The only thing I hate about CDs is their length. I wish they had capped at 60 minutes, not 80. Then the album bloat of the last 20 years might have been much lower.

There were a lot more great albums in the LP era, with a 35- to 45-minute length, than in the CD era with its length of up to 80 minutes.

Imagine the record labels trying to charge $18 for CDs if they were all 35 to 45 minutes in length!

My CD collection is comprised mostly of reissues, so I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to albums which were recorded since the advent of the CD. How often are current (CD-era albums) longer than 45 or 50 minutes in length?

In reality, how many truly great albums have there EVER been? A couple hundred? A couple thousand maybe? When you compare that number to the number which have been released, it's still pretty minimal. It seems to me that the early formula of releasing an LP comprised of one or two strong singles and a bunch of filler tracks has never really gone away. So if there are a few extra filler tracks to choose from, what's the harm?

Maybe it's just the artists I listen to, but even in the CD era I feel like I've bought way more new releases that were in the 40 minute range than those that took full advantage of the longer playing times CDs could offer ... and yet these artists always managed to come up with several "b-side" tracks which were often as good as the material on the main album but could only be purchased as CD singles or as bonus tracks on expensive imports. It always seemed like a bit of a rip-off to me. Personally, I would much rather buy a CD that is filled to the brim with material. If I don't like some of it, that's what the Program button is for.

All I meant is that it's harder to sustain greatness over 70 to 80 minutes than it is at half that time. Artists used to release double albums only when they were really inspired. Recently double-album length has become more the norm than the exception.

Most modern R&B/urban CD's in the past twenty years have been lumbered with tons of filler, 16 to 18 tracks is common here - the same can be said for hip-hop, but they can be saved by cleaver beats. 12 songs in the 3-minute range is ideal.

Wow! Double-length releases have become the norm? It's a shame that I'm not really into many current bands.

Your point is very valid, Chip. It IS much harder to sustain greatness over 80 minutes The point of my (typically wordy) post was that I don't believe that very many artists can (or have ever been able to) sustain greatness for even 40 minutes. MOST albums have had filler. I honestly can't think of a single disc in my collection on which I don't skip at least one or two tracks. So, why not just fill up the CD (as Glenn said) and just let the consumers decide which filler tracks to play?

I have heard outtakes from certain albums which, in my opinion, are far better than many of the tracks which were deemed suitable for release! (Likewise, the CD singles and import-only bonus tracks - which Glenn mentioned - are sometimes better than what was on the domestic CD.) Honestly, I don't trust that the record company's taste and mine are the same. If they just put out everything, then I can pick and choose for myself.

One of my favorite bands (Dumpstaphunk) released a 5-track EP last year, after many months of promoting their upcoming LP. When the disc came out as an EP, the band announced that it had decided that it would rather release 25 minutes of great music than a full-length disc, padded out with filler. Artistically, I applaud their decision (and the disc really is excellent from start to finish.) However, as a consumer, I am not sure that $10 for 25 minutes of music, even if it is all good, is a good deal. So ultimately, I still would have preferred a full-length disc with filler. I realize that musicians are in a bit of a no-win situation once you start pitting artistic integrity against cost effectiveness.

I could be wrong about that -- since, well, I haven't bought an album of new music in three years (no, I haven't bought Accelerate yet) -- but it sure seemed that way to me in the last few years. Regardless, I think there's a strong temptation to fill the discs if possible.



Because I have many albums in my collection where I do play, and love, every track. And I would enjoy those albums a lot less if they had stuck lesser tracks in between the songs I love.



When I hear reissue CDs with outtakes for bonus tracks, 9 times out of 10 I understand why they left those tracks off the original album. I'm glad they're on the reissue, and I do listen to them, but if they were to be sprinkled in with the original songs -- if they weren't at the end of the CD -- I wouldn't like that one bit.

As far as newer releases, I don't know how to address that without hearing longer and shorter versions of a particular album. But an older album I consider perfect, like Blondie's Parallel Lines -- would it be as good an album, or better, if it were 70 minutes long? I seriously doubt it.

While I love the 80 minutes length for greatest hits, other comps & live albums, the thing I haven't seen mentioned here is if their had been a 60 minute cap the sound quality issues due to low bit rate would have been at least drastically minimized if not eliminated all together.

I agree that some cd's of new material would be better with less songs, but who knows if the artist would have removed our favorites or the ones we don't like?

I think the reason sales are down is not only downloads, but I find music from the past 18-19 years sounds generic, and younger people have more things to keep them interested like the net, video games etc. I still have an old Technics sl-6 which works great and I use it sometimes for needledrops. I find cds are more convenient and providing they are mastered well (not LOUD), I prefer them.

I'll give you one example where I agree with you guys: Whoever reworked Jesus of Cool for the American market (resulting in Pure Pop For Now People) did a bang-up job of turning a good album into a great one -- and they did it not just by reworking the song order but by eliminating weaker Jesus material and substituting catchier new songs.

On the other hand, I think Prince's (or Symbol's) last great (full-length) album, The Gold Experience, would be even even better if they hadn't included the songs "Dolphin" and "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World." And the latter was a single!

Oh, and I agree about 80 minutes for greatest hits and comps.

I heard a story from Barry "Eve of Destruction" McGuire that his follow up was going to be "California Dreaming" with the Mamas and Papas singing background vocals. They recorded it but John Philips reconsidered letting him use the song and wanted to record it with M&P himself. McGuire was disappointed but understood why Philips wanted it -- it was a sure hit!

Years later McGuire's son bought the CD and McGuire listened to it on headphones. He claims you can still hear his vocal buried deep in the mix somewhere. Philips had not re-recorded the song at all, he'd just used McGuire's recording and changed out the lead vocal. So not only did they get a big hit, they got it recorded for free!

I don't know if any of this is true. Can anyone with a copy and a good ear confirm it?

I agree with Charles Abercrombie about "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World" - it's ridiculous repeating the same two melody lines over and over. Even hip-hop tracks have more musical variety than that. When you listen to TMBGFITW, you keep waiting for a verse or a bridge, but it never happens, just a bit of "o-o-o-h".

They really promoted that single too. I remember seeing some in-store displays for it before it was even released. For the life of me I can't even remember what it sounds like now, so I guess it didn't make much of an impression on me. I see the title now and all I can think of is that Charlie Rich song.

I like that a CD can hold 80 minutes worth of music. However, I'd much rather listen to a tight 40-50 minute CD than a 70 minute-plus one with filler.

Aerosmith's Pump was 47 minutes and was just right, with minimal filler. The follow up, Get A Grip was 64 minutes and had a lot of filler.

Agree 100%.

And do we really trust the current record execs to include the same songs that we would choose?

If ten people each gave their track-by-track analysis of some new CD, how many of them would agree on which tracks are "good" or "bad"? I'm sure the majority would agree on a few songs, but the rest of the songs would be liked by some and disliked by others.

Well said. The above-discussed Prince track is a good example -- I wouldn't choose to eliminate it. ("Dolphin," on the other hand...ugh.)

I can also validate the Price Example as being "Different Strokes For Different Folks (thanks Sly!); I don't like Gold Experience at all, but I love Chaos & Disorder was was a total stiff sales wise.

Yes, you can easily hear Barry start off on The Mamas and the Papas version with "All the leaves are brown..." in one channel if you listen with headphones. The Barry McGuire version is on The Mamas and the Papas Complete Anthology... it's pretty much the same as the M&P version except for the lead vocal.

Nice forum, btw!

Welcome to ICE, Glass Master. Please delurk more often!

Well, I learned something new today...I thought Linda had invented the word "delurk" until Google informed me of about 62,900 uses of the word elsewhere on the internet.