Album lengths

[Jorge]

When I was a kid I saved my allowance money to buy an imported version of Bad Religion's Suffer. I remember really liking it but feeling somewhat ripped off because it was only 25 minutes long. In 2009, we all threw a fit when the Backspacer length was revealed: 36 minutes. Nowadays, a lot of artists are releasing albums that are well below the 30-minute mark.

Whether it's due to the way streaming culture has altered how we interact with (and perceive) albums, or simply their reduced commercial viability, albums seem to be getting shorter and shorter to the point where the line between an EP and an LP is starting to blur.

How do you feel about these shorter albums? And is there an album length that feels "right"?

[LoathedVermin72]

I appreciate brevity. I love short albums. My ideal album runs about 7-10 tracks and 20-40 minutes. Anything beyond that and you’re really pushing it. There better not be ANY disposable “filler” content if your album is over 40 minutes.

[liebzz]

I appreciate brevity. I love short albums. My ideal album runs about 7-10 tracks and 20-40 minutes. Anything beyond that and you’re really pushing it. There better not be ANY disposable “filler” content if your album is over 40 minutes.

I would say this but that if it is under 40 minutes it better not have filler.

I still think the ideal album is about 45-55 minutes. But it all really depends on the artist. Some bands that stretch their songs out can use more time while bands that don’t break 3:00 minute songs don’t need a million tracks on one album.

[Anders]

I like long albums, but better short and good, than poor and long.

[Blaine Ryan]

I personally tend to have a soft spot for albums that a lot of people would consider overlong (the White Album, Wowee Zowee, a lot of Tom Waits albums, etc.). I like hearing artists explore different avenues of their sound and try different things. I like weird, off-kilter experiments. I think these albums have a lot of soul in them, and it kind of makes me sad that they might eventually become obsolete.

That said, there's a lot to be said for being concise, too. I can appreciate both sides. It's all about the content for me, I guess.

[VinylGuy]

Music is a distraction these days.
Nobody want to spent time listening to an 80 minutes album.

[washing machine]

Shorter is better, yes. Though I imagine that's more of an age thing than anything else. I miss the magic of losing an entire hour or more getting lost in an album, but there's seldom time for that anymore.

The ones that I can still do that with, like Daydream Nation or Black Foliage, aren't going anywhere. I have no desire to find new music like that, though.

I think Schmilco is probably the perfect recent example for me of a good album length with no filler.

[guestT]

9-12 tracks, 42-48 minutes. Some short songs, some long songs, most songs ~4 minutes. Basically Yield.

[Jorge]

Also, where is the line between EP and album? 20 minutes?

[VinylGuy]

I would say 30 minutes for the EP....More than that, LP.

[LoathedVermin72]

Plenty of LPs are under 30 minutes. Especially punk and noise rock. It’s really the band that decides if it’s an album or not.

[bodysnatcher]

Also, where is the line between EP and album? 20 minutes?

i don't even know if the labels are applicable anymore? unless it's physical media. EP's were originally a record label term for 7" records that generally contained 2-3 songs per side (which varied depending on 33 vs 45rpm and lathe cutting). And like most terms it got morphed over time, to eventually just mean "more than a single, less than an album". It seems now the term "EP" is vaguely being used for companion releases to albums where an artist releases 3-5 b-sides that were written for an album that was released 3-12 months prior. It seems to be less about length, and more about the purpose. like little album skin tags.

[washing machine]

Now that you brought it up, EPs are maybe the perfect format. Even in my youth, I think I listened to certain EPs more than albums. All about managing expectations at the record store. Broken and Radiohead's My Iron Lung EP were huge in my collection, but I think that if they had been marketed as albums I would have felt ripped. Paradoxically, Bad Witch is shorter than Broken and also has less tracks, but I've got no qualm with it being considered an "album." Probably because streaming makes it a non issue.

[VinylGuy]

I got why Reznor wanted Bad Witch to be consider an album. It was weird that he labeled those three releases as EPs and then said, no this one is an album.

[washing machine]

Maybe it was a contractual obligation or something.

[bada]

This is an interesting topic. Back in the day albums were usually around 8-10 songs but artists also released stuff more frequently. Weren't the Beatles considered over because they once went 8 months between albums? Then when CDs got popular it seemed like they felt the need to fill all 80 minutes or whatever and album cycles got longer. I imagine if someone puts out an album every 3-4 years they feel like they should give people as much as they can. While its nice to have everything especially if you love that particular artist I'd rather have a tight cohesive album. 8-10 songs. Save the rest for B-Sides people love tracking that stuff down anyways.

[VinylGuy]

the album stuff? He said it was an album because it was easier to find for Spotify.

Basically nobody cares about the format these days. Music its not important really.

[washing machine]

Remember when Radiohead hinted that they were done with albums and were going to release 2-3 EPs every album cycle after In Rainbows was released? I might be getting that statement wrong, but I vaguely recall that as being a thing.

[E.H. Ruddock]

the album stuff? He said it was an album because it was easier to find for Spotify.

Basically nobody cares about the format these days. Music its not important really.

Can you please answer our questions in A&E about your Signs movie comment?

[bodysnatcher]

This is an interesting topic. Back in the day albums were usually around 8-10 songs but artists also released stuff more frequently. Weren't the Beatles considered over because they once went 8 months between albums? Then when CDs got popular it seemed like they felt the need to fill all 80 minutes or whatever and album cycles got longer. I imagine if someone puts out an album every 3-4 years they feel like they should give people as much as they can. While its nice to have everything especially if you love that particular artist I'd rather have a tight cohesive album. 8-10 songs. Save the rest for B-Sides people love tracking that stuff down anyways.

I think the CD era is really what redefined albums, and probably created the idea of the album that most of us are used to. because you're definitely correct, LPs were generally a bit shorter and tighter, and releases were sequenced closer together. Mostly because of format limitations, and the costs involved with creating a 2xLP album (second discs, larger packaging, etc). It wasn't uncommon for artists to legitimately record 2 albums worth of material in a single studio session, and then the labels would garner two full release cycles out of that time.

It's generally human pattern to take full advantage of new technologies and push them to near overkill, so when 80-minute cds were invented, labels and bands both went BONKERS to take advantage of the new format. costs were cut because it was cheaper to make the album, so some extra money could be pushed into the studio budget. you started seeing longer periods of time between albums because bands were releasing 12-15 songs at a time, instead of 8-10.

If anything, I feel like streaming is moving the idea of an album back to it's original meaning.