Why do people complain when a album is 60 mins instead of 40 mins?

[EagleMoon]

I agree that it all comes down to quality over quantity. When you have a shorter amount of time on an album you have to trim the fat. Now there's considerably more time and they have to find extra songs to fill up that space.

[Disembodied Spirit]

Because on 60 minute albums, we end up with songs like The Garden.

So if 'The Garden' is this lovefest people have for it, No one is saying CA is 66 minutes of heaven.

It's AT BEST 10 minutes of greatness, and that is debatable.

[snowdogged]

It's because all of us people that grew up listening to forty minute albums are now coming to the realization that there is only a limited amount of time remaining for us and an hour is a lot to devote to anything.

[GabesCavesOfIce]

Because on 60 minute albums, we end up with songs like Faithless, The Way the Wind Blows, The Larger Bowl, Spindrift, Armor and Sword, We Hold On, Bravest Face, and Good News First.

 

Fixed it for ya.

 

Not gonna rave about Snakes, but Larger Bowl was intense live. Will never forget message on rear stage screen, apparently an inverted message when displayed with those lyrics-

 

Is there afterlife...trespass and find out.

 

It's somehow so badly arranged... Such a lot of pain on this earth

[toymaker]

It may be in a band's best interest to release longer albums. There's a higher chance that there will be something for everyone that way. Some people think the last couple of songs on a lot of albums are just filler, but then a lot of folks love those tunes. Tai Shan. The Garden. Everyday Glory.

 

Modern technology allows you to do whatever you like with the product you have purchased. You don't even have to get off your bumcushions to do it. Just make a playlist.

 

The argument that maybe a band would put more effort into fewer tracks might have some validity. That could backfire, though. What if the band tried to layer even more sounds into 7 or 8 tracks?

 

I'm one of those Rush fans that wants to hear everything, I guess.

Edited March 11, 2015 by toymaker

[LedRush]

I think it's a different perspective from people who like album as art records and people who just want good music. For the AOR folks, the goal is to make the best possible album which can be enjoyed as a single piece. This perspective probably holds more sway with the people who like Rush's prog output, and the work from the early 80s. For others, the idea of an album is more of a collection of songs and not a singular piece. Also, they've come to enjoy certain songs that couldn't be cut.

 

I love album oriented rock, but I don't think I could stomach losing Rush songs just to make the albums more cohesive art works. Perhaps I would like the albums more if I never knew those songs that would've been cut were created. But seeing as I do know that, I don't want the albums trimmed. With the possible exception of...well, you know.

[laughedatbytime]

Because on 60 minute albums, we end up with songs like Faithless, The Way the Wind Blows, The Larger Bowl, Spindrift, Armor and Sword, We Hold On, Bravest Face, and Good News First.

 

Fixed it for ya.

 

Not gonna rave about Snakes, but Larger Bowl was intense live. Will never forget message on rear stage screen, apparently an inverted message when displayed with those lyrics-

 

Is there afterlife...trespass and find out.

 

It's somehow so badly arranged... Such a lot of pain on this earth

Because on 60 minute albums, we end up with songs like Faithless, The Way the Wind Blows, The Larger Bowl, Spindrift, Armor and Sword, We Hold On, Bravest Face, and Good News First.

 

Fixed it for ya.

 

Not gonna rave about Snakes, but Larger Bowl was intense live. Will never forget message on rear stage screen, apparently an inverted message when displayed with those lyrics-

 

Is there afterlife...trespass and find out.

 

It's somehow so badly arranged... Such a lot of pain on this earth

 

There IS a lot of pain on the earth, but, as in the case of listening to The Larger Bowl, some of it is self inflicted...

[ReRushed]

Filler. There's a need to fill whatever the current format dictates. It's still pretty much the CD. Back in the 70s and 80s it was vinyl, which held approximately 40 minutes without there being any quality loss. They once wrote for 40 minutes, now they write for over 60 minutes. Double albums used to be a special treat and worth it. Not anymore. IMHO.

[goose]

It's about quality over quantity. Look how perfect Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures are with so few songs. There was no room to make a mistake or a bad song because they made the albums short and to the point. On the other hand look at Vapor Trails and Snakes and Arrows. There are a number of good songs on each album but both albums also have clunkers like The Stars Look Down, Out Of The Cradle, Bravest Face and Faithless. Shorter albums mean less filler and more about making each and every song the best it can be even if it means the album is shorter. Sometimes having more to listen to isn't always better.

 

Agree except I enjoy Faithless.

I thought the best thing about being an atheist was NOT having to sit through interminable sermons...

:laughing guy:

[Blue J]

I see a lot of people on this forum complaining about some Rush albums being to long. 60 mins instead of 40 mins.

 

And I don´t get that.... Is it not good if we get more songs on each album that Rush release?

 

The bottom line is that if you feel that every song Rush has ever recorded is equally wonderful, then the longest albums are always going to be the best ones. But there are a lot of people who feel that some of those long albums have a few songs on them that probably would have not have made it onto a 40-45 minute album, because they are not as good as the better songs on those longer albums.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

It may be in a band's best interest to release longer albums. There's a higher chance that there will be something for everyone that way. Some people think the last couple of songs on a lot of albums are just filler, but then a lot of folks love those tunes. Tai Shan. The Garden. Everyday Glory.

 

Modern technology allows you to do whatever you like with the product you have purchased. You don't even have to get off your bumcushions to do it. Just make a playlist.

 

The argument that maybe a band would put more effort into fewer tracks might have some validity. That could backfire, though. What if the band tried to layer even more sounds into 7 or 8 tracks?

 

I'm one of those Rush fans that wants to hear everything, I guess.

 

I would add that it is also in the record companies' best interest to release longer albums. Although I don't have any research to back it up, based solely on what I know about how the companies operate, the longer CD format likely meant they pushed artists to fill the format and give the company more bang for their buck, likely in the hope that one of those extra songs would stick and be a money maker.

 

Because of their success and longevity, bands like Rush have greater control over what they record. They basically just turn their material in to the record company and the company just accepts it. At the same time, there is still a business relationship to foster and the guys in Rush seem savvy in that regard. It's not much of a stretch to think the guys in Rush would go along with a request to fill the media out of both an interest to see what else they could come up with and to keep the waters calm.

 

Whether we like it or not.... it is still an industry.

Edited March 11, 2015 by WorkingAllTheTime

[Lorraine]

Filler. There's a need to fill whatever the current format dictates. It's still pretty much the CD. Back in the 70s and 80s it was vinyl, which held approximately 40 minutes without there being any quality loss. They once wrote for 40 minutes, now they write for over 60 minutes. Double albums used to be a special treat and worth it. Not anymore. IMHO.

Best post here.

[Rutlefan]

It's about quality over quantity. Look how perfect Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures are with so few songs. There was no room to make a mistake or a bad song because they made the albums short and to the point. On the other hand look at Vapor Trails and Snakes and Arrows. There are a number of good songs on each album but both albums also have clunkers like The Stars Look Down, Out Of The Cradle, Bravest Face and Faithless. Shorter albums mean less filler and more about making each and every song the best it can be even if it means the album is shorter. Sometimes having more to listen to isn't always better.

 

Agree except I enjoy Faithless.

I thought the best thing about being an atheist was NOT having to sit through interminable sermons...

 

Unless you were a Cuban atheist while Castro was giving his regular 3-4 hour harangues.

[Rutlefan]

I think it's a different perspective from people who like album as art records and people who just want good music. For the AOR folks, the goal is to make the best possible album which can be enjoyed as a single piece. This perspective probably holds more sway with the people who like Rush's prog output, and the work from the early 80s. For others, the idea of an album is more of a collection of songs and not a singular piece. Also, they've come to enjoy certain songs that couldn't be cut.

 

I love album oriented rock, but I don't think I could stomach losing Rush songs just to make the albums more cohesive art works. Perhaps I would like the albums more if I never knew those songs that would've been cut were created. But seeing as I do know that, I don't want the albums trimmed. With the possible exception of...well, you know.

 

I think that first line is the essential distinction. Even in the era of vinyl, albums could either be an artistic statement in itself, or a collection of songs, even if a cohesive collection of songs. I think LZ IV and Sgt Peppers are examples of the first, Phys Graff and The Beatles (White Album) an example of the second. Re Rush, VT and S&A seem like collections of songs to me, PeW and MP as each a package of songs were artistic statements in addition to being the sum of the individual songs. I wouldn't want any songs added to LZ IV or Sgt Peppers, or PeW and MP, but if you wanted to add a third LP to either PG or The Beatles without a drop off in quality, or more songs to VT and S&A, then alright, more is better.

 

In this age of MP3s and playlists it seems the collection of songs approach is carrying the day, like everyone is making their versions of Moby CDs. I don't lose sleep over it but I'd like a return to the LP as artistic statement with accompanying b-sides or an EP if needed, like Big Country's Wonderland for instance. That is, if the material warrants it. Moby CDs work as a collection of songs (and I like them); but for bands like Rush, I'd rather see the artistic statement with the writing and editing discipline that requires.

[greg2112]

Prob due to filler on most of these long(er) albums. I personally prefer the 8 song album myself.

[bathory]

I've heard a lot of bad albums that were less than 40 minutes, a lot of good albums longer than 60, and vice versa. it's all just personal taste.

 

and there are still a lot of albums coming out every single day that are shorter than 40 minutes. and there are still albums that make artistic statements, there are even still concept albums and guitar solos and other things we like to pretend havent existed since the 80s...

[goose]

I've heard a lot of bad albums that were less than 40 minutes, a lot of good albums longer than 60, and vice versa. it's all just personal taste.

 

and there are still a lot of albums coming out every single day that are shorter than 40 minutes. and there are still albums that make artistic statements, there are even still concept albums and guitar solos and other things we like to pretend havent existed since the 80s...

Get off my lawn.

[bathory]

I do think making your album an artistic statement is definitely O-U-T as far as popular music goes, so you won't have a concept album at #1 on the charts again or anything like that. but art will never die, folks

[JohnRogers]

I really need to go to Denver and smoke a fat bowl then retire to my hotel room to listen to Clockwork Angles.

[bathory]

I really need to go to Denver and smoke a fat bowl then retire to my hotel room to listen to Clockwork Angles.

 

or listen to CoS twice :smoke: :smoke:

[laughedatbytime]

I really need to go to Denver and smoke a fat bowl then retire to my hotel room to listen to Clockwork Angles.

More f***ing math rock from these Canadians?

[WorkingAllTheTime]

Running joke with a Rush fan.... "Headlong Flight"'s actual title is "Guess the Time Signature".

 

PS Oops.... forgot the quote... this is in reference to LABT above.

Edited March 12, 2015 by WorkingAllTheTime

[jamie]

they probably think that some songs aren't necessary and the album would be better if some songs were taken off. then again they could always just skip those bad songs and save time.

[laughedatbytime]

Running joke with a Rush fan.... "Headlong Flight"'s actual title is "Guess the Time Signature".

 

PS Oops.... forgot the quote... this is in reference to LABT above.

Now you're just being obtuse... :syrinx:

 

Get it...JR was going to go listen to "Clockwork Angles"...math rock, etc....

 

Oh, never mind... :eyeroll:

Edited March 12, 2015 by laughedatbytime

[Powderfinger]

I agree with all of you on the prevailing sentiment here that longer albums lend themselves to mediocre album cuts. Most of the great albums are short and sweet, with the exception of the handful of double albums that I'm sure many of us agree on (Quadrophenia, Lamb Lies Down, Exile on Main Street, etc.).

 

But many of you are suggesting that once the format expanded in length Rush and other bands of their pedigree necessarily had to fill it, as though it was compulsory. Is that really true? Especially now that we are back in an era of purchasing singles as opposed to complete albums? Far fewer people have paid for music at all in recent years.

 

So what is the incentive for releasing bloated albums in the modern era? Does it not consume costly studio and production time for songs that many people will not purchase anyway?

 

At best it results in often substandard songs that only uber fans will pay attention to at all.

 

I'm trying to suggest that bands choose to do it. That bands who choose not to edit themselves are the problem, and not the format.

 

But Rush is an album-oriented band with album-oriented fans. Rush and other bands seemed to lose sight of this: quality over quantity--all killer, no filler.