Can an album be too long?

[73109]

The first thing I would think is "no." Off the top of my head, the more music, the better, right? But, man, I'm listening to Blood Sugar Sex Magik by the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the songs range from pretty cool to really awesome. Only one clunker. One would think that that is really good but the album is 74 minutes long and has 17 tracks, and I have to say, it is exhausting listening to it. I am not sure I like doing this. I always enjoyed albums with less tracks. My favorite albums usually don't have more than 9 or 10 tracks and are relatively short.

So, I ask you...

Can an album be too long or have too many songs?

Oh, and inb4AnalCunt

[faemir]

Yes, in two ways.

1) the album is too samey, at which point even a short album drags.
2) It's just...long, even if the songs are great and all.

Example of 2 would be Orphaned Land's latest effort or 01011001. Amazing albums, but if I want to actively listen then it feel exhausting, so I won't listen to it twice in a row (unless i'm really obsessed at the time).

edit: I remember Steve Wilson talking about how fans whined when FoaBP was 'only' 50 minutes long.

Of course, Nil Recurring the EP was then nearly long enough to be an album so...

[The Letter M]

Perhaps, but because everyone's feelings on an album are so different, you'll get varying opinions for either answer.

I don't think an album can be too long, but then again, I am a fan of longer albums, usually 2 disc albums (like nearly half of the albums by The Flower Kings). I think a longer album can mean a band/artist has more time to fully express what they want to say through their music, but fans may see some of it as "filler", which can be a problem with double albums, particularly concept albums.

I think for concept albums/rock operas/thematic albums/narratives, longer can be better. I think Genesis' The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway is the perfect length, and works really over the four sides, and over the course of it's 23 tracks, the band performs a well thought-out story through music and lyrics. I wouldn't say any of it is "filler" per se, but some tracks may be weaker than others (as with ANY album), but IMO, a band/artist wouldn't write a song if it didn't have some meaning to the overall story/concept/theme.

-Marc.

[73109]

What you said brings up an interesting point. The Wall is 7 minutes longer than Blood Sugar Sex Magik but it does not feel that long at all. I think it is because it is telling a story so nothing really feels like "filler."

[Gorille85]

Yes.

If the songs are too samey, but also if the album have 4-5 good songs and the rest is filler. I would prefer a solid EP than an album that drags a bit too much...

[Orbert]

The first thing I would think is "no." Off the top of my head, the more music, the better, right? But, man, I'm listening to Blood Sugar Sex Magik by the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the songs range from pretty cool to really awesome. Only one clunker. One would think that that is really good but the album is 74 minutes long and has 17 tracks, and I have to say, it is exhausting listening to it. I am not sure I like doing this. I always enjoyed albums with less tracks. My favorite albums usually don't have more than 9 or 10 tracks and are relatively short.

So, I ask you...

Can an album be too long or have too many songs?

I see what you're saying about Blood Sugar Sex Magik, but I don't think the album being exhausting and challenging makes it "too long".  I too prefer to listen to albums in their entirety when I can, but there are some albums that are just too much.  In those cases, I don't consider the album too long; I'm still glad to have all of it, if it's all great.  I just think of it as an album I have to take in smaller doses.

As others have mentioned, an album can also be too long if it's crappy or has too much filler, but I don't think that's what you meant.

[skydivingninja]

Yes.  Tool is a prime offender of this, IMO.  If you do have a 70 min.+ album, it better move by like its an hour, otherwise you start to feel the drag.  Scenes and Act II by the Dear Hunter are great examples of good long albums, but ideal length for me is 45 minutes to an hour.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

Rap albums are usually a little long.

[orcus116]

Definitely. In fact it's gotten to the point where even an album over or near 70 minutes looks daunting before I first listen to it. I just haven't seen enough artists utilize that time well enough for me to trust album lengths that long.

I think it is because it is telling a story so nothing really feels like "filler."

Only if the story is interesting. The Wall's story is, sadly, not very interesting at all.

[juice]

I'm a fan of having longer albums, around 60 mins is about ideal for me.  I think that if the album is good then make it as long as possible.  When I see albums that are 30-45 mins it gets me kind of disappointed because that may be a bands only album for a long time.  If there's more I feel like I've been given enough to satisfy my musical needs till the next album but that depends on the band and how frequently they make albums.

[SoundscapeMN]

yes, but if it flows really well, the actual length in terms of minutes/hours, or number of songs/tracks has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[setrataeso]

Yes.  Tool is a prime offender of this, IMO.  If you do have a 70 min.+ album, it better move by like its an hour, otherwise you start to feel the drag.  Scenes and Act II by the Dear Hunter are great examples of good long albums, but ideal length for me is 45 minutes to an hour.

Yep. Tool albums do feel really long.
I've found the last 3 Iron Maiden albums are a bit too long to fully enjoy. The Final Frontier was a great album, but man, I found myself just totally zoned out by the time the album came to a close.

[skydivingninja]

I actually don't mind AMOLAD's length, just because all the songs are great.  The other three reunion albums, yeah, little too long.

[Fuzzboy]

It depends on the music really. It's more whether the album feels too long or not. Thrice's Alchemy Index doesn't feel that long even though it's like 80 minutes or so (I might be wrong on the length), but the last Maiden album just feels wayyy too long.

Nick Drake's Pink Moon, on the other hand, is a pretty short album (about 25 mins, maybe), that is absolutely perfect in terms of length. One more song would have ruined it just as much as one less.

Also, I am drunk and I apologize if this makes little to no sense.

[j]

Yes, every album I don't like is too long.

But seriously, if an album doesn't have any weak spots (which for me is EXTREMELY rare, if not nonexistent), I generally won't think it's "too long" even if it's a double album, because I enjoy all of it.  If I consider an album too long, it's probably more a function of the music dragging or dipping in quality or something.

Although, it's not that often that I have the chance to sit down and listen to music for even the length of a normal album, so I guess practically, albums could be "too long" in that sense.

-J

[Gorille85]

It depends on the quality of the songs also...like listening to a long "album" like The Alchemy Index all the way through is not hard to me at all.

[setrataeso]

It depends on the quality of the songs also...like listening to a long "album" like The Alchemy Index all the way through is not hard to me at all.

I think with The Alchemy Index, Thrice treats it as 4 different EPs. Each one is stylistically different, so the variation livens things up a little bit, making it seem more as though you are listening to 4 30-min albums as opposed to 1 2-hour one.

[MykeHavoc]

Music, much like film, requires editing to tighten it up. Whether that be removing entire songs or simply sections, it is definitely something that greatly improves the impact of a record from start to finish.

[Zantera]

To me, it all depends on the music.
A good example of a long album i love, would be The River Empires - Epilogue which clocks in at around 1 ½ hour, but i never feel like it's dragging.
All the way through it's amazing and enjoyable, and i enjoy listening to it.
Then i could add The Incident by Porcupine Tree, which is like 75 minutes (around there), but i very rarely listen to it, because it feels really long, which feels strange to say considering how much i love PT.

[Marvellous G]

Yes.  Tool is a prime offender of this, IMO.  If you do have a 70 min.+ album, it better move by like its an hour, otherwise you start to feel the drag.  Scenes and Act II by the Dear Hunter are great examples of good long albums, but ideal length for me is 45 minutes to an hour.

Yep. Tool albums do feel really long.
I've found the last 3 Iron Maiden albums are a bit too long to fully enjoy. The Final Frontier was a great album, but man, I found myself just totally zoned out by the time the album came to a close.

I actually kind of like how long Tool albums feel, they feel long without being long in a dragging kind of way to me.

[faemir]

I actually kind of like how long Tool albums feel, they feel long without being long in a dragging kind of way to me.

do we have the same album? 10k days draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaags.

[Marvellous G]

True, 10K Days does, but I think Aenima and Lateralus go by in a nice way. The only albums that really drag to me are some DT ones, and, *blasphemy* The Whirlwind does towards the end.

[Sigz]

Easily. I tend to enjoy shorter albums and EPs the most, they feel more concise and focused. I'm not sure there are any double albums that I find myself wanting to listen to all the way through, it just becomes a chore.

[fadetoblackdude7]

I thought of an idea in the future of releasing a triple album with each disc full (about 75 minutes each) with brand new music...it would be like over 3 1/2 hours long.....followed by a giant world tour!

[The Letter M]

I just thought of a downside to having longer albums - unless it's a concept album that warrants playing the whole thing live (a la The Wall or The Lamb), chances of playing every song from the album live diminishes. With shorter albums, a band is more likely to play nearly every song live and still work in older songs in their set.

For example - Rush. Back in the 80s, they played nearly every, if not all, the songs from their new albums live. From Permanent Waves to Power Windows, only 4 songs went unplayed live (and since then, one of those has been played live, "Entre Nous"), but when they went from 40 minute albums to 50+ with the use of CDs, they started playing less and less. From Hold Your Fire onward, they've played half-or-less of the album live with the recent exception of Snakes & Arrows. The major downside is not being able to hear some of these songs live and even after 2 decades, over 40% of their studio catalog from HYF-S&A has gone unplayed live and chances are, most of that 40% will never get played live.

-Marc.

[PixelDream]

The most recent album I can recall with this 'problem' is Alter Bridge's new record.

I love the album, but there could be a bit less songs on there. The fact that the band put on fourteen tracks because they couldn't disagree on eleven.. I don't know. On one side I can appreciate the democracy in the band, on the other side, some songs just make the album drag a bit.

[ACID_FOX]

I thought that The River Empires' album was far too long tbh.

Also, The water part of Thrice's Alchemy Index is  , thank you to whoever turned me on to them (think it was sigz.)

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

What you said brings up an interesting point. The Wall is 7 minutes longer than Blood Sugar Sex Magik but it does not feel that long at all. I think it is because it is telling a story so nothing really feels like "filler."

For me The Wall feels like an eternity. I understand why people would like it, but for me it's absolute crap.

inb4wat

[Kosmo]

Final Frountier drags on forever..

[Ħ]

For me The Wall feels like an eternity. I understand why people would like it, but for me it's absolute crap.

This

























































is an abomination.  WTF

[faemir]

I just thought of a downside to having longer albums - unless it's a concept album that warrants playing the whole thing live (a la The Wall or The Lamb), chances of playing every song from the album live diminishes. With shorter albums, a band is more likely to play nearly every song live and still work in older songs in their set.

For example - Rush. Back in the 80s, they played nearly every, if not all, the songs from their new albums live. From Permanent Waves to Power Windows, only 4 songs went unplayed live (and since then, one of those has been played live, "Entre Nous"), but when they went from 40 minute albums to 50+ with the use of CDs, they started playing less and less. From Hold Your Fire onward, they've played half-or-less of the album live with the recent exception of Snakes & Arrows. The major downside is not being able to hear some of these songs live and even after 2 decades, over 40% of their studio catalog from HYF-S&A has gone unplayed live and chances are, most of that 40% will never get played live.

-Marc.

Very good point, never thought of that. We're lucky with DT playing nearly all their material..

[Sigz]

What you said brings up an interesting point. The Wall is 7 minutes longer than Blood Sugar Sex Magik but it does not feel that long at all. I think it is because it is telling a story so nothing really feels like "filler."

For me The Wall feels like an eternity. I understand why people would like it, but for me it's absolute crap.

inb4wat

Agreed 110%.

[King Postwhore]

I just thought of a downside to having longer albums - unless it's a concept album that warrants playing the whole thing live (a la The Wall or The Lamb), chances of playing every song from the album live diminishes. With shorter albums, a band is more likely to play nearly every song live and still work in older songs in their set.

For example - Rush. Back in the 80s, they played nearly every, if not all, the songs from their new albums live. From Permanent Waves to Power Windows, only 4 songs went unplayed live (and since then, one of those has been played live, "Entre Nous"), but when they went from 40 minute albums to 50+ with the use of CDs, they started playing less and less. From Hold Your Fire onward, they've played half-or-less of the album live with the recent exception of Snakes & Arrows. The major downside is not being able to hear some of these songs live and even after 2 decades, over 40% of their studio catalog from HYF-S&A has gone unplayed live and chances are, most of that 40% will never get played live.

-Marc.

Add the The Camera Eye to being played.  I would love to hear Losing It and Afterimage.

To the OP.  Beatles the White Album is a great example.  Cut that to one album and wow.  That would kill.

[TL]

With an album or a film, if you're going to have a long runtime, you'd better have the content to back it up.

When you get a really good long album, it can provide an incredible listening experience. If you reach that runtime with filler/padding, it's going to hurt the overall work.

As was just pointed out, The White Album, edited down to one vinyl could be absolutely amazing. Another one; I've always felt that, if you made one disc out of G'n'R's Use Your Illusion albums, you could have something pretty solid, whereas the two albums as they exist now are packed with filler.