40 minutes is just about perfect

[Alan B. Cook]

New albums are simply too long. Older albums were limited by the length of the LP record,about 40 minutes or so depending on bass content. Also because of their two sided nature artists had to seriously consider running order. Today artists don't even need to think about running order. Sequencing an album is a lost art. New albums can be as long as 80 minutes giving artists too much space. They don't need to ask if they are repeating themselves because they have the space and time to do so.

In the past if an artist really liked a song but it didn't fit on the album because of time they could hold it over for a later album or use it as a B-side. Led Zeppelin held many songs over because of an over abundance of material as did The Who and The Beatles. In fact many of the truly great double albums are roughly the length of today's single albums. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" could squeez onto a single CD as could Led Zeppelin's "Physical Graffitti." Don't agree with me? Just imagine Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" 15 minutes longer. How about The Beatles "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band" with three extra tracks. In both cases the impact of the album would be greatly lessened and their genius would be diluted.

[Chris Sommovigo]

And thanks to the iTunes revolution, the single has become more important than it ever was. Now iTunes has delivered some blessings, mind you ... without it the CD might have survived and the vinyl revolution might never have happened.

[Rick Shoup]

I think you are dead on in your argument, and Dark Side is the perfect example of what you are talking about. I would add to this that another thing that was lost when albums became longer was the "quality" b-side. One of my best memories from the old vinyl days was flipping through the 45s in the record store and finding one with an unreleased track as the b-side. And knowing that the track would be just as good as the stuff on the album proper. The first examples that pop into my head first are Zeppelins "Hey Hey" and Aerosmith's "Chip Away the Stone". I would say that for the most part the b-sides that we get these days are sub-par in quality since all the extra "quality" tracks have already been included with the (longer) cd release! There are of course exceptions to this (just about any b-side by Oasis springs to mind) but for the most part I just don't find myself getting excited about b-sides like I did "back in the day"...

[Alan B. Cook]

Rick-

Welcome! You've raised a number of good points that support my argument.

[Vince Capece]

I don't buy it.

Let's face it, most albums are just a random selection of singles (too many times, far too many b-sides) compiled under one title. But when an artist wants to put together a fully-formed theme, there's no reason why he/she/they should be limited to 40 minutes. As an aspiring (and musically untalented) artist, I would want to use the canvas that fit my work. If I'm writing the Gospels on the head of a pin or I'm shrouding an island in fabric, why can't I showcase my art the way I want?

And since when have artists been limited to 40 minutes? Prince's "1999" album featured 11 tracks spread across two records (and one song had to be cut from early versions of the CD). Frank Zappa's "Joe's Garage" needed three albums (or two CDs) to tell its tale.

Sometimes that break for "flipping" the record can be an artificial limiting factor. What if "In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida" was more than 18 minutes long? Should it have to be cut to fit one side of an album? What of classical tunes that were written before LPs were created where limits were not a factor? And remember when 8-tracks required FOUR divisions...maybe 12-15 minutes should the limiting factor?

I've listened to albums such as My Chemical Romance's "Black Parade" and Queensryche's "Operation: Mindcrime" which do depend on the order of the tracks to tell the story...and both well in excess of the 40-minute limit. I wouldn't cut a song from either.

[Alan B. Cook]

Vince-

Of course it isn't a hard and fast rule. There are exceptions but in general many times the art expands to to fit the canvas. There are very, very few artists that can sustain quality for 70+ minutes. I'm sure that you'd agree that most of the exceptions you mentioned were very special people indeed. Back in the day artists had to beg to get to do 70 minutes of music because it involved another record which of course added expense and reduced sales. So the record companies didn't let everyone and their brother do it, only the people that were deserving. Now any hack that is making an album is free to indulge themselves and up to almost 80 minutes.

Vince Capece said:

I don't buy it.
Let's face it, most albums are just a random selection of singles (too many times, far too many b-sides) compiled under one title. But when an artist wants to put together a fully-formed theme, there's no reason why he/she/they should be limited to 40 minutes. As an aspiring (and musically untalented) artist, I would want to use the canvas that fit my work. If I'm writing the Gospels on the head of a pin or I'm shrouding an island in fabric, why can't I showcase my art the way I want?
And since when have artists been limited to 40 minutes? Prince's "1999" album featured 11 tracks spread across two records (and one song had to be cut from early versions of the CD). Frank Zappa's "Joe's Garage" needed three albums (or two CDs) to tell its tale.

Sometimes that break for "flipping" the record can be an artificial limiting factor. What if "In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida" was more than 18 minutes long? Should it have to be cut to fit one side of an album? What of classical tunes that were written before LPs were created where limits were not a factor? And remember when 8-tracks required FOUR divisions...maybe 12-15 minutes should the limiting factor?

I've listened to albums such as My Chemical Romance's "Black Parade" and Queensryche's "Operation: Mindcrime" which do depend on the order of the tracks to tell the story...and both well in excess of the 40-minute limit. I wouldn't cut a song from either.

[Paul Luscusk]

I just wonder, what would have happened if John Coltrane had more time than than a lp side for a Love Supreme, or My Favorite Things?

[Vince Capece]

Alan B. Cook said:

Now any hack that is making an album is free to indulge themselves and up to almost 80 minutes.

It's true that the canvas has expanded, but how many artists have actually filled it? Or even attempted to?

I still run across far too many CDs with 35 or 40 minutes of music on them. Aside from greatest hits and live compilations, few new studio efforts reach any farther than what could be done on a vinyl record.

I'm the last person to complain about the limitations of vinyl, but I do like the broader scope allowed by a CD or even a DVD-A. But most major label musicians are inherently lazy and they only want to get enough music out there to sell enough to allow them to buy another Bentley. There are the exceptions like Prince who, in the 1980s and early 1990s, produced good albums more often than his record label would release them...and even offered one album with 45 minutes of uninterrupted music (the lack-luster "Lovesexy" had only one track on the CD).

I want MORE albums that run on for 40, 50, 60, or even 80 minutes and I'm left wanting more. These are, obviously, very rare items from only the most gifted artists. But why should anyone be limited to just 40 minutes if, by chance, they can create a masterpiece that runs a full hour?

One more thing, don't you think that some so-called "geniuses" have acquired that label because their record company wouldn't put out more music? I can think of more than one artist that I feel is overrated simply because their first (or second effort) hit many of the right chords. The saying goes that monkeys at typewriters will eventually type out the works of Shakespeare...but I guess that's an entirely different discussion.