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

[gudbuytjane]

Also, for the record, my greatly polarizing 45-minute thread was inspired by the days of trying to fit an album on one side of a 90-minute tape. :) I guess it was one of those "Do you remember these?" moments.

[Beavis]

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

 

Completey agree with this but the new Steven Wilson album Hand. Cannot. Erase. is amazing and worth being charted but never will

[Beavis]

Also Slayer (amazing musicians wether you appreciate that type of music or not) pound 1000 riffs into what they prob average as 35-40 minute cd lengths

[geezer]

Also, for the record, my greatly polarizing 45-minute thread was inspired by the days of trying to fit an album on one side of a 90-minute tape. :) I guess it was one of those "Do you remember these?" moments.

 

And I remember also the 'war cabinets' with friends trying to organize who had to buy this or that; never ended 100% peacefully.....

[geezer]

IMHO a 10 songs album with 8 great songs and 2 fillers remains a great album.

[patjnev]

I would take 40 minutes of spectacular music over 60 minutes of not so spectacular music.

[Blue J]

Also, for the record, my greatly polarizing 45-minute thread was inspired by the days of trying to fit an album on one side of a 90-minute tape. :) I guess it was one of those "Do you remember these?" moments.

 

I didn't think that thread was greatly polarizing.

 

And I still have hundreds of those analog cassettes!

[Rutlefan]

Also, for the record, my greatly polarizing 45-minute thread was inspired by the days of trying to fit an album on one side of a 90-minute tape. :) I guess it was one of those "Do you remember these?" moments.

 

I didn't think that thread was greatly polarizing.

 

And I still have hundreds of those analog cassettes!

 

So do I and I still use them in 30+ year old cars (have no interest in carrying around CDs or, God forbid, compressed formats), so I still occasionally distill newer longer releases down to 46 minutes for car music (what you really get out of one side of a 45 minute tape, after you'd stretched it with a little use). Anyway, the 45 minute thread wasn't just a hypothetical exercise for me, at some point I had needed to do that very thing so I can listen to newer Rush in my old Luddite beaters (100 and 120 minute cassettes are no good I've found as they tend to break eventually).

 

Re quality with shorter albums, trimming the fat from newer Rush albums would vary from person to person as clearly there is not a general consensus as to what are the strong and weak songs on VT through CA. So, I'm glad they are as they are so each can tailor as they want. It's not like PeW or MP where every song is indispensable to those albums identities. When I've taken the songs I don't so much care for from VT and S&A, they become really strong 47 minute albums (VT is already strong throughout, but it gets better at a more manageable length IMO). Also, being able to visualize which group of songs makes up side 1 and side 2 helps me appreciate any album; I like the reboot halfway through the album. While I love Moby and Sufjan Steven albums, those CDs sound to me like long amorphous stream of consciousness collections as opposed to a tight, every-song-impactful classic album. I've heard/read so many criticisms of VT as being a long amorphous stream of consciousness collection that I can't help but think a shorter play length wouldn't have helped. Put the extra songs on a sister EP.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Rutlefan

[Narps]

IMHO a 10 songs album with 8 great songs and 2 fillers remains a great album.

You rang?.... :)http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81EXoV6s1YL._SL1200_.jpg

[geezer]

IMHO a 10 songs album with 8 great songs and 2 fillers remains a great album.

You rang?.... :)http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81EXoV6s1YL._SL1200_.jpg

 

I was just looking into the eye of the storm....

[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

 

Completey agree with this but the new Steven Wilson album Hand. Cannot. Erase. is amazing and worth being charted but never will

 

I heard it's big in europe!

[Disk98]

Hmm…well, Caress of Steel is about 40 minutes and it sucks. Clockwork Angels, on the other hand, is more than 60 minutes and it's phenomenal. ;)

[Rutlefan]

The claim isn't that shorter is necessarily better, all other things being equal. Picking random lps out of parents', brothers', friends', parents of friends', music collections in the '70s would normally snag you an awful album, like Dr. Hook, Captain and Tennille, Starland Vocal Band, etc. (it gets worse); bands like Zeppelin, Yes, Floyd, The Who, and of course Rush, were the glaring exception, yet most of those awful lps in the Kingsley's LP collection were usually 34-42 range so I don't think anyone is saying short is better simply because it's short. Obviously, the main claim is that given a certain set of material, it would be better to make a concise and great collection then a drawn out collection if the drawing out of the material resulted in a dilution of quality. Also, there's those ideas about the album as art vs simply a collection of tracks, and shorter track lists are easier to appreciate as a whole, etc., but the main idea is that 38 minutes of great is preferable to 38 minutes of great plus 12 minutes of ok, plus 12 minutes of "I have to make a playlist so I don't have to skip this song every time."

[Rush!]

I generally find 35-40 minutes to be a pretty punctual time for most albums, not just for Rush.

 

Granted, plenty of my favorite albums exceed 40 minutes, but I sometimes find that albums longer than that overstay their welcome.

For me, it's usually an issue of the songwriting not being as up to par as the first half, or first few songs.

Other times, albums just 'feel' really long and occasionally I'll grow bored or maybe become tired after a while. Again, this is not usually the case with Rush, but I can understand why people would feel this way.

 

Same thing with films. I enjoy a lot of films that are a little over 2 hours long, but I wouldn't necessarily want to sit through a film that's 3 hours long or some other ridiculous length, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Whereas a 90-minute film usually gets the story told in an ideal amount of time.

It depends on the day as well, it's really just the circumstances and how I might feel at that point in time.

[Rutlefan]

Lord of the Rings movie trilogy offers a good analogy supporting the "it depends on the material" take. The first movie benefited greatly from the extended DVD release; the extra material brought it much closer in spirit to Tolkien (it wasn't just a sequence of action scenes). The Two Towers, on the other hand, seemed to work better in the shorter theatrical version; the extended version seemed like Snakes and Arrows to me -- to much stuff that didn't need to be there.

 

On the other hand, I'm sometimes in the mood for more is better no matter, and I would be fine if TLoTR movies were sixteen hours long. Can't say the same for Jackson's butchering of The Hobbit. What a bloated mess. If only Guillermo Del Torro had directed, as it was originally intended. Told in two parts.

 

Anyone ever seen Tarkovsky's 1972 version of Solaris? Maybe my favorite movie of all. There's a scene where a car is driving through a tunnel that must last 12 minutes. Maybe more. If you are in an American Friday night popcorn action movie kind of mood you'd be like WTF is this!? Enough of the tunnel already! But if you sit down with a scotch or five, or whatever you prefer. and submerse yourself in the atmosphere of the movie, the scene becomes .. well, with it being sort of abstract I won't venture to say, you'd have to figure out what it means to you personally, but it works. So, would S&A be better shorter? No doubt. Do I sometimes not care and just want to hear 50+ minutes of Rush? Yes, often. So ... (too much red wine, not scotch, though scotch is starting to sound good).

Edited March 12, 2015 by Rutlefan

[EagleMoon]

Lord of the Rings movie trilogy offers a good analogy supporting the "it depends on the material" take. The first movie benefited greatly from the extended DVD release; the extra material brought it much closer in spirit to Tolkien (it wasn't just a sequence of action scenes). The Two Towers, on the other hand, seemed to work better in the shorter theatrical version; the extended version seemed like Snakes and Arrows to me -- to much stuff that didn't need to be there.

 

On the other hand, I'm sometimes in the mood for more is better no matter, and I would be fine if TLoTR movies were sixteen hours long. Can't say the same for Jackson's butchering of The Hobbit. What a bloated mess. If only Guillermo Del Torro had directed, as it was originally intended. Told in two parts.

 

Anyone ever seen Tarkovsky's 1972 version of Solaris? Maybe my favorite movie of all. There's a scene where a car is driving through a tunnel that must last 12 minutes. Maybe more. If you are in an American Friday night popcorn action movie kind of mood you'd be like WTF is this!? Enough of the tunnel already! But if you sit down with a scotch or five, or whatever you prefer. and submerse yourself in the atmosphere of the movie, the scene becomes .. well, with it being sort of abstract I won't venture to say, you'd have to figure out what it means to you personally, but it works. So, would S&A be better shorter? No doubt. Do I sometimes not care and just want to hear 50+ minutes of Rush? Yes, often. So ... (too much red wine, not scotch, though scotch is starting to sound good).

 

I agree about The Hobbit. That was a shame. But I suppose if you were given told to make three movies out of a 300 page book, what else could you do?

[Rutlefan]

Lord of the Rings movie trilogy offers a good analogy supporting the "it depends on the material" take. The first movie benefited greatly from the extended DVD release; the extra material brought it much closer in spirit to Tolkien (it wasn't just a sequence of action scenes). The Two Towers, on the other hand, seemed to work better in the shorter theatrical version; the extended version seemed like Snakes and Arrows to me -- to much stuff that didn't need to be there.

 

On the other hand, I'm sometimes in the mood for more is better no matter, and I would be fine if TLoTR movies were sixteen hours long. Can't say the same for Jackson's butchering of The Hobbit. What a bloated mess. If only Guillermo Del Torro had directed, as it was originally intended. Told in two parts.

 

Anyone ever seen Tarkovsky's 1972 version of Solaris? Maybe my favorite movie of all. There's a scene where a car is driving through a tunnel that must last 12 minutes. Maybe more. If you are in an American Friday night popcorn action movie kind of mood you'd be like WTF is this!? Enough of the tunnel already! But if you sit down with a scotch or five, or whatever you prefer. and submerse yourself in the atmosphere of the movie, the scene becomes .. well, with it being sort of abstract I won't venture to say, you'd have to figure out what it means to you personally, but it works. So, would S&A be better shorter? No doubt. Do I sometimes not care and just want to hear 50+ minutes of Rush? Yes, often. So ... (too much red wine, not scotch, though scotch is starting to sound good).

 

I agree about The Hobbit. That was a shame. But I suppose if you were given told to make three movies out of a 300 page book, what else could you do?

 

Yeah, the three movies was the studio's idea, apparently. Obvious case of where more is not better. I actually prefer the old Rankin and Bass version; in its quaintness it's more faithful to the book and (IMO) more entertaining.

[EagleMoon]

Lord of the Rings movie trilogy offers a good analogy supporting the "it depends on the material" take. The first movie benefited greatly from the extended DVD release; the extra material brought it much closer in spirit to Tolkien (it wasn't just a sequence of action scenes). The Two Towers, on the other hand, seemed to work better in the shorter theatrical version; the extended version seemed like Snakes and Arrows to me -- to much stuff that didn't need to be there.

 

On the other hand, I'm sometimes in the mood for more is better no matter, and I would be fine if TLoTR movies were sixteen hours long. Can't say the same for Jackson's butchering of The Hobbit. What a bloated mess. If only Guillermo Del Torro had directed, as it was originally intended. Told in two parts.

 

Anyone ever seen Tarkovsky's 1972 version of Solaris? Maybe my favorite movie of all. There's a scene where a car is driving through a tunnel that must last 12 minutes. Maybe more. If you are in an American Friday night popcorn action movie kind of mood you'd be like WTF is this!? Enough of the tunnel already! But if you sit down with a scotch or five, or whatever you prefer. and submerse yourself in the atmosphere of the movie, the scene becomes .. well, with it being sort of abstract I won't venture to say, you'd have to figure out what it means to you personally, but it works. So, would S&A be better shorter? No doubt. Do I sometimes not care and just want to hear 50+ minutes of Rush? Yes, often. So ... (too much red wine, not scotch, though scotch is starting to sound good).

 

I agree about The Hobbit. That was a shame. But I suppose if you were given told to make three movies out of a 300 page book, what else could you do?

 

Yeah, the three movies was the studio's idea, apparently. Obvious case of where more is not better. I actually prefer the old Rankin and Bass version; in its quaintness it's more faithful to the book and (IMO) more entertaining.

 

I remember that!

[Rutlefan]

Like Rush and classic Star Trek, an indispensable part of childhood!

[EagleMoon]

Like Rush and classic Star Trek, an indispensable part of childhood!

 

What would life be like without Star Trek? We might never have had cell phones or beaming...wait....

[Rutlefan]

Desktop PCs and 3 1/2 floppies as well :) .

[LedRush]

Hmm…well, Caress of Steel is about 40 minutes and it sucks. Clockwork Angels, on the other hand, is more than 60 minutes and it's phenomenal. ;)

 

You're the devil.

[LedRush]

Lord of the Rings movie trilogy offers a good analogy supporting the "it depends on the material" take. The first movie benefited greatly from the extended DVD release; the extra material brought it much closer in spirit to Tolkien (it wasn't just a sequence of action scenes). The Two Towers, on the other hand, seemed to work better in the shorter theatrical version; the extended version seemed like Snakes and Arrows to me -- to much stuff that didn't need to be there.

 

On the other hand, I'm sometimes in the mood for more is better no matter, and I would be fine if TLoTR movies were sixteen hours long. Can't say the same for Jackson's butchering of The Hobbit. What a bloated mess. If only Guillermo Del Torro had directed, as it was originally intended. Told in two parts.

 

Anyone ever seen Tarkovsky's 1972 version of Solaris? Maybe my favorite movie of all. There's a scene where a car is driving through a tunnel that must last 12 minutes. Maybe more. If you are in an American Friday night popcorn action movie kind of mood you'd be like WTF is this!? Enough of the tunnel already! But if you sit down with a scotch or five, or whatever you prefer. and submerse yourself in the atmosphere of the movie, the scene becomes .. well, with it being sort of abstract I won't venture to say, you'd have to figure out what it means to you personally, but it works. So, would S&A be better shorter? No doubt. Do I sometimes not care and just want to hear 50+ minutes of Rush? Yes, often. So ... (too much red wine, not scotch, though scotch is starting to sound good).

 

I agree about The Hobbit. That was a shame. But I suppose if you were given told to make three movies out of a 300 page book, what else could you do?

 

Yeah, the three movies was the studio's idea, apparently. Obvious case of where more is not better. I actually prefer the old Rankin and Bass version; in its quaintness it's more faithful to the book and (IMO) more entertaining.

 

I wouldn't go that far. The length isn't the problem with the Hobbit movies. The problem is that mindless action is used, while much of the original is left out and/or altered. It's shocking that you could make 9 hours worth of movies of a small book and still leave out so much of what makes the book great. Also, the tone of the world was established by LOTR, but it needs to be more lighthearted for the Hobbit.

[toymaker]

Lord of the Rings movie trilogy offers a good analogy supporting the "it depends on the material" take. The first movie benefited greatly from the extended DVD release; the extra material brought it much closer in spirit to Tolkien (it wasn't just a sequence of action scenes). The Two Towers, on the other hand, seemed to work better in the shorter theatrical version; the extended version seemed like Snakes and Arrows to me -- to much stuff that didn't need to be there.

 

On the other hand, I'm sometimes in the mood for more is better no matter, and I would be fine if TLoTR movies were sixteen hours long. Can't say the same for Jackson's butchering of The Hobbit. What a bloated mess. If only Guillermo Del Torro had directed, as it was originally intended. Told in two parts.

 

Anyone ever seen Tarkovsky's 1972 version of Solaris? Maybe my favorite movie of all. There's a scene where a car is driving through a tunnel that must last 12 minutes. Maybe more. If you are in an American Friday night popcorn action movie kind of mood you'd be like WTF is this!? Enough of the tunnel already! But if you sit down with a scotch or five, or whatever you prefer. and submerse yourself in the atmosphere of the movie, the scene becomes .. well, with it being sort of abstract I won't venture to say, you'd have to figure out what it means to you personally, but it works. So, would S&A be better shorter? No doubt. Do I sometimes not care and just want to hear 50+ minutes of Rush? Yes, often. So ... (too much red wine, not scotch, though scotch is starting to sound good).

 

I agree about The Hobbit. That was a shame. But I suppose if you were given told to make three movies out of a 300 page book, what else could you do?

 

Yeah, the three movies was the studio's idea, apparently. Obvious case of where more is not better. I actually prefer the old Rankin and Bass version; in its quaintness it's more faithful to the book and (IMO) more entertaining.

 

I wouldn't go that far. The length isn't the problem with the Hobbit movies. The problem is that mindless action is used, while much of the original is left out and/or altered. It's shocking that you could make 9 hours worth of movies of a small book and still leave out so much of what makes the book great. Also, the tone of the world was established by LOTR, but it needs to be more lighthearted for the Hobbit.

In the Rivendell scene, they should have had Rush dressed up like elves and playing Rivendell in the background. So many opportunities wasted.

[Rutlefan]

Lord of the Rings movie trilogy offers a good analogy supporting the "it depends on the material" take. The first movie benefited greatly from the extended DVD release; the extra material brought it much closer in spirit to Tolkien (it wasn't just a sequence of action scenes). The Two Towers, on the other hand, seemed to work better in the shorter theatrical version; the extended version seemed like Snakes and Arrows to me -- to much stuff that didn't need to be there.

 

On the other hand, I'm sometimes in the mood for more is better no matter, and I would be fine if TLoTR movies were sixteen hours long. Can't say the same for Jackson's butchering of The Hobbit. What a bloated mess. If only Guillermo Del Torro had directed, as it was originally intended. Told in two parts.

 

Anyone ever seen Tarkovsky's 1972 version of Solaris? Maybe my favorite movie of all. There's a scene where a car is driving through a tunnel that must last 12 minutes. Maybe more. If you are in an American Friday night popcorn action movie kind of mood you'd be like WTF is this!? Enough of the tunnel already! But if you sit down with a scotch or five, or whatever you prefer. and submerse yourself in the atmosphere of the movie, the scene becomes .. well, with it being sort of abstract I won't venture to say, you'd have to figure out what it means to you personally, but it works. So, would S&A be better shorter? No doubt. Do I sometimes not care and just want to hear 50+ minutes of Rush? Yes, often. So ... (too much red wine, not scotch, though scotch is starting to sound good).

 

I agree about The Hobbit. That was a shame. But I suppose if you were given told to make three movies out of a 300 page book, what else could you do?

 

Yeah, the three movies was the studio's idea, apparently. Obvious case of where more is not better. I actually prefer the old Rankin and Bass version; in its quaintness it's more faithful to the book and (IMO) more entertaining.

 

I wouldn't go that far. The length isn't the problem with the Hobbit movies. The problem is that mindless action is used, while much of the original is left out and/or altered. It's shocking that you could make 9 hours worth of movies of a small book and still leave out so much of what makes the book great. Also, the tone of the world was established by LOTR, but it needs to be more lighthearted for the Hobbit.

 

Del Torro has said that he intended a more lighthearted approach (relative to Jackson's). What stinks is that he backed out in order to make At the Mountains of Madness (when Hobbit production delays caused a conflict) but it looks like AtMoM won't get made because the studio wouldn't go along with Del Torro's insistence on a R rated film; Del Torro wouldn't make the PG13 version the studio wanted. Losers all around unfortunately.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Rutlefan