Giuseppe Zangara 0 Report post Posted May 31, 2004 If you're gonna make your album 70+ minutes long, you really need to be able to justify that extreme length. This happens far too often in hip hop; Kanye West's The College Dropout would be great if it were missing about 20 minutes. Also, Ludacris' Word of Mouf was a fine record, but was burdened by about a half-hour of treacle in its 80 minute running time. Quality, not quantity, ya know? fake edit: This thread was inspired by my finally listening to Modest Mouse's absurdly long The Lonesome Crowded West from start to finish today. I'd always heard bits and pieces of it through other people, but today was the day I tackled the behemoth in its entirety. Yikes. I may've mentioned indie and hip hop in this post, but this thread is open to all walks of life. Does anyone here feel like they're being ripped off if they spend money on a CD that runs less than, say, 40 minutes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted May 31, 2004 I totally agree with you on College Dropout. They should have just cut out all of the skits, as they weren't necessarily funny. And the last song where he just rants and tells his life story was OK, but just dragged on too long. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted May 31, 2004 fake edit: This thread was inspired by my finally listening to Modest Mouse's absurdly long The Lonesome Crowded West from start to finish today. I'd always heard bits and pieces of it through other people, but today was the day I tackled the behemoth in its entirety. Yikes. I love that album dearly, but the one real danger zone is "Trucker's Atlas." The song goes on for about 12 minutes, if I recall, and for the last 8 or 9 it pretty much just rides on the same bass groove. Worst, it hits right around the 50-minute point, when any album can start to get dire. I think pretty much everything else on there works in the length it's at. I may've mentioned indie and hip hop in this post, but this thread is open to all walks of life. Does anyone here feel like they're being ripped off if they spend money on a CD that runs less than, say, 40 minutes? Sometimes. Occasionally I question why I'm buying a 30-minute album that I already have downloaded, but usually that only happens if I'm on the fence about the album's quality anyway or if it's ridiculously over-priced. The Beatles' Revolver is just over 30 and Prince's Dirty Mind only just hits 30, but I think they're both perfect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Giuseppe Zangara 0 Report post Posted May 31, 2004 Re: Kanye West Whenever I listen to that album, I always stop right when he begins the TRL-style life story on "Last Call." I've only made it all the way through that track once; I personally don't give a shit what kind of shoes Jay-Z was wearing when West told him he, Kanye, could rap. Re: Modest Mouse True about "Trucker's Atlas." It's not a bad song, but working against is 1) poor placement in an already overstuffed album, and 2) it's an overstuffed album. But now I'm back to wondering why this length issue is more prevelant in rap. Nas' Illmatic is just under 40 minutes, and it's widely considered one of greatest albums of the genre. Why can't more artists realize it's not how much you put on there, but what you put on there? Is catering to a fanbase that demands as much as possible for their money really worth it? I doubt making something 50 minutes instead of 80 minutes will put a dent in record sales. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted May 31, 2004 Jim Morrison's original vision for the Song(just one song mind you) "The Lizard King" was 40+ min. It was an album unto itself had they gone through with it in the studio. As it is they just played bits and pieces of it during live venues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted May 31, 2004 Didn't "Load" by Metallica go to the very last second available on the CD. I heard they had to cut off part of "Outlaw Torn" to fit it on there. EDIT: The official running time for "Load" is 78.58 mins. It doesn't really seem that long when you're listening to it. For me atleast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted May 31, 2004 michael jackson's last 2 real albums ('dangerous' and 'invincible') are so guilty of this. 'invincible' was a wonderful 40-minute album trapped inside a LOT of substandard material. 'dangerous' was better track-for-track, but he tried to hard to make every song an epic sound poem and there's no reason whatsoever to let a song like "will you be there" or "who is it" to go on for 6-7 minutes. andre padded himself out too much on 'the love below' as well. ditto for corgan on 'melon collie'. i won't touch prince's 'emancipation', as i've never actually heard it, but i'd be very surprised if he actually pulled it off. i think dylan could've used some cutting on 'time out of mind'. "million miles" and "trying to get to heaven" sound too much alike, and neither really takes the album anywhere. i'm frankly more excited by a 30-40 minute album now than an hour-plus one. i love that i can fit 'surfer rosa' AND 'doolittle' on one burned disc. i can do the same with 'revolver' and 'sgt pepper'...come to think of it, with any two pre-white album beatles records. so, yeah...there's exceptions (i.e., tool), but less is generally more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1234-5678 0 Report post Posted May 31, 2004 Jim Morrison's original vision for the Song(just one song mind you) "The Lizard King" was 40+ min. It was an album unto itself had they gone through with it in the studio. As it is they just played bits and pieces of it during live venues. Don't mean to be a dick Frig, but it was called "Celebration of The Lizard." They just released the studio version recently on one of their many "greatest hits", "absolute best" or whatever other name they can come up with for consistently repackaging the same material and selling it. I haven't heard it yet. The live versions I have heard of it were pretty damn good though. One was on their live release "Absolutely Live" and the other was in their box set on the "Live From New York" CD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B. Brian Brunzell 0 Report post Posted June 1, 2004 Type O Negative are masters of quality over quantity. Just about all of their albums teeter on 80 minutes, and I never have trouble listening to them from beginning to end. The filler stuff doesn't stick out as being a waste of time, and the actual songs, many of which are over 8 or 9 minutes, don't get overly repetitive. Peter and Co. have not disappointed me once in the dozen years that I've been listeing to them, so I give them a "thumbs up" on making incredibly long albums. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLAGIARISM! 0 Report post Posted June 1, 2004 Some albums feel long at 50 minutes, nevermind 80. On the other hand, I can listen to tool. RFTC's Live from Camp X-Ray is a 26 minute studio album, and the length feels about spot on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dr. Wrestlingphysics Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Anyone listened to Sandinista! by The Clash all the way through?! Released as a triple album (in the olden days) it contains perhaps one albums worth of decent songs. It gets hard going whist listening to it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 My goal is to perform a 45-minute song. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Giuseppe Zangara 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Why. It's not like you'd be the first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stahl 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Dream Theater puts on good 70+ minute albums on a consistant basis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 my goal is to record a 45-minute song in 14 parts. the parts would have nothing to do with each other musically or thematically, and i'd have 2-3 seconds of silence between each part. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted June 3, 2004 I'd rather record 45 songs 2-3 seconds in length, with no song breaks whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murmuring Beast 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 George Harrison's All Things Must Pass is an extremely long album, over 3 CDS long is the re-issue. 105 minutes, all in, I think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted June 3, 2004 I actually have that on vinyl someplace. I remember it being in a thick black box. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Only The Strong Survive 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Metallica's "St. Anger" is way too long. All of the songs could be shortened to three minutes, but they're seven minutes because every part is done twice and every bridge is about half of the song. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Real F'n Show Report post Posted June 4, 2004 Dream Theater puts on good 70+ minute albums on a consistant basis. I agree. I have Metroplis Pt. 2: Scenes from a Memory, and I recommend it to anyone who is a fan of good music. The whole CD tells a story through the music with a cast of characters and everything. It's the only Dream Theater album I've heard, but it's great. I may have to get some of their other albums soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted June 4, 2004 Why. It's not like you'd be the first. I'm getting damn tired of you, Incandenza. I didn't say I was going for a record, I just wanted to do it. The longest I had done prior to now has been around 20. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted June 4, 2004 ditto for corgan on 'melon collie'. Fuck yeah. The album just wanders on and on. You would have thought that someone would have stopped Corgan from recording every musical idea that popped into his head. I've had the album for what, nine years now, and never have had the strength to listen to it in its entirety. I used to love Smashing Pumpkins, but that album totally turned me off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted June 4, 2004 The Eminem Show seemed pretty fucking long also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLAGIARISM! 0 Report post Posted June 4, 2004 I find myself skipping through some albums just because I get addicted to a couple of songs. They're not overlong, I'm just weak. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
