|
|
| Stones Fan, Gar |
Do you think when a record album had room for only 20 minutes per side to now, that the quality of music being released has changed? These days, compact discs can hold so much more music, are artists diluting their product to fill a disc? Putting stuff that might not have made it to record when space was more of an issue. It is almost like making an old time double album each time a disc is released. Any where from 12 to 20 songs on CDs now, to 8 to 10 songs on an album. Personally, I'd take quality over quantity anytime. Gar |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Stones Fan, Gar wrote:
Do you think when a record album had room for only 20 minutes per side to now, that the quality of music being released has changed?
Yes. These days albums tend towards bloated and sloppier, and they're sequenced differently as well. When there were two distinct and separate sides you had opportunity for double rising, falling action - much more interesting in terms of where songs would end up. Can you imagine a modern CD where Bitch would be the sixth song in? I can't. Only by vinyl sequencing, wherein Bitch leads a side, does that happen. Jagger talked about how Exile was arranged as four distinct sides, to be listened to when the mood struck, rather than something to play from beginning to end. It's like four 18-25 minute entities as opposed to a 50 minute or more sprawl.
quote:
These days, compact discs can hold so much more music, are artists diluting their product to fill a disc? Putting stuff that might not have made it to record when space was more of an issue. It is almost like making an old time double album each time a disc is released. Any where from 12 to 20 songs on CDs now, to 8 to 10 songs on an album. Personally, I'd take quality over quantity anytime. Gar
Me too, SFG. Losing the occasional good song to the outtakers or making a wrong sequencing call on an LP is still better than the dreaded bloat.
The party line that Virgin records press releases and liasons took when Voodoo Lounge was released, was, and I don't think the STONES said this, but this was part of what the label wanted -- "We're going to make a nice, long album", which is a dumb thing to say. Give me a great album over a long album any day. I'll play the damn thing twice in a row I need more of it.
But this is the world we live in. Bridges to Babylon or Voodoo Lounge would be MUCH better at 10 song single LP length than they are at their present state, but that's not likely to change the real world fact that peple are going to feel short changed by 45 minutes when they know they could get 70 OR change the fact that the artist might be lazier in the editing process with more length allowed to them.
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
|
|
| quackenbush |
Maybe the record companies could price shorter cds differently than the longer ones so that artists won't have to worry about compromising their work. It is a win win solution. By making the shorter cds, cds that run less than forty minutes, significantly cheaper will entice consumers to take chances with new music and try some of the older stuff. |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
Yes quality over quantity any day. They were saying that about the RHCP cd that came out in '91. Way too many songs that would never have made an lp. The Supersuckers had a cd so short the last track was all the songs over again as one long track. Think it's something like 28 minutes. |
|
|
| T&A |
absolutely.
and, it's only going to get worse. The CD format is locked in at 80 minutes currently - but the other emerging formats - SACD, DVD-A have no such limitation. If either of these become the standard, we're looking at the possibility of having to re-address the standard length for albums.
Actually, I believe we're on the cusp of more radical changes in the music industry regarding albums. With the 'net, downloading, etc and the state of the industry, financially, I think the concept of the album as we know is heading for a end.... |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]
