It's no secret, two of the most anticipated albums of the past 12 months were The Suburbs by Arcade Fire and The King of Limbs by Radiohead.

 

While both albums had people who loved them and didn't love them, there seemed to be one common criticism based on length.

 

With The Suburbs, we have a 16 track album that clocked in at an hour. There were a lot of people complaining saying there were too many songs, it was too long etc.

 

With TKOL, we have 8 tracks clocking in at 37 minutes. We have had quite a few people saying it doesn't feel like an album, that there aren't enough songs on it, too short in length, etc.

 

So the question is, what is a good album length? How many songs do you like in an album? Or how long do you want an album to be? Would you prefer if bands just released EPs frequently instead of an album every couple years? Coke or Pepsi?

pepsi

unless pepsi is the suburbs

cos fuck it i want coke

suburbs

I'm not really bothered either way. I don't care how much is there, as long as it's quality music.

 

On that note, however, I will say that as an avid music lover, I prefer longer albums.

Water, please.

 

So I was listening to some classical music with my Dad the other day when it dawned on me that although symphonies and such tend to be indistinguishably long and instrumental, the structure and length is actually almost identical to a pop album.

 

Usually there are 3 or 4 movements within a piece, and each movement is broken down into 3 or 4 distinct sections (sorry it`s too late for me to think of proper names). Each of those sections are usually about 3 to five minutes long each (sort of like a pop song) and the total number of sections if you combine the movements is usually between about 8 and 16. (Sort of like a pop album.) The total length of a piece can vary a fair bit depending on the conductor, but it usually comes in at around 40 minutes to an hour. (Getting the picture yet?)

 

My point is, I don't think modern recording length is just something arbitrary we dreamed up in the 20th century. It's been that way in western music for centuries. Maybe it's a reflection of our natural attention spans? Under 5 minutes for something being the same in the short term, under 60 minutes for paying attention the long term? And yes, just like many pop/rock/whatever albums there are plenty of classical examples of pieces that push those boundaries- 15 minute gems and 2 and a half hour epic marathons. But we keep coming back to about 45 or 50 minutes. It's a length that feels structured and complete.

 

I say go with what works for your material. 45 minutes is a nice length. Some things justify an hour an a half- the material is so tight that nothing can possibly be left out. Some things justify being short- they're so perfect the way they are that adding anything else to fill out the time would diminish the whole. It's when a more unconventional length becomes a distraction from the content that an album is too short or too long.

 

The Suburbs could afford to be shorter and maybe a shorter running time would have made the remaining songs shine a little bit brighter. tKoL is too short because it feels unfinished. One more song could have balanced out the sections of the album better. But then I still love them both very much. :shrug:

I feel The Suburbs does a better job at being a long album than The King Of Limbs does at being a short album. That being said, I believe that the best albums have ten tracks. That way there shouldn't be any filler tracks, the quality should be good, as well as the length. Perhaps if they have recorded more material that, they could release an EP between tours and recording to keep the fans happy, or put then one as B-sides.

So are you asking "does size matter?" :P

 

I liked the Suburbs not because of the size but because of the quality.

 

Wasn't too thrilled with TKOL because of the quality, not the length. I felt it wasn't up to their standards,

 

I hate Pepsi and it sucks in all sizes available.

 

 

When did Briggs become Carrie Bradshaw? :inquisitive:

For the money you spend The Suburbs is a great deal. There is only two tracks which I skip on it. Sure if I was making an album I'd make it around 35 - 45 minutes but with the death of the b side maybe it's good Arcade Fire gave us extra.

The Suburbs for me.

So far, The King Of Limbs sounds incomplete, so The Suburbs for me too.

At the end of the day it all comes down to quality.

Only one band produced this so the length only becomes a preference.

 

TKOL by about 700 miles. 8 great tracks beats 1 great tracks and 2 or 3 decent ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for my preference, that would be 10-12 different songs (at 3.5-5 minutes long on average) . If the songs are quite progressive and cover different ideas then it can be shorter, and if the tracks are short in length then you'll need a few more.

So far, The King Of Limbs sounds incomplete, so The Suburbs for me too.

 

I unfortunately have to agree.

 

This should be a tough choice, but it itsn't. :blank:.

 

TKOL feels like something's missing. I was slightly disappointed at it, but for the most part satisfied.

 

 

I have no complaints with The Suburbs, the album is fucking genius. :heart:

The Suburbs is too long.

The King Of Limbs is too short.

 

I'd put my vote towards a normal length album.

The Suburbs is perfect. If it lost ANY of the songs I wouldn't be happy!

 

But TKoL is too short, yes.

Despite my dislike for The Suburbs' length, no song on TKOL grabbed my attention the way a few of the songs on The Suburbs did.....so yeah I'm going with The Suburbs.

So far, The King Of Limbs sounds incomplete, so The Suburbs for me too.

 

I unfortunately have to agree.

 

This should be a tough choice, but it itsn't. :blank:.

 

TKOL feels like something's missing. I was slightly disappointed at it, but for the most part satisfied.

 

 

I have no complaints with The Suburbs, the album is fucking genius. :heart:

 

Completely agree with both of these posts.

Suburbs for me.

 

With TKOL, I didn't hear a single song that I just went "OMG THIS IS AMAZING :dazzled:"

Completely agree with both of these posts.

Suburbs for me.

 

With TKOL, I didn't hear a single song that I just went "OMG THIS IS AMAZING :dazzled:"

 

That's how I feel.

Overall I'd go with The Suburbs, though right now I'd say TKOL since it just came out.

 

but I also agree in that I didn't hear a song that I was amazed by

Most songs on TKOL made me go "OMG THIS SONG IS AMAZING!!!"

Most songs on The Suburbs made me "What the fuck. I thought this band was good."

TKOL and "Amazing" does not compute :|

just shut up mike :P

Suburbs. TKOL is okay, but Suburbs just has so many great tracks... like Empty Room, City with No Children, and Modern Man :D

uhm yeah Suburbs tho I don't see the complaints of the lengthiness... I mean now that you guys sit here and complain about it being 16 songs long i see it but when i'm listening to it i don't sit there and be like OMG THIS IS TOO LONG!

And yeah it has a lot of great songs while TKOL has a incomplete feeling and no song really stands out.

uhm yeah Suburbs tho I don't see the complaints of the lengthiness... I mean now that you guys sit here and complain about it being 16 songs long i see it but when i'm listening to it i don't sit there and be like OMG THIS IS TOO LONG!

And yeah it has a lot of great songs while TKOL has a incomplete feeling and no song really stands out.

Pepsi

The Suburbs

10 tracks or less: I've always believed that the best length for an album is 8 to 10 songs. It allows the listener to easily connect the first song to the last. For me, if it's any longer, the album starts to lose its cohesiveness. But I've already mentioned that I have a short attention span, so it may just be me. I just happen to like the Suburbs, but it is way too long in my opinion, and there is certainly some fat that could have been taken out. I also like that short CDs have a certain punch to them - I can make up my mind quickly whether or not I like the album.