Way too long CDs of the CD-age

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

You all know, back in the vinyl era, artists were used to keep to vinyl records that could contain maybe 45-50 minutes of music at most (60 minutes if they were compromising the sound quality).

Then, along comes the CD, with a playtime of 80 minutes. And a lot of artists would really embrace the "artistic freedom" this gave them.

There was only one problem: An album with 12 good songs is considerably better than an album with 12 good songs and 6 shitty ones in addition.

So, this is where we come up with 60 minutes+ CDs from the 90s that would have benefited from being 40-50 minutes long instead:

Starting off with these ones:
http://www.halb.de/full/201850.jpg http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00002660H.03._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:34 (twenty years ago)

An album with 12 good songs is considerably better than an album with 12 good songs and 6 shitty ones in addition.

No it isn't. That's just vinyl-ist dogma. Death to rockist subtractivism! Program the 6 shitty ones out, Geir. Not everyone will agree on what the 6 shitty ones are, after all, putting the other 6 on (particularly in markets where they don't have singles) is good for the fans.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:37 (twenty years ago)

You know, we are some rockists among us that prefer to listen to an album from the beginning to the end, rather than just single tracks scattered together :)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:38 (twenty years ago)

40-45 minutes, not 60, is about the max, quality-wise, for a vinyl pressing, is it not? the Prince example is a bad one, he's been putting put expansive albums, on and off (and more usually on) since day one. it's got nothing to do with the CD age, it's just that prince does a double album when he wants to and always has.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:49 (twenty years ago)

CD-age or no, emancipation would still have been six slabs of vinyl if Prince had wanted it to be.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:51 (twenty years ago)

edward, do you think artists should release everything they ever make and let fans pick and choose and make their own album(s)?

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:53 (twenty years ago)

janet jackson - we just want songs - nothing else.
can we ban reprises ?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000002GFN/ref=pd_bxgy_img_b/002-4675878-1746406?%5Fencoding=UTF8

― retrogurl, Friday, 13 January 2006 01:58 (twenty years ago)

But Geir, why 45 minutes as an ideal attention span? Why not 14? Or 300? In other words, you'll have a hard time arguing that there's anything natural about vinyl length albums - it's all what you get used to ("it's all culture/technology...maaaan").

― paulhw (paulhw), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:03 (twenty years ago)

edward, do you think artists should release everything they ever make and let fans pick and choose and make their own album(s)?

Not quite. But saying that 12 tracks is the optimum length is frankly stupid. Not everyone listens the same way - some people are quite happy to listen to an 80 minute album. Things that are obviously not up to standard (i.e. unfinished songs, really bad things) need to go, but I dispute the idea that everyone agrees what's not up to scratch, and if an artist is comfortable putting out 18 songs, then I say let them. I favour erring on the side of inclusion. Makes the CD better value, and stops really great songs that someone might really love being lost to history. Your junk may be my treasured favourite and vice versa.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:05 (twenty years ago)

Oh and paulhw OTFM.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:05 (twenty years ago)

how is that a point against geir? no, there's nothing in our dna that preprograms one to prefer a 45 album. so? it's a preference, and most preferences are largely dictated by past experiences. doesn't make them any less valid.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:08 (twenty years ago)

AENIMA

― hairy manback, Friday, 13 January 2006 02:08 (twenty years ago)

xpost

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:08 (twenty years ago)

where did he say 12 tracks is the optimum length?

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:12 (twenty years ago)

But Geir, why 45 minutes as an ideal attention span? Why not 14? Or 300?

you're stupid

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:14 (twenty years ago)

go to bed

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:15 (twenty years ago)

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:18 (twenty years ago)

Oops, Geir mentioned 12 in the first post. The style of music Geir likes is highly melodic pop/rock - songs around the four minute park (whereas, say, a chart-dance-pop luvver like me likes osngs around 3:30), 45-50 minutes also implies 12 songs. It's implied.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:22 (twenty years ago)

you mean it was assumed.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:24 (twenty years ago)

i mean if he said an album of 12 good songs is considerably better than an album of 18 good songs or all 60+ min albums could benefit from being 40-50 instead, it'd be a different story.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:27 (twenty years ago)

But "good", who's to judge? If the artist things the 18 songs are good and Geir thinks 6 are shit, why should people truncate?

It's the Nellie McKay debate, innit.

Assumed, with very good reasons, knowing Geir's taste.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:33 (twenty years ago)

or a morton feldman fan who's looking at a 12 track album lasting about, oooh.... 20 hours?

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:34 (twenty years ago)

well why not get a million monkeys in a (very large) studio and see what comes out of it?
who's to judge? half of being a great music maker (or painter or chef or basketball player) is 90% quality control. the artist should know which songs aren't quite up to snuff, or at least surround himself with people who can offer good advice on it (which happens to be the remaining 10% of being great).

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:39 (twenty years ago)

at some point there has to be some editing, and i don't see how geir's 50 mins/12 songs is any more arbitrary than your 80 mins/18 songs or whatever. that 80 minute album was culled from a larger set of songs. who decided those songs selected were "good"? who decided that artist was "good"? who decided to manufacture that album? who decided to sell it? what if they're idea of good isn't the same as mine? what then?????!!!?? clearly the only answer is to start rounding up monkeys.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:44 (twenty years ago)

their, too!

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:45 (twenty years ago)

all of them.

― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:45 (twenty years ago)

I didn't say 80 minutes was ideal. I said artists should release whatever they like.

Okay, you've got 18 songs. You like all of them. If you put them all out, everyone is happy because people who think 6 of them are crap can just program them out or burn a CD with a revised track listing. I note that everyone who believes in subtractivism probably knows how to work an MP3 rip or a CD burner.

If they put 12 out and leave the other 6 to rot, they might be jettisoning a minor classic they just don't like, pleasing the 12-trackers, but at a, well, "risk", if yo like.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:47 (twenty years ago)

Movies are usually 80m - 120m. How about that?

― caspar (caspar), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:49 (twenty years ago)

that being said, when i make a cd i always feel the need to full up the whole 80 mins and will throw on sub-par stuff just cause.
xposts

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:50 (twenty years ago)

There is an indexical relation here (that has long since historically passed): the duration of a live performance (which was as a result of both the players' desired artistic length / their stamina / and that of the audience). This may have been an hour or two. BUT in music halls, music lasted all day: "concerts" weren't by one "band" in the media-identity centered way we think of it. IE, a music hall would have music for 12 hours or more.
So along with the idea of recording came the idea of ownership of recordings. This, in hand, was dictated by technology: you could only claim ownership over something that was sold as a unit. That unit was, first, around 20 minutes, then 45, then 80, and is now defined onbly by how much a group puts out (ie, can buy a back catalog of mp3s, which may run towards 12 hours or more).
As for the "artistic statement" (a collection meant to be listened to as one). it seems entirely arbitrary: I couldn't imagine stopping after one (60 min 0CD) disk of Chopin's Nocturnes. At the same time, I wouldn't want Wire's "Chairs Missing" to run for 80 minutes...

― paulhw (paulhw), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:51 (twenty years ago)

but as geir demonstrates, there's a risk of including those 6 too.
my cd burner doesn't work. even when it did, i didn't like to make my own personal version of every cd I own. I don't like buying a value meal and throwing away the fries, either.
since you made a reference to rockists, i get to label you an anti-rockist, and wonder why you can't see the beauty and utility of a well-crafted album.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:56 (twenty years ago)

How does Geir demonstrate it?

Why can't you see that beauty and utility are often in the eye of the beholder?

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:57 (twenty years ago)

it seems entirely arbitrary:

that's cause it is! no one here (besides jess) said there's never been a good 80 min album. just that there have been some ones that were marred by poor quality control.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 02:59 (twenty years ago)

he demonstrates it by starting this thread.
if by often you mean always, then yes duh. i don't see how that fact leads to the argument that an album can never be bloated.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:01 (twenty years ago)

what's with the nude spock routine?

― jim p. irrelevant (electricsound), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:01 (twenty years ago)

Your bloat is my value.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:02 (twenty years ago)

I agree with geir, be here now is about 12 songs too long.

― chocolate orgone accumulator (haitch), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:02 (twenty years ago)

As a matter of fact, the Electronica genre, with its lengthy tracks, is among the genres that have handled the 80 minute format rather well. I am also quite certain that had Genesis and Yes been at their prime in 1994 rather than 1974, they would probably have been utilzing the 80 minute CD format in a great way as well. (In fact, the average Genesis or Yes album from that era was usually more than 50 minutes, which was rare for a single vinyl album at the time)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:02 (twenty years ago)

I guess, if the album is sequenced/mixed so that all the songs flow into each other you may have a point. But otherwise, an extra song or two you don't like DOES NOT MAKE THE ONES YOU LIKE WORSE.

I agree with geir, be here now is about 12 songs too long.
lol.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:04 (twenty years ago)

I can see how it can be your value, that that is the way you consume music, so why then can you not see how it can be a detriment to someone like geir? why is your way right and his stupid?

an extra song or two you don't like DOES NOT MAKE THE ONES YOU LIKE WORSE.

replace those "you"s with "I"s and it's a true statement.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:06 (twenty years ago)

cause otherwise that just sounds like mp3ist dogma

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:07 (twenty years ago)

how is geir holding up that coke-psychosis oasis record as an example help? it was ALL overblown bullshit, shorter tracks or the removal of a couple of songs entirely wouldn't have made it better. some decent songs and noel gallagher not sticking half of fucking colombia up his nose might've though.

― chocolate orgone accumulator (haitch), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:10 (twenty years ago)

I think that's an example of the subjective taste we're talking about.

THis is an interesting topic. I am for more instead of less in general, but I also think the impact of albums has been diluted by the CD length issue. Those extra tracks used to be B-sides.

The newest Devendra Banhart album could have used a little pruning, imho.

Related thread:
the pure essence of an album

― sleeve (sleeve), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:30 (twenty years ago)

Shorter tracks would have made "Be Here Now" better. Removing "Fade In-Out" and "It's Getting Better Man" completely also would've.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:31 (twenty years ago)

Because, Oops, Geir can make his reduced form from my maximalist one. I cannot create my preferred maximalist, inclusive album from a reduced one created in his image. Geir's prefernce destroys mine, mine does not destroy his.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:32 (twenty years ago)

I guess, if the album is sequenced/mixed so that all the songs flow into each other

I like that way of putting together an album. Sadly, the only genres that tend to do it regularly these days are hip-hop and R&B, two genres that I absolutely despise :)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:33 (twenty years ago)

not if he doesn't have a cd burner he can't. and i'm willing to bet more people don't have access to one than do.
what if an artist put up his discards online for download? you could have your bloated songfest, and geir could have his svelte masterpiece.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:38 (twenty years ago)

(sidestepping the fact that it's the artist who shapes the album, not geir or another fan)

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:40 (twenty years ago)

Well, personally I would say, call the weaker tracks "bonus tracks" and put them at the end of the CD. Means the full album listener may just stop after the "official" last track.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:40 (twenty years ago)

Holy crap, how did this potentially fun thread get derailed by irritating and useless pomo pseudo-thought? Perhaps the thread could continue while everyone else finishes up their Media Studies assignment. I nominate:

ihttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000000WF0/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/104-0723558-9241552?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=5174&s=music

ihttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B00000DD54/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/104-0723558-9241552?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=5174&s=music

P.S.: The point Geir is making is not that there is some essential ideal album length, but that artists were used to making vinyl-length records and then expanded to making CD-length records with sometimes disastrous results. It has nothing to do with some idea about essential listening preferences, it has to do with the history of the format. That's why it's albums from the 90s and the CD age.

― mrjosh (mrjosh), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:43 (twenty years ago)

Albums have usually become shorter lately btw. At least within the "rock" genre.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:44 (twenty years ago)

Goddamn! I hate it when I do that.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000000WF0.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000DD54.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― mrjosh (mrjosh), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:45 (twenty years ago)

Okay, Mrjosh, but where does Oasis fit into that? They've been around in the CD age entirely!

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:45 (twenty years ago)

Btw, "Urban Hymns" could have been two albums, released simultaneously, in completely contrasting musical styles. I would have loved the one with "Bitter Sweet Symphony", "Sonnet" and "The Drugs Don't Work" on it, while I would have been completely uninterested in the other one. :)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:46 (twenty years ago)

Okay, Mrjosh, but where does Oasis fit into that? They've been around in the CD age entirely!

Every single one of their most important influences were around in the vinyl age though.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:47 (twenty years ago)

Yes, but their first album was a lot briefer. The sprawl in their case came with grander vision, even though there aren't many good songs on "Be Here Now" (I quite like about four or five, mind). Anyway, I'll shut up now. The idea of giving discards for download would also be an acceptable solution, as would "bonus tracks" on the end - why should the Japanese have all the fun? That keeps everyone happy.

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:49 (twenty years ago)

Well, to Geir's point above (about shorter records, which seems sort of anecdotally true), I'd think that it was still cool in 1997 to make a HUGE album. Like Mellon Collie say, which still seemed connected to something like The Wall. That seems like part of the vinyl aesthetic, maybe. But it's definitely not cool anymore - like with Kate Bush's crazy short new double album.

But, in any case - my R.E.M. example wins. Of course, they dodged the same ball with New Adventures, which is awesome. And that proves ... something.

― mrjosh (mrjosh), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:52 (twenty years ago)

The funny thing about Oasis is they had enough great songs at the time that "Morning Glory" could easily have been an excellent 80 minute CD (or even double CD). But they put those songs on various b-sides and didn't release a megamanic CD until "Be Here Now", at which time the songs were a lot weaker.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:53 (twenty years ago)

wow are you going for the ilm condescending snob title or something, mr josh?

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:56 (twenty years ago)

oh now i see your email address. continue on.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 03:58 (twenty years ago)

I, for one, lament, on a daily basis, the missing double-album that was "Morning Glory."

Couldn't it have been a maxi-single or something?

― paulhw (paulhw), Friday, 13 January 2006 04:01 (twenty years ago)

Hey, you weren't exactly mr. nice guy either oops! Sorry, but I was *enraged*!

I don't know, it just gets me down when we have this weird orthodoxy around here, especially when it discourages people from posting / participating in unassuming, potentially entertaining threads like this one.

― mrjosh (mrjosh), Friday, 13 January 2006 04:07 (twenty years ago)

guns and roses could've made a brilliant 99 track but it wwas 2 over - indulgent cd called "use your illusion".today i use my cd-shredder.

― retrokid, Friday, 13 January 2006 04:10 (twenty years ago)

yes, it's the "weird orthodoxy" that discourages (phantom?) people from posting, and not snide, condescending comments.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 13 January 2006 04:18 (twenty years ago)

Geir in arbitrary music formalism shockah.

― js (honestengine), Friday, 13 January 2006 06:10 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.