Year of the short album? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Year of the short album?



noddin0ff
09-29-2009, 05:37 AM
Is it just me? Many of the albums I'm hearing are clocking in under 40 minutes. I'm curious if this is a real phenomena or not. One speculation is that more artists are making albums for vinyl and keeping under 45 minutes. Another is that there's some target size for digital downloading. A third, it's the economy and everyone's trimming. A forth...competition for ears is getting fierce and artists would rather put out their best rather than turn people off by mixing in their second best. Five: The market is selling to ever shortening attention spans. Six, there's no money in albums anymore, just singles. So they're making 'albums' around a handful of singles. And seven, it's just my imagination.

I'm finding I'm actually enjoying the shorter lengths more. Except for the comps I pull from AR, I listen to albums. 37 minutes is a good fit for my current state of mind. Enough to be engaging, not so long that I find myself annoyed by the sub-par songs.

Thoughts?

3LB
09-29-2009, 06:51 AM
I have to say I'm not terribly putoff by the shorter album lengths, but I think anything under 40 minutes is a ripoff. Wobbler put out a 33 minute album this year, and they're a prog band. Sure, the late 90s and early 00s saw album lengths get out of control, but its the CD age...we don't have to listen to a song we don't want to listen to. 50-55 minutes seems to me, the perfect album length. I think it also depends on the type of music as well. Shearwater comes to mind. Their album from last year, Rook, was only 38 minutes long; Bon Iver's For Emma, For Ever Ago, was only 37 min. These albums are slow building, moody, even somber affairs and I could not see sitting through 60 minutes of that (I like those albums, BTW).

As far as your 6th point - country music has done this for decades (they've never been an album oriented genre). Country artists put out a new CD every 10 months or so. Pop music has been single oriented to an extent, but I think art rock will always be album oriented.

Mr Peabody
09-29-2009, 06:02 PM
I am in the camp where I don't really mind a 40 minute album of really good music opposed to a 60 minute album of the same but littered with filler. But, what really raises the blood pressure are the no talent puppets of the record companies that put out the albums with one good song and the rest crap. Several Country artists if not all are like that now. I've heard a couple songs on the radio and have gone back to check samples of the album and couldn't even finish the samples, it was torture! I've been surprised that some of the Pop albums have actually been pretty good, more like the 60 minute with 20 minutes filler but still an improvement and I'm not saying all are like that by a long shot, just that some seem to be wising up or maybe actually have some talent.

Stone
09-30-2009, 04:34 AM
I find very few albums that are 50 minutes plus that keep my attention. I'd much prefer an album of 30 minutes with all great tunes than a 70 minute album where half of it is mediocre at best. I think the latter is a bigger rip off than the former.

Luvin Da Blues
09-30-2009, 04:52 AM
This is the main reason I went with computer audio. No more crappy songs and lame fillers. I have all my tunes sorted in playlists by genre, recording quality, song quality and artist. :13:

Mr MidFi
09-30-2009, 06:31 AM
I think it's a good trend. I think more bands are looking to trim the fat... not only in the context of the album, but in the songs themselves as well. Don't bore us, get to the chorus!

My album of the year last year was hailed by many as a "return to form" for REM because it was just 35 minutes of punchy, immediate rock songs. And I'm not a huge fan of Pearl Jam, but their latest is the same story.

Back in the day, a 22-minute album side was all you expected to hear at a time. Maybe there was something right about that all along.

That said, I'm also digging most of the 55-minute song cycle on the latest Porky Twee release. So there... I'll just embrace every contradiction and call it eclecticism!

Troy
09-30-2009, 01:11 PM
This is the main reason I went with computer audio. No more crappy songs and lame fillers. I have all my tunes sorted in playlists by genre, recording quality, song quality and artist. :13:

This pretty much sums up my experience too. Who listens to an album all the way through anymore?

Well, I know there's some dyed in the wool album geeks here that will come down on me for that statement, but the reality is, today, most listeners are interested in songs, not albums. Mainly because so many of us are slaves to the shuffle, but also because we've had 15 years of padded and filler-packed CD's, so we've been trained to not rip the bad songs to the HD/iTunes or hit the skip button when playing the CD.

3LB
09-30-2009, 02:00 PM
I guess I'm one of those album geeks, cuz I love to listen to albums, since much of what i listen to is prog, and most prog is album oriented. I'd hate for music to become singles driven then we'd be reduced to buying new music online. MP3s are ok to listen to, but I'd hate for it to become an industry standard (given the current state of sound quality, it almost has).

ForeverAutumn
10-01-2009, 05:30 AM
I guess I'm one of those album geeks, cuz I love to listen to albums, since much of what i listen to is prog, and most prog is album oriented. I'd hate for music to become singles driven then we'd be reduced to buying new music online. MP3s are ok to listen to, but I'd hate for it to become an industry standard (given the current state of sound quality, it almost has).

I totally agree with this statement. I'll put the iPod on shuffle when I'm just looking for background noise or when I know I'll be listening for a long stretch and don't want to search for another album to play (like when I'm driving). I never really got into the playlist thing, more often than not, I’m listening to an album.

But I digress from the topic at hand.

When I think of modern day short CDs that I really like, immediately REM, The Raconteurs and Elbow come to mind. These are all short albums that are so good they leave me wanting more at the end of the disk. But only if the "more" is quality. If the disks had been made longer and filled with…wait for it…filler, I doubt that I would like them as much.

So, I’m all for the short CD if the overall result is of a higher quality.

poppachubby
10-01-2009, 06:10 AM
Back to the OP, no it's not a phenomena. Started ages ago really, but more recently has been goin on since the 80's, people started rejecting the 70's ethos of infinite jams, concept albums and such. You guys are all music pros so I won't presume to sit here and explain what you already know. I think you just bought a rush of albums that are all short Noddin'.

Personally I agree with FA. The Beatles, in my opinion, invented the short, to the point album. When I say that, I mean in terms of wide scale, commercial viability. Do you honestly think that anyone put on any Beatles album, for the first time, and didn't immediately spin it again? Would seem an immpossibilty.

Many bands after The Beatles carried the torch of 10/12 short songs with strong hooks. One of my more "recent" faves would have been the Pixies. Great albums that were never too long.

3LB
10-01-2009, 07:35 AM
I guess I'm being a cheapskate of sorts - I got used to getting 60+ minutes of music for around $15+/- and now I have to pay the same money for a 30min CD....it just seems so wrong!