Kaleidoscope 195 Posted December 30, 2016 This is a topic I've been thinking more about this year after noticing that I have trouble remembering songs on albums that go beyond 10-12 songs. The worst offender for this is probably Mejibray for me - I do believe "420" could be an amazing album (I quite enjoy it as it is), but they sheer amount of tracks hurts the listening experience for me and makes it way more difficult for single tracks standing out. After coming across a variety of different album lengths, I feel like I remember albums with 9-12 songs the most, which equals 35-45 minutes for most bands. Unless they are a bit more progressive and have longer songs, of course. What is your prefered album length? Number of songs or the length in minutes, anything goes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bear 1817 Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) That depends on the genre, the type of music the band plays, how good the songwriting is and so on. But there's no such thing as a perfect album lenght, but a general thumb rule for me is that the more agressive the music is, the shorter the album should be. There's always certain exceptions of course, but just in general. But for agressive music such as grindcore, thrash metal, death metal, hardcore, crust, "war metal" (aka really violent brand of black/death metal) and so on I prefer it to be between 15-50. For other genres such as ambient, (slower/symphonic/more atmospheric) black metal and doom metal I'll easily take 80-140 minutes playtime. But it depends on how well the album is set up, how good the songwriting is and all that. So for me, the perfect album lenght can be anything between 10 minutes and 140+ minutes. Number of songs however doesn't matter. If an album has 25 songs and play for 60 minutes or have one song and play for 60 minutes has nothing to say. No difference whatsoever. It's about the styleof the music and the songwriting. The general quality of the music. Edited December 30, 2016 by Bear 1 Kaleidoscope reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jigsaw9 6783 Posted December 30, 2016 I usually prefer shorter, to-the-point albums without any excess fat. So around 25-45 mins approx. But yeah, it depends on the genre and the particular band. 1 Kaleidoscope reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
r... 720 Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) Up until 45 minutes should be the standard. Anything longer than that can be quite tiresome if the mood isn't right. Edited December 30, 2016 by r... 2 Seimeisen and Kaleidoscope reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsukoii 1300 Posted December 30, 2016 i rarely sit down and listen to an album all the way through, i usually just let the songs show up when i'm listening to music on shuffle. so, the length of an album is something i'm not really concerned about. however on the odd chance i do sit down and listen to an entire album, the "perfect length" solely depends on whether or not i like the band or genre (as others have mentioned. it always just depends.) 3 helcchi, NICKT and piyokonyan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mannequin 1 Posted December 30, 2016 I prefer 10 - 12 songs about 1 hour length. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaleidoscope 195 Posted December 30, 2016 58 minutes ago, Bear said: That depends on the genre, the type of music the band plays, how good the songwriting is and so on. But there's no such thing as a perfect album lenght, but a general thumb rule for me is that the more agressive the music is, the shorter the album should be. There's always certain exceptions of course, but just in general. But for agressive music such as grindcore, thrash metal, death metal, hardcore, crust, "war metal" (aka really violent brand of black/death metal) and so on I prefer it to be between 15-50. For other genres such as ambient, (slower/symphonic/more atmospheric) black metal and doom metal I'll easily take 80-140 minutes playtime. Yeah, I agree with you there. When I made the thread, I was mainly thinking about stuff I've been listening to recently (most of which is rooted in hardcore to some extent) plus some VK stuff. When I listen to music that is focused less on single songs, but more on the listening experience as a whole, I don't really care about the length either - even though I'd actually prefer a longer album in that case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
suji 8317 Posted December 30, 2016 12 inches 2 Atreides and Kaleidoscope reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 454 Posted December 30, 2016 I'd prefer if an artist release an album that all the disc space is used up. Please no 35 minute "full length" albums. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chi 2624 Posted December 30, 2016 12 but if the songs are bad even an EP can feel like an eternity 1 NICKT reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euronymous 325 Posted December 30, 2016 I just think it depends on how much the band's sound pleases you. If it's a sound that makes you excited you'll want to hear the next song, but if it's not good enough, you'll probably want to stop in the middle. I'm a fan of mini albums with good cover artwork and an intro plus 6 or 5 songs.I remember when I started listening to jrock and i was used to spent a whole month listening to only 4 bands, and I enjoyed so much better, but now that I know a lot of bands, I end up judging too soon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bear 1817 Posted December 30, 2016 22 minutes ago, Atreides said: I'd prefer if an artist release an album that all the disc space is used up. Please no 35 minute "full length" albums. If the 35 minutes are great, what's the problem? I'd rather have 35 perfect minutes than 50 where 5-15 minutes are less than perfect. I could never imagine Slayer's Reign in Blood (28 minutes), Framtid's "Under The Ashes" and "Defeat Of Civilization" (27 minutes and 21 minutes), Extreme Noise Terror's "A Holocaust in Your Head" (26 minutes) or Repulsion's "Horrified" (29 minutes) being any longer. They're all perfect as they are. And I'll gladly pay full price for all of them as they are brilliant and totally worth it. But at the same time I could never imagine or want for Cultes des Ghoules' "Coven, or Evil Ways Instead of Love" (100 minutes) or Reverend Bizarre's "III: So Long Suckers" (125 minutes) to be any shorter as they are perfect as they are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 454 Posted December 30, 2016 Because it's my personal preference. I'm not saying I won't listen to an album that's only 35 minutes but I myself prefer something at least twice as long. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bear 1817 Posted December 30, 2016 Twice as long, but with 2--5 poor(er) songs thrown in. Aight, sound great. Would not buy. 1 NICKT reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 454 Posted December 30, 2016 Implying I'm ignorant enough to spend money on music I won't enjoy? lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aeolus 220 Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) Dream Theater cause me to crave hour long masterpieces, I loved that they take me on a journey. The problem that I have now is when I listen to a 35-40min album I feel like the album has just come to an abrupt stop like when I listen to classic Rush or 80 metal albums. Because of this I'm determined to have all b-sides and non album tracks just so I can have complete recording sessions. Edited December 30, 2016 by Aeolus 1 Atreides reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 454 Posted December 31, 2016 ^ Pretty much this for me too though I'm only really a fan of Dream Theatre's first album. I also love Rush myself. 1 Aeolus reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aeolus 220 Posted December 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Atreides said: ^ Pretty much this for me too though I'm only really a fan of Dream Theatre's first album. I also love Rush myself. Train of Thought for me, though I've lost interest in post-systematic chaos years. I recently got a whole new appreciation for rush now that I have they're studio discography in 24-bit. I hope In Rio comes out in 24-bit so I can listen to that in it's entirety again with new ears so to speak. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 454 Posted December 31, 2016 Yeah Rush is great, pretty much everything they have ever put out is gold. Don't wanna derail the thread though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
emmny 4139 Posted December 31, 2016 35-47 min or so anything above that has to PROVE its length 2 r... and Kaleidoscope reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Original Saku 1593 Posted December 31, 2016 45-50 min has always been a sweet spot for me 1 Kaleidoscope reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Visutox 188 Posted January 13, 2017 It really depends on the musical genre, the type of the CD and how the band delivers, therefore the musical quality of an album. Personally, a shitty ~30 minutes album will seem endless torture to me till I decide switching to listen something else. As well as a +100 minutes long-ass album will seem short to me if I enjoy it and the music is pure gold. So yeah, it really depends. But in general, something between 40-60 minutes is perfect to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
COSMOMOBILE 33 Posted January 13, 2017 13 tracks is great, ~45-50 minutes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lestat 2167 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) Recently, the albums that I have been listening to average on a track-length of fifteen to twenty minutes alone. These albums therefore easily pass the hundred-minute mark and I cannot say I have ever been bothered by these numbers whatsoever. An album can be one tireless fifty-minute track, or two full sides tallying up to sixteen shorter titles, as long as the music works. As @Bearsays, it depends on the artist in particular and how well they are able to perform in any given time-frame. I can enjoy fifteen-minute albums just as much as those that last up to two hours — but given what artist performs them, they could also be horrible. Edited January 13, 2017 by Lestat 1 Bear reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JukaForever 758 Posted January 13, 2017 I don't think a 100 min is possible on CD I am already used to 60-70 min albums but if the average song is about 5 min and I want at least 10 songs, that should be around 50 min. I don't think a full length album should be less than 45 min cuz you know "full length" Song count doesn't really matter as long as album flows well. The 420 album would've been better but there are way too many tracks that are similar to one another. It just flows bad 1 Kaleidoscope reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
