good albums that are way too long

[Vacant Horizon]

i prefer albums that are 8-10 songs long. 12 is pushing it. it's irritating that so many bands put out long long albums! DBT, Ryan Adams, and recent son volt work being culprits. so, do you guys take songs out? i've take a few songs out of decoration day, for example, and it is a much tighter record. at least for me. i can get through it, then. i'm toying with the idea of making an outtakes comp for all these artists i've taken songs from.

[Gobias Industries]

Hah, no. It's clear that if the album is X songs long, there is a reason why it is that many songs long. So yes, when I go through the Beatles, Exile on Main St., London Calling, and the ilk, I damn well go through the whole thing. While cutting tracks is an entertaining exercise, I just feel weird about doing it.

[Maggie]

I do tend to prefer shorter albums, but I could never cut songs out of an album I enjoy. I have trouble so much as hitting the skip button, my faith in the album format is so strong.

 

Where I really take issue is songs that are too long. It Still Moves by My Morning Jacket drives me crazy in this way. The songs may work well live, but on record I feel like the majority of the of the tracks (excepting 1, 2, and 3) drag on and on without success. Not every band can pull off a 5:00+ song. Throwing 10 of them on one album is bound to be a problem.

[cooperissup3r]

I do tend to prefer shorter albums, but I could never cut songs out of an album I enjoy. I have trouble so much as hitting the skip button, my faith in the album format is so strong.

 

Where I really take issue is songs that are too long. It Still Moves by My Morning Jacket drives me crazy in this way. The songs may work well live, but on record I feel like the majority of the of the tracks (excepting 1, 2, and 3) drag on and on without success. Not every band can pull off a 5:00+ song. Throwing 10 of them on one album is bound to be a problem.

 

my feelings mirror yours pretty much exactly.

 

especially about It Still Moves.

[mountain bed]

I know it's a 'concept album', and the filler tunes are on there to flesh out the story (or whatever) but if you make The Wall a single LP you have a GREAT record.

[ViaBuffalo]

I actually enjoy longer albums as long as there is not too much filler.

[CortezTheKiller]

i prefer albums that are 8-10 songs long. 12 is pushing it. it's irritating that so many bands put out long long albums! DBT, Ryan Adams, and recent son volt work being culprits. so, do you guys take songs out? i've take a few songs out of decoration day, for example, and it is a much tighter record. at least for me. i can get through it, then. i'm toying with the idea of making an outtakes comp for all these artists i've taken songs from.

What if the 8-10 songs are each 7+ minutes long? You think the recent Son Volt album is long? It clocks in at just under 44 minutes. Rather than taking a few songs off such great albums like Decoration Day, you might be better served adding this to your morning routine:

[Wild Frank]

I can seriously think of no double albums (or 70 minute cd's) that wouldn't be improved by removing a couple of songs. For me an album should be about 45 minutes long, or two sides of a piece of vinyl (That is why Neil Young's Tonights the Night is such a perfect record -It is exactly 45 minutes long. No more, no less!).

 

However, I can accept the argument about concept albums and things like 'The Wall' or 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' probably wouldn't work if they were reduced significantly. However, ignoring the concept for a moment, I could easily take tracks off both those albums and improve them, musically.

 

A recent example for me is Nick Cave's Abbatoir Blues/Lyre of Orpheus record. There is about 45 minutes worth of good songs spread accross the two discs. Also, back in the nineties, those GnR 'Use Your Illusions' records. If that had been condensed into one it wouold have been an amazing rock album. I think even 'Blonde on Blonde' would be improved by cutting, for example, 'Pledging my Time', 'Obviously 5 believers' and 'Rainy Day Women'.

 

There is the counter-arguement that sometimes a good album needs a bad song or two for balance. Generally, most Neil Young albums have one song that I dislike (Apart from Tonights the Night and On The Beach). I couldn't imagine 'Comes a Time' without 'Motocycle Mama' or 'Rust Never Sleeps' without 'Ride My Llama'. So I suppose I've confused myself here somewhat and changed my mind whilst writing this post!! I think?

 

P.s: I know this has probably been debated to death but....'Being There' could be improved by shortening it by three or four tracks. Personally, I'm religating 'KingPin', 'I Got You' and 'Why Would You...' onto an EP or B-Sides! (ducks to avoid being hit by rotton tomatoes!!).

[Wild Frank]

....and I agree about the My Morning Jacket records. Its no surprise that, in my opinion, 'Z' is their best record. Its consise and limits itself to about 50 minutes. There is no filler and no song outstays its welcome. Arguably 'At Dawn' and 'It Still Moves' both have better songs on them but, as a whole, they don't gell together as well as 'Z'. Unfortunatley they also lost the focus on 'Evil Urges' which was just plain poor.

[PopTodd]

Although

Songs In the Key Of Life

is absolutely just perfect, I do prefer when a band leaves me wanting more... at least on a single listen.

[Wild Frank]

I would also say that my favourite album ever has two songs that I don't care for on it. The first eight tracks on 'Nixon' by Lambchop are totally perfect in every way but the last two are average. Its still my favourite record though and I wouldn't want those two songs removed.

[Vacant Horizon]

What if the 8-10 songs are each 7+ minutes long? You think the recent Son Volt album is long? It clocks in at just under 44 minutes. Rather than taking a few songs off such great albums like Decoration Day, you might be better served adding this to your morning routine:

 

 

i don't think length is the issue. it's more tightness. i think of springsteen. he had a shitload of songs for born to run, and only put the 7 that fit the record. as for american central dust. i just think the album is much much stronger with out cocaine/ashes and sultana.

 

double albums are a different story. long songs on a record are no problem, as long as they are compelling. i'm thinking close to the edge.

 

of course, this is all a matter of opinion and i thought it would be an interesting topic to throw out there.

[Vacant Horizon]

I can seriously think of no double albums (or 70 minute cd's) that wouldn't be improved by removing a couple of songs. For me an album should be about 45 minutes long, or two sides of a piece of vinyl (That is why Neil Young's Tonights the Night is such a perfect record -It is exactly 45 minutes long. No more, no less!).

 

However, I can accept the argument about concept albums and things like 'The Wall' or 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' probably wouldn't work if they were reduced significantly. However, ignoring the concept for a moment, I could easily take tracks off both those albums and improve them, musically.

 

A recent example for me is Nick Cave's Abbatoir Blues/Lyre of Orpheus record. There is about 45 minutes worth of good songs spread accross the two discs. Also, back in the nineties, those GnR 'Use Your Illusions' records. If that had been condensed into one it wouold have been an amazing rock album. I think even 'Blonde on Blonde' would be improved by cutting, for example, 'Pledging my Time', 'Obviously 5 believers' and 'Rainy Day Women'.

 

There is the counter-arguement that sometimes a good album needs a bad song or two for balance. Generally, most Neil Young albums have one song that I dislike (Apart from Tonights the Night and On The Beach). I couldn't imagine 'Comes a Time' without 'Motocycle Mama' or 'Rust Never Sleeps' without 'Ride My Llama'. So I suppose I've confused myself here somewhat and changed my mind whilst writing this post!! I think?

 

P.s: I know this has probably been debated to death but....'Being There' could be improved by shortening it by three or four tracks. Personally, I'm religating 'KingPin', 'I Got You' and 'Why Would You...' onto an EP or B-Sides! (ducks to avoid being hit by rotton tomatoes!!).

 

very good points here. what got me thinking about all this is the ipod. it's so easy to condense an album on itunes and not have to deal with skipping songs. BUT, do we miss out on the album experience or the 'bad' songs growing on us? just some thoughts.

[cryptique]

Hah, no. It's clear that if the album is X songs long, there is a reason why it is that many songs long. So yes, when I go through the Beatles, Exile on Main St., London Calling, and the ilk, I damn well go through the whole thing. While cutting tracks is an entertaining exercise, I just feel weird about doing it.

This.

 

 

When they add songs on a reissue (typically B-sides, demos, outtakes, alternate takes, etc.), I usually skip those because they weren't part of the artist's original vision for the album. It's nice to have those tracks, and I listen to them once in a while as a separate exercise, but generally I don't like to muddy up the original work by including extra tracks (or excluding tracks from the original tracklist).

[Wild Frank]

very good points here. what got me thinking about all this is the ipod. it's so easy to condense an album on itunes and not have to deal with skipping songs. BUT, do we miss out on the album experience or the 'bad' songs growing on us? just some thoughts.

Agreed. Although, in reference to your Avatar, I will Always skip through 'Old King'!!

[Gobias Industries]

I can seriously think of no double albums (or 70 minute cd's) that wouldn't be improved by removing a couple of songs. For me an album should be about 45 minutes long, or two sides of a piece of vinyl (That is why Neil Young's Tonights the Night is such a perfect record -It is exactly 45 minutes long. No more, no less!).

 

I can think of a few. The three I listed are shoe-ins. Also stuff like Bitches Brew, Physical Graffiti, Blonde on Blonde. The charm in a double-LP is its messiness. It's not going to be concise. That's not the point. It's like a King-sized value meal. You just eat it all up because it's tasty (and surely a good double-LP is easier to take in than a Large Big Mac Value Meal). One bite may not be as good as the rest, but every bite is undeniably important in the consumption of the burger/LP and contributes to the whole tasty experience.

[Wild Frank]

I can think of a few. The three I listed are shoe-ins. Also stuff like Bitches Brew, Physical Graffiti, Blonde on Blonde. The charm in a double-LP is its messiness. It's not going to be concise. That's not the point. It's like a King-sized value meal. You just eat it all up because it's tasty (and surely a good double-LP is easier to take in than a Large Big Mac Value Meal). One bite may not be as good as the rest, but every bite is undeniably important in the consumption of the burger/LP and contributes to the whole tasty experience.

Nicely explained using the classic burger-analogy method. I like a burger but I always take out the gerkins. Most albums have a few ghekins in them!!

[CortezTheKiller]

i prefer albums that are 8-10 songs long. 12 is pushing it. it's irritating that so many bands put out long long albums!

i don't think length is the issue. it's more tightness.

Now I'm lost.

[nodep5]

For me it all comes down to how much I dig the band or musician. For example, Wilco or Ryan Adams could release a 25 song record and I would likely walk away wanting more and more, where is recently the Conor Oberst and Mystic Valley Band should have been trimmed to 10 songs and would have been a year end contender in my mind.

[Vacant Horizon]

Agreed. Although, in reference to your Avatar, I will Always skip through 'Old King'!!

 

yeah, old king is touch and go. fun though, especially when preceded by a funny story about the dog:)

[Central Scrutinizer]

yeah, old king is touch and go. fun though, especially when preceded by a funny story about the dog:)

You realize the 8-10 song rule would eliminate ALL the Beatles albums?

 

That said, the 10-song 30-40-minute album is a structure of the limits of vinyl recording. If you couldn't fit it in 40, then you've got 70-80 minutes to fill. You can't release a 3-sided album (wait, Monty Python did).

 

A conscientious band that's approaching their album from an artistic, concept standpoint, I'm willing to give the benefit of a doubt. Dealing with the structure of album sides, you're dealing with the complexities of an overall effort, simultaneously with the approach and pacing of album sides -- something that's completely out the window. Many of the albums you mentioned can be approached in their entirely, in albums, or the different pace, approach, completeness of any single album side.

 

I *miss* album sides, and the complexity/beauty they can be in the hands of a musical artist that considers them.

 

But ultimately, the album is the artist's canvas. If they lay it out on two sides, four sides, or double CD, it has to stand or fall on its merits. Otherwise it's your own mix tape.

[Vacant Horizon]

Now I'm lost.

 

whatever cortez.

[nodep5]

just another reason vinyl is/was perfect. It does force the artist to make some decisions and i can say that in my record collection, the albums I hold up as the gold standard are all in the 9-12 (35-45 min) song range that would fit on one slab of vinyl.

 

More is not better with the majority of bands in my opinion.

[mpolak21]

Stylus Magazine Playing God Archives. Though they sadly went under in 2007, for four years Stylus Magazine was probably the best music site on the internet, and one of my favorite running features they had was "Playing God" where writers would basically recreate albums to make them tighter, louder, quieter, better, shorter, longer etc. More food for thought on the subject.

 

--Mike

[choo-choo-charlie]

my feelings mirror yours pretty much exactly.

 

especially about It Still Moves.

 

Same here. While I love that album, sometimes it feels like it's never going to end.