|
||||||||
Should albums have more songs on them? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,447
|
Should albums have more songs on them?
I mean, most albums these days are between £7 - £10, and considering the average amount of tracks on an album is 12, I don't think it's really worth the money. I mean, artists take a year to record an album (sometimes two years, sometimes even three or four) and I find it hard to believe over that period of time they've only found 12 decent songs to put out to the public. I think that's one of the factors of why album sales are dead. If you're a Katy Perry fan, and you've already bought the five singles and then decide you want the album, what's the point in handing over money for an extra five or six songs?
I remember Christina released 'Bionic' last year, didn't that have 20+ tracks?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
I mean, most albums these days are between £7 - £10, and considering the average amount of tracks on an album is 12, I don't think it's really worth the money. I mean, artists take a year to record an album (sometimes two years, sometimes even three or four) and I find it hard to believe over that period of time they've only found 12 decent songs to put out to the public. I think that's one of the factors of why album sales are dead. If you're a Katy Perry fan, and you've already bought the five singles and then decide you want the album, what's the point in handing over money for an extra five or six songs?
I remember Christina released 'Bionic' last year, didn't that have 20+ tracks? ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,429
|
Gaga's Born This Way Delux edition had 17 tracks on the main album plus another 6 on the additional remix disc so Good value for money as far as I'm concerned
![]() On a wider note I think quality is more important than quantity ---- I would rather have an album with 12 good tracks than one with 20 poor tracks. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Holodeck 4
Posts: 21,476
|
It's a legacy from the days of vinyl. One side of an album could only hold about 20-25 minutes of music or around 5-6 songs of standard length of about 4 minutes each.
So a new album by any artist would only be 10-12 songs in length with a running time of around 40 minutes. With the advent of CD an album could stretch to 70 minutes but few artists chose to write albums that long. Now with mp3s and downloading an album's length is theoretically unlimited but I guess there's a limit to our attention span. I think an hour is a reasonable length for an album. That's about 15 songs on average. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
|
I don't like albums that have about 15 songs or more. They become boring and it's like the rest is all filler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 1,071
|
Quote:
I don't like albums that have about 15 songs or more. They become boring and it's like the rest is all filler.
Mind you, I have been altering album recently. The Wanted's debut album is also really good (with the exception of Golden, Hi & Low, and Weakness, which are cut off my iPod). I also am looking forward to their next album, but 18 songs is too much, so I will get the deluxe album, and trim the rubbish songs, because there sometimes are really decent songs on deluxe albums. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,000
|
Well, I don't care THAT much as long as ALL the songs are amazing with no fillers and of course as long as the overall tracklist is cohesive, makes sense and completes a concept.However, most of the albums today have at least 2 fillers and some random songs on there, so when I see an album with less than 10 songs, I am a bit underwhelmed tbh, but I've learnt to not mind anymore
And artists seem to be more focused on their concept when the tracks are less, so it's all good.When I TRUST and have faith in the artist, I don't mind the number of the tracks
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
|
Some short albums can be amazing
Back to black is 11 songs with a total time of 35 minutes and that is one epic album. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,150
|
My most fav albums off all time are usually on average 9 - 11 tracks long
Killer over filler for me ANYDAY |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Holodeck 4
Posts: 21,476
|
Quote:
Some short albums can be amazing
Back to black is 11 songs with a total time of 35 minutes and that is one epic album. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
|
The deluxe version of Britney's Femme Fatale has 16 songs and it's one of my favourite pop albums. There are very few (if any) fillers.
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,445
|
I think the absolute maximum an album should have is 13, the ideal number being 12. Anymore than that and it'll be filler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Belfast
Posts: 603
|
Agreed regarding shorter albums, so many albums I like would probably benefited if they were shortened down. MJ's Invincible is one I really like but it could do with being shorter, its 77 minutes long with 16 tracks :O
Janet Jackson sometimes makes her albums too long with the little interlude things she does in a lot of them too I think
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,469
|
When albums I'm really excited for only have 10 songs or something it's a bit disappointing. Rihanna's 'Loud' and Beyoncé's '4' are both great albums and are 10/11 songs long. I would've liked more, but I'm happy the way they are.
Also I see some people say they'd rather shorter albums without filler, well why can't an album have 16 songs without filler? You don't only have to have only 10 brilliant songs, why not 16 brilliant songs. Saying that I guess between 12-14 is ideal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 661
|
Always remember quality over quantity :P
Albums can take a long time to be released, so I'd personally hate to see them taking longer just to bring more content into it that's on par with everything thats meant to be on it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 38,218
|
Some of my favourite albums only have around 11 songs on them.
examples: Crazy For You - Best Coast Light Me Up - The Pretty Reckless |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,454
|
Quality is more important that quantity but it seems a rip off when an album is about 40 minutes long and there are other songs recorded at the same sessions that turn up as extra tracks on singles releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 11,503
|
ABBAs The Visitors is perfect with its nine tracks.
I do however love the extra four on some of the later editions (Under Attack, TDBYC, Should I Laugh Or Cry, You Owe Me One), but it leaves me with a dilemma. Whilst each track could have very authentically been linearly 'worked' into the album at a certain point on its own merit, and that would make for even more fantastic, enhanced listening; it wouldn't be the masterpiece that ABBA created back in 1981. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 2,735
|
I don't think there should be a rule on how long an album should be. It's quality over quantity either way.
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,646
|
I don't think just because an album has 13+ songs that it means some of them must be filler, especially when a lot of artists take 2 years or so to create the album.
I personally don't think an artist should release an album until it has atleast 12 tracks, it feels unfinished to me, if they have more than that I don't think they should just not include them because it makes the album long. So basically include as many song as are worthy, if you don't have 12 worthy songs then is the album really finished? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,653
|
Some of my favourite albums have 4 or 5 tracks, but each track is 10-15 minutes long.
These aren't pop albums though, they're post-rock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,000
|
Quote:
I don't think just because an album has 13+ songs that it means some of them must be filler, especially when a lot of artists take 2 years or so to create the album.
I personally don't think an artist should release an album until it has atleast 12 tracks, it feels unfinished to me, if they have more than that I don't think they should just not include them because it makes the album long. So basically include as many song as are worthy, if you don't have 12 worthy songs then is the album really finished?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kent
Posts: 16,077
|
Quote:
I remember Christina released 'Bionic' last year, didn't that have 20+ tracks?
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,408
|
Nah I prefer an album with 8-10 meticulously worked tracks rather than 14+ filler. My favourite albums:
Appetite For Destruction - 12 tracks Master of Puppets - 8 tracks Rust In Peace - 9 tracks Paranoid - 8 tracks |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,260
|
I have all of Steps Albums and I noticed that Step One had 12 tracks, of which, 3 were filler. Steptacular had 14 and had 1 filler track. Buzz had 15 and and had no fillers.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:10.



