampton Comes Alive, Tusk, Sandinista and London Calling are all too long. Swans' To Be Kind is a unique listening experience but it probably is too long. It puts me off playing it although I have only heard it in full twice. Stands to reason.
What makes me very uncomfortable when playing Pink Floyd's The Wall is the track on disc 2 (CD version) - In The Flesh. Before you all shout I know the character of Pink is supposed to be mentally ill at the time and going through some sort of hallucination of being a fascist dictator, as he calls out people to be thrown "up against the wall". But its tones of racism, anti-semitism and homophobia are disturbing, even when you realise the intended cleverness and irony. He is playing a character. Ok I get it. But it's still disturbing. Maybe that's the point but I don't like it. (I also hate the lyric "sad old man dying of cancer" in the track Dogs on the Animals album.. What a horrible thing to predict for anyone).
But maybe Pink Floyd are being even more clever and saying it's ironic and part of a story as a cover for their real feelings, especially Roger Waters, who wrote the lyrics. It's weird cos I love Pink Floyd's music generally but that particular track disturbed me so much I withdrew The Wall from my top 100 chart. And it was in my top 10. That track aside its one of my favourite albums. Or it always was, but I just couldn't have it on there with that track on it. And can I overlook this track despite loving the rest of the album. And when roger Waters performs the album live today, as he still does, does he perform the track word-for word as it is on the album? Cos in this day and age you could have some very upset black, Jewish and gay people in the audience.
And I am a fan of Pink Floyd. This is challenging to me. Any input would be appreciated.
I also wouldn't cut The White album but I agree Frampton Comes Alive, Tusk, Sandinista and London Calling are all too long. Swans' To Be Kind is a unique listening experience but it probably is too long. It puts me off playing it although I have only heard it in full twice. Stands to reason.
What makes me very uncomfortable when playing Pink Floyd's The Wall is the track on disc 2 (CD version) - In The Flesh. Before you all shout I know the character of Pink is supposed to be mentally ill at the time and going through some sort of hallucination of being a fascist dictator, as he calls out people to be thrown "up against the wall". But its tones of racism, anti-semitism and homophobia are disturbing, even when you realise the intended cleverness and irony. He is playing a character. Ok I get it. But it's still disturbing. Maybe that's the point but I don't like it. (I also hate the lyric "sad old man dying of cancer" in the track Dogs on the Animals album.. What a horrible thing to predict for anyone).
But maybe Pink Floyd are being even more clever and saying it's ironic and part of a story as a cover for their real feelings, especially Roger Waters, who wrote the lyrics. It's weird cos I love Pink Floyd's music generally but that particular track disturbed me so much I withdrew The Wall from my top 100 chart. And it was in my top 10. That track aside its one of my favourite albums. Or it always was, but I just couldn't have it on there with that track on it. And can I overlook this track despite loving the rest of the album. And when roger Waters performs the album live today, as he still does, does he perform the track word-for word as it is on the album? Cos in this day and age you could have some very upset black, Jewish and gay people in the audience.
And I am a fan of Pink Floyd. This is challenging to me. Any input would be appreciated.
I find that scene in the Wall very funny. Most of us take fascism too seriously... Roger Waters does not... Try watching The Producers to get straight... There is really nothing to get offended about, and its really funny when you approach it with the right mindset...
Most of us take fascism too seriously... There is really nothing to get offended about, and its really funny when you approach it with the right mindset...
As an aside, if you're not in the groups targeted, you don't get to decide that there's nothing to get offended about. _________________ Add me on RYM
I also wouldn't cut The White album but I agree Frampton Comes Alive, Tusk, Sandinista and London Calling are all too long. Swans' To Be Kind is a unique listening experience but it probably is too long. It puts me off playing it although I have only heard it in full twice. Stands to reason.
What makes me very uncomfortable when playing Pink Floyd's The Wall is the track on disc 2 (CD version) - In The Flesh. Before you all shout I know the character of Pink is supposed to be mentally ill at the time and going through some sort of hallucination of being a fascist dictator, as he calls out people to be thrown "up against the wall". But its tones of racism, anti-semitism and homophobia are disturbing, even when you realise the intended cleverness and irony. He is playing a character. Ok I get it. But it's still disturbing. Maybe that's the point but I don't like it. (I also hate the lyric "sad old man dying of cancer" in the track Dogs on the Animals album.. What a horrible thing to predict for anyone).
But maybe Pink Floyd are being even more clever and saying it's ironic and part of a story as a cover for their real feelings, especially Roger Waters, who wrote the lyrics. It's weird cos I love Pink Floyd's music generally but that particular track disturbed me so much I withdrew The Wall from my top 100 chart. And it was in my top 10. That track aside its one of my favourite albums. Or it always was, but I just couldn't have it on there with that track on it. And can I overlook this track despite loving the rest of the album. And when roger Waters performs the album live today, as he still does, does he perform the track word-for word as it is on the album? Cos in this day and age you could have some very upset black, Jewish and gay people in the audience.
And I am a fan of Pink Floyd. This is challenging to me. Any input would be appreciated.
I find that scene in the Wall very funny. Most of us take fascism too seriously... Roger Waters does not... Try watching The Producers to get straight... There is really nothing to get offended about, and its really funny when you approach it with the right mindset...
I've seen The Producers. Both versions. Springtime for Hitler and all that. Great film, the original. But Mel Brooks can satirize Nazism cos he is Jewish. Not that you need to be Jewish to take the piss out of Nazi's.
Terrible album with a ridiculously long run-time. (If it were 40 minutes it might be tolerable, but at an hour and a half, I'm ready to slit my wrists by the end)
As an aside, if you're not in the groups targeted, you don't get to decide that there's nothing to get offended about.
Look, I have no problem with being interested in what I say, but if you keep irritating me with your sad PC comments I will have to take action.
The classic 'muh free speech' irony of getting upset after having it suggested you might be making other people upset.
I appreciate you have a talent of somehow making most threads into a socio-political discussion, but I think we're going to have to start keeping music discussion on subject. Anyone can PM me if they have an issue with this.
I'll put in my own two cents that you should consider having a bit more tact after someone has very honestly shared how uncomfortable music on certain heavy subjects made them feel. There's no 'right mindset' when it comes to these things, as we all have different life experiences.
Whatever 'take action' means, you can do it away from the site or at the very lest through PMs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
