|
Post by kds on Jun 14, 2019 15:21:37 GMT
Thanks to signing up for Spotify, I've been listening to some albums at work that I hadn't listened to in a long time.
And, this is one of many reasons I think the 1990s were terrible for music, albums were just too long. When CDs became the preferred medium for releasing music in the 1990s, bands, for whatever reason, felt obligated to try to use as much as the 80 minute disc as possible. This lead to a lot of albums that are bloated, containing filler that would've been left on the cutting room floor in the 60s, 70s, or 80s.
Funnily, enough, this is one problem that The Beach Boys never really faced, although they, nor their members, were very prolific in the 1990s. But, there are several albums by the likes of Journey, Metallica, Guns N Roses, etc that have a ton of fat on them.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 14, 2019 15:32:38 GMT
First of all, let me say that I am REALLY excited by this thread's potential, and hope you never miss a week!
As to the substance of your initial post, I totally agree. We also saw the proliferation (especially but not exclusively in rap) of skits, dialogue, little non-song interludes, and various other filler during those years.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jun 14, 2019 15:49:00 GMT
First of all, let me say that I am REALLY excited by this thread's potential, and hope you never miss a week!
As to the substance of your initial post, I totally agree. We also saw the proliferation (especially but not exclusively in rap) of skits, dialogue, little non-song interludes, and various other filler during those years.
I forgot about that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 14, 2019 16:02:41 GMT
It's crazy but you still see it to this day. I guess on some concept albums it might be necessary or make sense, but it's usually just trash. I'll notice an album has 17, 20 songs ... and then realize that seven of them are 10-20 seconds long...
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jun 14, 2019 16:04:19 GMT
It's crazy but you still see it to this day. I guess on some concept albums it might be necessary or make sense, but it's usually just trash. I'll notice an album has 17, 20 songs ... and then realize that seven of them are 10-20 seconds long... Maybe those early BB albums are even more influential than we give them credit for.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jun 14, 2019 18:40:56 GMT
Well, I'm going to have to take the opposing view, not to be disagreeable, but because I prefer more bang for your buck. If I'm buying an album, I have to have a lot of interest in it or the artist or I wouldn't be buying it. And, hey, if you ask me would I rather get 12 songs or 17, why would I choose less? I don't think it's an assumption that the extra songs are "fat" or cause the album to be bloated. Maybe the artist is in a prolific period. Maybe they got the songs from more sources/contributors than usual. Maybe they sincerely want to give their fans more music and not just fill up vinyl/CD space.
I don't think I've ever heard or bought an album and came away thinking, "Man, this album has too much music on it". It's usually been the opposite - remember I'm a Beach Boys' fan. No, really, I like albums with more than 10-11 songs unless those songs are long. I like the percentages, better percentages, of finding some songs that I really like, and I can always skip over ones I don't, especially in the CD/digital era.
Artists in the 1960's and somewhat in the 1970's were releasing albums at a much faster pace. When you look back on it, it's hard to believe that the quality of the music was as good as it was. The record companies were probably burning out some artists. But in the 80's, 90's, and 00's that you are referring to, that trend of one album every few months or once a year subsided somewhat. So, I have no problem with longer albums. They had to keep us happy and fulfilled for longer periods of time.
Now, what does bother me is when an artist tacks some bonus tracks on at the end that have nothing to do with the album. Two albums, no three, come to mind. Brian Wilson attempted and some would say succeeded in making a concept album with That Lucky Old Sun. I think that album should've ended with that final trilogy and the song, "Southern California". But no, they had to tack on stuff like "I'm Into Something Good", "Oh Mi Amor", and "Just Like You And Me". Same thing with No Pier Pressure. That album should've ended with "The Last Song", but no, we had to be treated another version of "Love And Mercy" and a 1975 song - two songs that have nothing to do with the album. Yes, one could skip over those bonus tracks, but the intent, to sell more albums, putting commercialism over art, rubs me the wrong way.
The third album I am referring to would be Paul McCartney's Egypt Station. Paul loaded that album up with all kinds of bonus tracks that have nothing to do with...Egypt Station.
If an artist really wants those bonus tracks to be heard, put out the occasional sampler album of bonus tracks, but don't ruin the flow, the feel, the concept of the original album.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jun 14, 2019 19:10:18 GMT
I'm a big fan of "leave them wanting more." Most of the great albums of all time fall into that 35-50 minute range. I'm fine with longer albums if the extra songs are actually good. But when they're just there to fill time, I'll pass. Quality over quantity.
Now, the bonus track thing doesn't bug me so much because they don't really break the flow of the album itself. You can chose to press Stop when the proper album ends instead of listening to the bonus tracks. I tend to do that a lot with expanded reissues of albums. To me, those bonus tracks are what the extra space on a CD are for. They're there for the completist in me, but I can chose to not listen to them in lieu of the concise album experience.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 14, 2019 19:16:34 GMT
Yeah, I'm with KDS on this. Unlike SJS, I have many, many, many times wished an album didn't have certain songs. In fact, I'm on record as arguing against any and every double album ever. (Got me all into a huff on one of those old boards. I think it was the Record Room, but it could be any of them.)
It's not that I don't want an hour-long, or even two-hour long work if it's good. It's just almost never good. And definitely I don't want it littered with novelty nonsense like skits. Those are my bane.
|
|