[k-krack]

Originally Posted by blots

Le Scrawl's entire discography "Too Short to Ignore" is 66 songs at something like 55 minutes...

HAHA. I laugh at yr humongous discography. Minor Threats Completel Discog. is a mere 26 songs and 47 minutes!

[Norma J]

That it is, and it is great.

Complete Discography that is.

[porkmarras]

I think that we should ask the initial question to Napalm Death,shall we?

[k-krack]

they would say "30 to 45 minutes." why would we ask them, when we can ask anal cunt. "30-45 seconds," they'd say! (small exaggeration)

[Toilet & Bowels]

or you could ask the question to the gerogerigegege,

[k-krack]

nuh-uh. could not.

[nomowish]

Short enough for me to wish it were longer. EVOL's my favorite from the group, and it's like 40 or so minutes. The number of tracks should be no more than 11.

[acousticrock87]

Originally Posted by blots

The 15 tracks thing was kind of just a general rule, tracks don't really mean anything. Locust has very short songs, and as for Husker Du, Zen Arcade easily justifies its length for me. Le Scrawl's entire discography "Too Short to Ignore" is 66 songs at something like 55 minutes... There are a lot of very slow bands, or very sprawling bands who might only fit two songs in that time frame.

I don't really understand what use extra time is, other than taking up time. In many cases I see the album as a whole to be just as important as each song, so it's not still getting the other stuff, it's getting inconsistency and mediocrity. The amount of material is not really what you're buying, it's the work as a whole...otherwise just go to a dollar bin and buy 10 CDs rather than one, it's a much better deal. Music doesn't really end with the start and stop buttons anyway, it just seems irrelevant...the work is either worth it or it's not. Compilations are a slightly different issue, but usually the length will depend on the goal, if you're trying to get an overview of an artist's entire career it makes sense that there will be more material. Though these tend to be an excellent example of poor choices in the tracklisting being a detriment to the work as a whole. The only reason I say 30-40 minutes is because that's what a lot of, shall we say pop, artists seem have in them. When something is great it doesn't matter how long it is, and greatness isn't so scarce that I need mediocrity to take up the extra time in between.

Yeah I get what you're saying. I just listen to music differently I suppose. I rarely look at a CD as a whole unless it is meant to be looked at as a whole. Usually I assume a band just writes songs and cuts the ones that sound out of place, but doesn't work them into a single entity. I'm someone who will buy a CD for a few songs, and just think of the others as a bonus to give me my money's worth. I think of of it like, I can either have 30 minutes of great music and then nothing, or 30 minutes of great music interspersed with 30 minutes of variable music. Sometimes it's another great 30 minutes, sometimes it's a dissappointing 30 minutes. But it's still better than nothing.

Like the CD I bought today cost me $20 (it's an import) and is an hour long (excluding the obnoxious 15 minute bonus crap I mentioned). I bought it based on a single song, but I would not have paid that for the song alone. I paid it knowing that I would get 55 more minutes of potentially good/potentially bad music. It's better than paying $20 for a single song. Fortunately, the whole thing kicks ass.

[Cantankerous]

right about at 40 minutes is perfect.

[krastian]

52 mins.

[DemonBox]

about 40 min, but one of my favorite records are Hüsker Dü - Everything Falls Apart, and that one is short but perfect.

[Pookie]

In the days before CD's, it was less obvious how long an album was, unless you timed it. length was much less of an issue.

I've been really surprised how short some of my favourite albums are when I've bought them on CD, having only had the vinyl previously.

Particularly old punk albums, like Circle Jerks first and MDC's Millions of Dead Cops (both not much longer than about 20 minutes).

[DemonBox]

It's not only punk that suits short, what about Nick Drake - Pink Moon? That one is just perfect.

[Pookie]

True enough, I only used those as an example becauses that's what I listened to in my youth.

[DemonBox]

yeah, I was not directing it to you in spesific, it just crossed my mind. What's your favorite long album Pookie?

[Pookie]

I suppose the one that springs to mind is Sandinista, which was a triple LP, but is now available on a single CD.

I don't know if double and triple LP's count because they weren't necessarily meant to be listened to in one sitting. I don't think I ever did with Sandinista until I bought it on CD.

[DemonBox]

yeah, good point. I hardly listen through double or triple LP in one sitting. I think that's a good thing.

[king_buzzo]

45-60, about 13 songs or something

[Cantankerous]

Originally Posted by krastian

52 mins.

horses?

[finding nobody]

45-60 minutes
But I love albums that are both shorter and longer