Are DT albums too long?

[Sketchy]

As someone who grew up on Pink Floyd and Genesis, I personally like the dynamic of old vinyl length albums, but that said, only a few DT albums feel too long. It all depends on the album.

[orcus116]

i dont understand how an album can be too long.

I don't believe for a second that you've listened to an album and never thought "man they should've chopped a song or two off". Maybe I'm tough to please but I rarely find an album that's north of 60 minutes that has 100% worthwhile material on it. There's almost always at least a song or a lengthy section or handful of sections that feel like they should've been edited out of the final product. There is definitely such thing as too much material on an album because it can ruin the flow of an otherwise great listening experience.

What's you're describing sounds to me like an issue of consistency in quality, not length.  There may be a correlation between length and consistency, but it still seems me that albums are ruined by the presence of weaker songs, not by the presence of too many good songs.

True, though when you're floating up near 70-80 minutes I find it difficult for any band to not have a clunker or too. The margin of error is very high. I personally can't think of more than a handful of albums I've heard near that length that don't stumble in some form or another.

[Priest of Syrinx]

True, though when you're floating up near 70-80 minutes I find it difficult for any band to not have a clunker or too. The margin of error is very high. I personally can't think of more than a handful of albums I've heard near that length that don't stumble in some form or another.

Here's the thing, though... there are DT songs that I'm not particularly fond of, so IMO those albums would be "better" if those tunes were excised.  However, just because I don't like those songs doesn't mean I feel that they are filler, I simply don't like them, but I can understand and appreciate that there are many people who do like those songs.  Because of that, I would rather DT include the songs I don't care for if other people like them.

[Adami]

Okay people, I will answer the question objectively and definitively.



Yes, Dream Theater albums recently are too long. However they're only too long by about 10-15 seconds.

[Ruba]

This poll shows that there are 8.7% of the people on this forum, at this time....


... are simply wrong.

There are no wrong opinions...

...except the opinions, that criticize Awake  .

[rush-signals]

The album length is fine if you cut out the musical wankering! I get so tired of those 2 minutes endless back and forth noodling crap!

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

The album length is fine if you cut out the musical wankering! I get so tired of those 2 minutes endless back and forth noodling crap!

Now settle down....think about what you say and where you are.....on a prog forum! 

"Musical Wanking and noodling crap" is a big part of the DT sound and i would say prog in general!


Edit: Yeah well i saw some fail in my english......!

[obscure]

lolyes.. isn't that ironic that it's coming from a poster who happens to have 'Rush' in his name...   

I can DEFINITELY say I have never listed to any album and thought it was too long.  Ever.  If it's good, I want more of it.  If it's not good, I wish it were better, not shorter.

oh yeah!

[hefdaddy42]

i dont understand how an album can be too long.

I don't believe for a second that you've listened to an album and never thought "man they should've chopped a song or two off". Maybe I'm tough to please but I rarely find an album that's north of 60 minutes that has 100% worthwhile material on it. There's almost always at least a song or a lengthy section or handful of sections that feel like they should've been edited out of the final product. There is definitely such thing as too much material on an album because it can ruin the flow of an otherwise great listening experience.

What's you're describing sounds to me like an issue of consistency in quality, not length.  There may be a correlation between length and consistency, but it still seems me that albums are ruined by the presence of weaker songs, not by the presence of too many good songs.

True, though when you're floating up near 70-80 minutes I find it difficult for any band to not have a clunker or too. The margin of error is very high. I personally can't think of more than a handful of albums I've heard near that length that don't stumble in some form or another.

Perhaps, but if they settled on an arbitrary limit of, say 55 minutes, that doesn't mean that they would pick YOUR favorite 55 minutes. 

[AngelBack]

DT only has one song that is too long.  POW is about 6:00 too long.

[Scorpion]

DT only has one song that is too long.  TDEN is about 8:53 too long.

FTFY

[Jaffa]

True, though when you're floating up near 70-80 minutes I find it difficult for any band to not have a clunker or too. The margin of error is very high. I personally can't think of more than a handful of albums I've heard near that length that don't stumble in some form or another.

I do understand what you're saying, I think.  It's just that to me, the same thing can be true of shorter albums.  If an album has ten songs, each of them three to four minutes long, and all of them are terrible, the album isn't 'ten songs too long', it is 'bad'. 

Now, to be fair, I don't think the OP is talking about the same idea.  I think H is saying that even when he does like all the songs, he can get tired of listening to too much.  Which is fair enough, but seems to me to be an issue of attention span more than anything else. 

[rush-signals]

lolyes.. isn't that ironic that it's coming from a poster who happens to have 'Rush' in his name...   

But at least Rush's moments are tasteful and add to the song and just don't sound like noodling/wankering to take up time and space. One example, I LOVE LNF, but from 1:59 to 2:30 they could have done without. That's just one example and not a long one. Some I like, some just go on too long. Maybe if it wasn't hyper speed and tasteful like other songs I'd enjoy their musical moments more. Just sayin........

Not once have I ever thought of any of Rush's songs to be filled with nonsense, can't say that with DT. Still a fan, just somethings rub me wrong even as a prog fan since the mid-70's and a longtime guitar player myself.

[theseoafs]

lolyes.. isn't that ironic that it's coming from a poster who happens to have 'Rush' in his name...   

But at least Rush's moments are tasteful and add to the song and just don't sound like noodling/wankering to take up time and space. One example, I LOVE LNF, but from 1:59 to 2:30 they could have done without.

Well, they could have "done without" making the entire album at all. Do you mean to tell me that the tickle section doesn't even make you crack a smile?

[Adami]

One of the only songs that I would seriously edit the hell out of (as opposed to just skipping the song) is This Dying Soul.

Seriously, that entire ending is pointless.

[theGonz]

One of the only songs that I would seriously edit the hell out of (as opposed to just skipping the song) is This Dying Soul.

Seriously, that entire ending is pointless.

Lol. The last minute is there just to be insane, just like the dualing in LNF. Wankery for the sake of wankery. Which I love 

And no, there albums aren't too long.

[Nekov]

Octavarium is 51 minutes longer than it should be. The rest are Ok

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

lolyes.. isn't that ironic that it's coming from a poster who happens to have 'Rush' in his name...   

But at least Rush's moments are tasteful and add to the song and just don't sound like noodling/wankering to take up time and space. One example, I LOVE LNF, but from 1:59 to 2:30 they could have done without. That's just one example and not a long one. Some I like, some just go on too long. Maybe if it wasn't hyper speed and tasteful like other songs I'd enjoy their musical moments more. Just sayin........

Not once have I ever thought of any of Rush's songs to be filled with nonsense, can't say that with DT. Still a fan, just somethings rub me wrong even as a prog fan since the mid-70's and a longtime guitar player myself.

In all respect but......are you freakin kidding me? Thats one of the coolest and craziest parts DT has ever written!

The tickle section FTW!! 

[AngelBack]

Octavarium is 51 minutes longer than it should be. The rest are Ok

For me Octavarium is about -20 minutes too long....

[Ruba]

lolyes.. isn't that ironic that it's coming from a poster who happens to have 'Rush' in his name...   

But at least Rush's moments are tasteful and add to the song and just don't sound like noodling/wankering to take up time and space. One example, I LOVE LNF, but from 1:59 to 2:30 they could have done without. That's just one example and not a long one. Some I like, some just go on too long. Maybe if it wasn't hyper speed and tasteful like other songs I'd enjoy their musical moments more. Just sayin........

Not once have I ever thought of any of Rush's songs to be filled with nonsense, can't say that with DT. Still a fan, just somethings rub me wrong even as a prog fan since the mid-70's and a longtime guitar player myself.

In all respect but......are you freakin kidding me? Thats one of the coolest and craziest parts DT has ever written!

The tickle section FTW!! 

Worst section in any DT song. Ever.

[Scorpion]

Even considering the "DAY AFTER DAY.... ROARRRRR!!!!!!" stuff? I'm not that much of a fan of the tickle section, true, but that is imho the single worst musical moment of DT's history, along with the whole of TDEN.

[Jaq]

Are DT albums too long?

Hmm. I am a proponent that less sometimes is more; after all, the modern 79 minute album, in the 1970s, would have been two vinyl albums around 20 minutes a side. Double albums used to be a huge, massive statement by a band; now in terms of content they happen all the time. If you shave a minute and a half off of Pink Floyd's The Wall, arguably the most "double album" ever, it'd fit on one CD. Some of the greatest rock albums ever are under 40 minutes long. Less sometimes is more, you know?

 As for Dream Theater and their albums being too long, the only one of theirs I actually think that about is BCSL; while I am sure the band didn't actively say, during the songwriting, "okay, we have seventy-nine minutes to fill, let's go about it!" it sure felt like they did. Given that DT is predisposed to writing longer songs, of course their albums are either going to be over 75 minutes long or only have five or six songs. BCSL's problem for me was it was six songs AND over 75 minutes long. A band sometimes needs to ask itself if it SHOULD fill up an entire CD.

[orcus116]

Or if you're Portnoy you ask your fans.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

I don't see why they feel so obligated to fill every album. So I'll say yes.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Oh and the tickle section kicks ass. It was different and wacky.

[Ruba]

Even considering the "DAY AFTER DAY.... ROARRRRR!!!!!!" stuff? I'm not that much of a fan of the tickle section, true, but that is imho the single worst musical moment of DT's history, along with the whole of TDEN.

It at least has some sort of sensible melodies. Yeah, I was "WTF" when I last time listened to ANTR, but it isn't even close to "ticklewankadidy"-thingy in badness.

[Scorpion]

Even considering the "DAY AFTER DAY.... ROARRRRR!!!!!!" stuff? I'm not that much of a fan of the tickle section, true, but that is imho the single worst musical moment of DT's history, along with the whole of TDEN.

It at least has some sort of sensible melodies. Yeah, I was "WTF" when I last time listened to ANTR, but it isn't even close to "ticklewankadidy"-thingy in badness.

Melodies? I find the tickle section more melodic than that. Erratic and a bit spastic, yes, but ANTR doesn't have any melodies in this part - at least, none that are any redeeming features of this part.

[theseoafs]

I'm confused by the argument. The tickle section has a melody (albeit "erratic and spastic"), but "day after day" does not.

[lumpy33]

the albums can never be too long.  only double lp's from now on!!

[Scorpion]

I'm confused by the argument. The tickle section has a melody (albeit "erratic and spastic"), but "day after day" does not.

What I meant was that the tickle section (we are talking about this crazy instrumental stuff around 2:00 minutes into LNF, aren't we?) is melodically all over the place, with it jumping around and stuff, not following a bigger melody, but more like snippets. It's not really my favourite, but I think that it makes an interesting listen, because I'm trying to pry it apart when hearing it.

Day After Day is, as I see it, just some MP growling over some heavy guitar stuff and drumming. It does change pitch, but the growling destroys any melodic feel for me.

There's probably a much more objective and concise definition of melody floating around somewhere, but that's what I go with.

[Ruba]

Even considering the "DAY AFTER DAY.... ROARRRRR!!!!!!" stuff? I'm not that much of a fan of the tickle section, true, but that is imho the single worst musical moment of DT's history, along with the whole of TDEN.

It at least has some sort of sensible melodies. Yeah, I was "WTF" when I last time listened to ANTR, but it isn't even close to "ticklewankadidy"-thingy in badness.

Melodies? I find the tickle section more melodic than that. Erratic and a bit spastic, yes, but ANTR doesn't have any melodies in this part - at least, none that are any redeeming features of this part.

The background has a guitar riff, doesn't it  .

Okay, not melodies, but again: Tickle section sounds for me just like random notes put together.

[Scorpion]

Well, opinions (luckily) differ. As I said, it's the worst part of the song, but nowhere near the worst that DT has put out.

[snapple]

Well, opinions (luckily) differ. As I said, it's the worst part of the song, but nowhere near the worst that DT has put out.

[Scorpion]

Well, opinions (luckily) differ. As I said, it's the worst part of the song, but nowhere near the worst that DT has put out.

What do you mean?

[Setlist Scotty]

Are DT albums too long?

Hmm. I am a proponent that less sometimes is more; after all, the modern 79 minute album, in the 1970s, would have been two vinyl albums around 20 minutes a side. Double albums used to be a huge, massive statement by a band; now in terms of content they happen all the time. If you shave a minute and a half off of Pink Floyd's The Wall, arguably the most "double album" ever, it'd fit on one CD. Some of the greatest rock albums ever are under 40 minutes long. Less sometimes is more, you know?

I get what you are saying, but one factor you are neglecting to acknowledge is that back in the 70s, bands would put out one or two albums per year! These days, you're fortunate if a band puts out one album every two years! So in terms of how much content there is, it balances out. In fact, I'd wager that there was a greater likeliness of bad material being put on an album because bands back then didn't get enough time in-between albums to take a break and recharge their creativity. So you can argue it both ways.