This may just be a personal gripe, but does anyone else get annoyed when an album is longer than 40-45 minutes? For me I don't want to listen to a full-length that exceeds around 40 minutes unless there is some good reason to do so, e.g. it is some sort of concept album telling a long story, or if the musical style lends itself to slow and epic compositions that can go on indefinitely as background music.

I recently got Lamp of Thoth's 2008 album, and although I really enjoy their rocking brand of occult doom, the album is 1:05 hrs long!! I don't see any good reason for this, as it just seems they recorded as many songs as they had lying around at the time. Even though the standard is pretty consistent throughout, after an hour of listening there is not a lot to hold your attention to the last few songs. I don't see why they couldn't have saved those tracks for future use.

Also, I guess this has only been a hazard since CDs removed the maximum play time inherent in vinyl.

So am I just being picky, or do you also get annoyed when albums seem too long? Another example is Manilla Road's Gates of Fire album (2005), which I've heard good things about but haven't picked it up; I am daunted by sitting through 1:12 hrs of material in order to fully absorb the album, even though it is a conceptual release.

The main problem is that I find the last few tracks on a really long album don't receive as much appreciation as the first half - another example would be certain rather long Summoning albums. But it occured to me the other day that this is an advantage of the 'shuffle' feature of iPods - I used to think that was a lame idea that I would never use, but if I had a really long album to digest, it could be handy.

Anyway, what a total bored-at-work ramble this thread has become.

As long as there are no filler tracks, then I'm not too bothered.

I'd rather an album be too long than too short.

^ Captain Beyond is the best example, only 30mins long, well not enough of the captain!!!!

I don't really mind about album length, I'd quite happily sit through a Symphony X album, most of which clock around the 1hr mark, one or 2 maybe hit 75mins... I like it, IMO the songs are amazing enough to warrant the album length!

it depends i guess, if there's nothing to hold your attention for the full album length then its a bad thing... but when it's done well it's totally worth it!

James, I would just listen to gates of fire, Manilla Road are pretty epic anyway! have you heard Atlantis Rising by them? that's a long concepty album aswell

7-12 tracks and usually about 40 minutes tops i supose. Unless its a brilliant album its allowed to go over that. I kinda like short albums because they arent really long, and if some bands tried to do long albums it could be a mistake for them because it could get boring.

I would say 7-9 3/4/5 minute tracks, I can't listen to any more than that, unless as James said, they are part of a story or concept.

Creeping Dan wrote:I kinda like short albums because they arent really long

One side of a TDK D90. No more ever, unless it's Acid Mothers Temple.

thrash metal maniac wrote:James, I would just listen to gates of fire, Manilla Road are pretty epic anyway! have you heard Atlantis Rising by them? that's a long concepty album aswell

Yeah I wasn't saying I plan to boycott that album or something, it was just an example of a daunting album length. I still need to get some earlier MR albums like Mystification and The Deluge before I work my way on to the later stuff.

And yeah, I'd say around 8 tracks is about right for a full-length.

thrash metal maniac wrote:

Creeping Dan wrote:I kinda like short albums because they arent really long

I think i summed ut up well enough there!!

Doesn't bother me except when albums trail off. A perfect example is the black album. If it ended at Of Wolf And Man it would be great from start to finish. Its a much weaker album from those last three tracks imo.

Last 3 tracks are some of my favourites from that album. Ahh well.

This is a topic I'm VERY passionate about. James & Ian, you're bang on the money. All albums should fit on one side of a cassette for 45 mins tops. It was a scientific formula tested and perfected in the 80's & 90's.

HOD Trivia #47 - Both our albums clock in at 42 minutes for this reason, any spare songs get shelved for the next one, fuck making it longer, why mess with science?

HOD Trivia #48 - I didn't know Damage inc existed as a song for nearly 10 years as tapes cut out half way through Orion.

HOD Trivia #49 - A lad had to call the police in 1994 on HOD as we smashed up his garden because he owned Metallica and maiden albums on CD. I mean, who did this fake metal poser think he was?!

H.O.D. Feemo wrote:HOD Trivia #49 - A lad had to call the police in 1994 on HOD as we smashed up his garden because he owned Metallica and maiden albums on CD. I mean, who did this fake metal poser think he was?!

I almost shat myself laughing at that.

terrorizer wrote:One side of a TDK D90. No more ever

because you can turn it over and record the same album on the other side.

I think it can depend very much on the type of music. If I'm listening to some lovely prog, anything under 1 hour means they are sell outs and need to make their songs longer.
If it's punk/hardcore and it's over 25 minutes, they are sell outs and should cut the gay shit out and make their songs shorter.