View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
Author |
Message |
telefunker
Gender: Male
Age: 39
|
- #1
- Posted: 04/05/2010 12:38
- Post subject: perfect length for an album?
|
any preferences/ideas? _________________ no fat chicks
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kiki
|
- #2
- Posted: 04/05/2010 12:41
- Post subject:
|
It seems like for the industry right now it's 40 minutes round about. But I prefer (if I like the artist) 60+ minutes at least.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
cartoken
The Seer
Gender: Male
Age: 39
Location: Paris
|
- #3
- Posted: 04/05/2010 12:43
- Post subject:
|
between 30 and 70 mn.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Applerill
Autistic Princess <3
Gender: Female
Age: 30
Location: Chicago
|
- #4
- Posted: 04/05/2010 13:15
- Post subject:
|
I used to think that the length should be at least forty minutes, but I see more and more great albums that go well under that (Revolver, In the Aeroplane, Pinkerton, etc.).
I think that, for a really "bombastic" album (like the ones for most punk artists), you should try to keep it under 45 minutes. The Romones' debut was not even a half-hour, and it did great. Nevermind, as often as it was, ended up being a bit long for me (it was almost an hour).
If your album has a lot of "meat" to it (a thesis that ties every song together, for instance), you should really keep it from 40 to 55 minutes. Double albums work great for artists that are confident in a new sound, but I personally think they're pretty risky.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
SquishypuffDave
Gender: Male
Age: 33
|
- #5
- Posted: 04/05/2010 13:29
- Post subject:
|
Excellent question! I think in the end it depends on what length does justice to your musical statement. This applies to songs too, now that I think of it. Some musical ideas work best in a short space of time, and some are only fully realized in an epic length.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Charicature
Age: 49
Location: Vermont
|
- #6
- Posted: 04/05/2010 14:50
- Post subject:
|
45-60 minutes. I'm not a long drawn out song guy, though (unless it's one of those epic type tunes, but the good ones are few and far between) so I like a 15-20 track album, no instrumentals. _________________ <(: @ >
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
purple
|
- #7
- Posted: 04/05/2010 19:24
- Post subject:
|
between 30-45 minutes. In my mind, most artists simply aren't good enough to keep the momentum going beyond this time.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
theharrisonfords
|
- #8
- Posted: 04/05/2010 21:46
- Post subject:
|
It depends on the medium; longer albums are better on vinyl because of the breaks in between sides. CD's don't have that, so albums must be more congealed with one another. That's the biggest drawback to CD's- there's no Side 2.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Applerill
Autistic Princess <3
Gender: Female
Age: 30
Location: Chicago
|
- #9
- Posted: 04/05/2010 22:06
- Post subject:
|
theharrisonfords wrote: | It depends on the medium; longer albums are better on vinyl because of the breaks in between sides. CD's don't have that, so albums must be more congealed with one another. That's the biggest drawback to CD's- there's no Side 2. |
True dat.
Whenever I get a new CD-era album nowadays, I go and try to find out where "side 2" would be. And I sometimes start from there on Itunes :p
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
- #10
- Posted: 04/05/2010 22:29
- Post subject:
|
Give me 60 to 80 minutes on a CD since they can store 80 minutes of uncompressed audio (700 MB of data). Anything less they are wasting digital capacity and overcharging me. If a band can't record 80 minutes of stuff, it should wait until they can get their act together. Of course that doesn't hold for already recorded albums; but some vinyl albums are being offered as 2 on 1 CD.
As for vinyl, I am lazy, I rarely played both sides and I found getting up to change albums every 22 minutes a hassle. _________________ Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|