This might seem off topic but it does it relate to the Stones, among others. In the days of vinyl, a typical album had about ten songs (depending on song length) and took about 40 - 45 minutes of your time to enjoy the whole thing. It seems that with CD's artists feel they have about 80 minutes to fill and so they include songs that would surely be cut if they had to narrow it down to the old vinyl play time. I've been playing around with a lot of my favorite CD's of recent vintage, like the much maligned (by some) Live Licks and Shine A Light. By making playlists for myself that would have to fit the old vinyl format, only the very best cuts can be included and the end result is a much more focused and powerful listening experience. OTOH, many of us wish Get Yer Ya Ya's Out lasted longer, but with the constraints of the LP format, what you get is a condensed, poweful blast of rock that kicks your ass and leaves you wanting more. I think a lot of people would prefer that to an 80 minute CD that has a lot of great songs, but also filler that the artist included just because it would fit. What do you guys think?

Quote
stonesdan60
...the LP format, what you get is a condensed, poweful blast of rock that kicks your ass and leaves you wanting more. I think a lot of people would prefer that to an 80 minute CD that has a lot of great songs, but also filler that the artist included just because it would fit...

I agree that many CDs are overlong but I suspect that there might not always be agreement over what constitutes 'filler'. For example if everybody here picked a 40 minute long bigger bang selection I suspect that thet tracklisting might vary quite a lot.

YEAH 50 min total is good...



ROCKMAN

I think yes.

Some albums really benefit from the "continous sequence" and total playing time that a CD allows. Go figure, acts like Pink Floyd would have loved such a concept back in the 70's.

But some other times it works the other way round as Stonesdan points out: you get at least 20 or 30% of filler in order to reach the 70-something minutes running time. To some degree "Voodoo", "Bridges" and "ABB" are perfect examples of this. I wouldn't dare myself to mess with said albums' tracklist, but it might be true that these would have worked much better sticking to the classic 45-minute, two-sided good old concept of an album.

Shall we consensus that the CD format is more appropiate for conceptual albums and live recordings, while the LP format is the ultimate rock n'roll expression?

I totally agree, I think a album like "A Bigger Bang" would had been a Monster hit, if they "only needed" to put 10 songs on it !!
My 10 would had been:
Rough Justise - Let me down - I wont take long - Rain fall down - Streets of Love - Biggest Mistake - Oh no, not you - Laugh I nearly - She saw me coming - This place is emty
This would a been a classic !!

Quote
Braincapers

Quote
stonesdan60
...the LP format, what you get is a condensed, poweful blast of rock that kicks your ass and leaves you wanting more. I think a lot of people would prefer that to an 80 minute CD that has a lot of great songs, but also filler that the artist included just because it would fit...

I agree that many CDs are overlong but I suspect that there might not always be agreement over what constitutes 'filler'. For example if everybody here picked a 40 minute long bigger bang selection I suspect that thet tracklisting might vary quite a lot.

Indeed...taste is subjective!

Quote
Handova
Some albums really benefit from the "continous sequence" and total playing time that a CD allows. Go figure, acts like Pink Floyd would have loved such a concept back in the 70's.

But some other times it works the other way round as Stonesdan points out: you get at least 20 or 30% of filler in order to reach the 70-something minutes running time. To some degree "Voodoo", "Bridges" and "ABB" are perfect examples of this. I wouldn't dare myself to mess with said albums' tracklist, but it might be true that these would have worked much better sticking to the classic 45-minute, two-sided good old concept of an album.

Shall we consensus that the CD format is more appropiate for conceptual albums and live recordings, while the LP format is the ultimate rock n'roll expression?

Yes, I agree with that.

Quote
stonesdan60
This might seem off topic but it does it relate to the Stones, among others. In the days of vinyl, a typical album had about ten songs (depending on song length) and took about 40 - 45 minutes of your time to enjoy the whole thing. It seems that with CD's artists feel they have about 80 minutes to fill and so they include songs that would surely be cut if they had to narrow it down to the old vinyl play time. I've been playing around with a lot of my favorite CD's of recent vintage, like the much maligned (by some) Live Licks and Shine A Light. By making playlists for myself that would have to fit the old vinyl format, only the very best cuts can be included and the end result is a much more focused and powerful listening experience. OTOH, many of us wish Get Yer Ya Ya's Out lasted longer, but with the constraints of the LP format, what you get is a condensed, poweful blast of rock that kicks your ass and leaves you wanting more. I think a lot of people would prefer that to an 80 minute CD that has a lot of great songs, but also filler that the artist included just because it would fit. What do you guys think?

Definitely yes, imo.

But the tables have turned now. Today, the albums are getting short and sweet again.

Nowadays albums are short again. Black Keys' "El Camino" is 38 minutes long.

Regarding Bigger Bang, I'm not sure if after 8 years without a full length album an album with only 10 tracks would have been that much praised...

For Live CDs the 80 minute CD is fine. We finally get the somewhat longer jams.
For classical the CD is fine too, as symphonies often are somewhat longer.
For John Coltrane material the CD is a blessing.
However for all other purposes the LP is superior. And it has better sound.

For what it's worth, I think the technological fact of having 80 minutes "to fill" did make albums too long, but the tide has turned again - in the days of the download the physical size of a CD doesn't matter as much as it used to. You can cherry-pick what you like out of an album, and the top-40 pop market is increasingly focused around single tracks for the IPod or whatever. Back to the 1950s, folks!

The Darkness albums were about 30 minutes long . I think any album should bge a minimum of 40 mins.

I like Ruby Fridays song sequence for ABB. Only change I would make though is take one of those out and put in Under The Radar. Perhaps we will see a return to 40-45 minute albums. After all everything goes in cycles or circles.

I think Cds should continue.

However, certain series should be in limited quantities for the true fan out there, i.e. The Stones archives, The Allmans archives, and rhinohandmade should continue to release excellent material.

We should limit the chavvier end of the market, i.e. what is currently sold in local HMV stores, to download only. It would also cut down on youngsters trying to steal music, and also keep the poisonous Cowell generated garbage away from stores.

Quote
Green Lady
For what it's worth, I think the technological fact of having 80 minutes "to fill" did make albums too long, but the tide has turned again - in the days of the download the physical size of a CD doesn't matter as much as it used to. You can cherry-pick what you like out of an album, and the top-40 pop market is increasingly focused around single tracks for the IPod or whatever. Back to the 1950s, folks!

that's exactly it. albums are becoming a specialty product for a loyal
hardcore fanbase only. the same people that attend your concerts every time
you come to town.

not quite there yet. but almost.

and generally speaking, a hardcore fanbase just wants MORE. If you happen
to want less, or a different running order, then program your cd player
accordingly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-20 13:23 by superrevvy.

Quote
tomcasagranda
I think Cds should continue.

However, certain series should be in limited quantities for the true fan out there, i.e. The Stones archives, The Allmans archives, and rhinohandmade should continue to release excellent material.

We should limit the chavvier end of the market, i.e. what is currently sold in local HMV stores, to download only. It would also cut down on youngsters trying to steal music, and also keep the poisonous Cowell generated garbage away from stores.

But excellent material for the discerning true fan isn't a big enough market to pay for the cost of a shop, and probably never was. Why else are record stores closing faster than you can count them, now that the "chavvier end" aren't shopping in HMV any more? Certainly those top-end releases should continue - but online will soon be the only place to buy them.

Yes, CDs are too long. Just think of the Norwegian tunesmiths A-ha`s album "Lifelines". Only 3 good`ones and the rest is filler. I`m not sure that Pink Floyd would have benefited from the CD format. The LP lenght is fine with me.

This is exactly how I feel. I am glad to see this post. I believe recent Stones albums have definitely suffered as they try to use all the time available. I make playlists for each of the albums (for example, one is called Voodoo Monte) where I cut out all the songs I think are filler. On VL, I'm down to nine tunes and it's extremely solid from my perspective!

I really do think it's a problem.

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar to long..........................

2 1 2 0

no. it's the artists that make albums too long. don't blame the cd. that's like blaming guns for killing people. or something.

I do agree that the LP format forces the artist to choose the top songs - therefore making the albums better, but I still enjoy having all the extra filler songs. Even though they may not all be great, I still like having them. Maybe if they released them on a companion CD. Otherwise, we'd all be searching them out til the end of time.

Yes. 40-50 minutes is how long a LP should be, regardless of what medium it is released on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-20 15:28 by WeLoveToPlayTheBlues.

The idea of the Stones releasing 14 tracks or whatever because they put an alum out every 6 -8 years is stupid - shit tracks are shit tracks. ABB could have been better better/shorter. Same with VL and BTB.

If the CD is to long don't listen to the songs you don't like. This topic is silly. Young kids don't even buy CD's anymore. They just download songs to their Ipods or MP3 players.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-20 16:38 by Rocknroll1969.

As Jagger said--"Enough is never enough"

I rather have 12 great songs then just 10...

Yes

Quote
StonesTod
no. it's the artists that make albums too long. don't blame the cd. that's like blaming guns for killing people. or something.

My point is that the artists know they have 80 minutes they can fill and if they do so by incuding less than great songs just because they can, then they do share the blame with the CD format, It makes them less likely to omit the below par songs as they would have to do if they knew they were limited to a 40 - 45 minute release.

Quote
Rocknroll1969
If the CD is to long don't listen to the songs you don't like. This topic is silly. Young kids don't even buy CD's anymore. They just download songs to their Ipods or MP3 players.

young kids rock.

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
StonesTod
no. it's the artists that make albums too long. don't blame the cd. that's like blaming guns for killing people. or something.

My point is that the artists know they have 80 minutes they can fill and if they do so by incuding less than great songs just because they can, then they do share the blame with the CD format, It makes them less likely to omit the below par songs as they would have to do if they knew they were limited to a 40 - 45 minute release.

poor excuse. don't blame the medium. the court rejects this argument.