|
||||||||
Do albums have fewer tracks than they used to? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Norwich
Posts: 2,220
|
Do albums have fewer tracks than they used to?
When I started buying music in the early 2000s, most of the albums I bought had 14 or 15 tracks. But in the last few years most 'standard edition' albums I've bought have 12 tracks or fewer, with only the deluxe editions having 15. Are most albums shorter now, or are there still many albums with 14 or 15 tracks as standard?
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,181
|
Seems to me like they have more. In previous decades, 10-12 songs seemed to be the optimum for an album and they usually lasted 45-50 minutes give or take. I feel like lots of albums now have too much filler and would be much stronger bodies of work if they cut them down to that length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,287
|
I think Deluxe albums are so wrong. Either it's good enough to make the cut or it's not. Make a choice and stick with it.
The same goes for re-releases with extra tracks. At least release an EP of the extra tracks, so people don't have to pay for the whole album that they have already again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,010
|
Quote:
When I started buying music in the early 2000s, most of the albums I bought had 14 or 15 tracks. But in the last few years most 'standard edition' albums I've bought have 12 tracks or fewer, with only the deluxe editions having 15. Are most albums shorter now, or are there still many albums with 14 or 15 tracks as standard?
Now that meant unless you released a double album. Songs had to be fine tuned to make them fit. That was good because it trimmed the fat. When the CD came out you could fill it up and not worry about trimming. So you got a lot more filler material IMO. A bit like double albums of the 70s with excess eg Yes Tales of Topographic Oceans. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,708
|
When I started buying albums, six to eight tracks was the norm, with many having only two or three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 15,791
|
The original cd capacity was 74 minutes rather than 80 I think. This led to some double albums having songs edited or omitted altogether to fit them onto one cd. Examples include Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk", which contains an edited version of "Sara", and Iron Maiden's "Live After Death", the original cd of which contained an edited version of "Running Free" and also omitted the whole of side four of the double vinyl lp!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,303
|
Quote:
I think Deluxe albums are so wrong. Either it's good enough to make the cut or it's not. Make a choice and stick with it.
The same goes for re-releases with extra tracks. At least release an EP of the extra tracks, so people don't have to pay for the whole album that they have already again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,010
|
Quote:
I don't mind deluxe editions as more songs from my favourite artists are always a plus, but I don't like it when they tag them on the end of the standard album. I prefer an extra CD with the 'bonus' tracks on. Keep them separate! Sometimes it not about the song being 'good enough' though. Most people would surely agree that some extra tracks/b-sides are actually far more superior to the standard tracks and so it's great to get the chance to hear them.
Same with many bands who released non album singles the same year as a classic album. It's nice to have them all on the same album from the year they were done. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,301
|
No you get more songs now. Back in the 90s you only got 10-12 songs. Now standard you usually get 12-14 and deluxe is anything up to 20
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
I don't mind deluxe editions as more songs from my favourite artists are always a plus, but I don't like it when they tag them on the end of the standard album. I prefer an extra CD with the 'bonus' tracks on. Keep them separate! Sometimes it not about the song being 'good enough' though. Most people would surely agree that some extra tracks/b-sides are actually far more superior to the standard tracks and so it's great to get the chance to hear them.
B-sides were a different matter (do they exist anymore?), as they made singles better value for money. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,075
|
I prefer shorter albums more frequently, these days artists tend to release albums around 3 years apart, madonnas recent album had 23 songs on it, I would prefer an album every year to 18 months of 8-10 songs
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,789
|
I think its the opposite, it was pretty common in the 80's and 90's for albums to only be around 8-10 tracks long.
Now you can get ridiculous super mega ultra deluxes with 25 songs and 8 remixes as well as a DVD with 10 music videos. |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
|
Quote:
When I started buying albums, six to eight tracks was the norm, with many having only two or three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
no
back in the 60s you would have albums with 14 tracks lasting 33 minutes in total, in the 70s you would have albums of about 50 minutes with just 2 tracks, and today you have everything in between. since the introduction of the cd, artists could release longer albums and many did, so they didn't need to remove tracks for length reasons, or they would sometimes add bonus tracks to the cd versions. you still get artists releasing short albums, and in previous years artists would release double and triple albums at times 2 track albums isn't just a prog rock thing, there are jazz and classic albums with just a track per side too |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,325
|
I just bought a new album that has 17 tracks which vary in length from six to fourteen minutes. The whole thing lasts three hours and takes up three discs (either CD or vinyl). Don't think I've ever seen one that long before (ooer Matron ect ect).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,469
|
Quote:
3 tracks on an album, you must be a prog rock fan
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,325
|
Quote:
Tubular bells has just two tracks, basically sides 1 and 2 of the original LP release, but they are both very long.
The CD does have a bonus track called Sonic Titan (9m 36s) but officially the album is the title track and nothing else. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,454
|
Duration is probably more important than how many songs are included.
Though there are albums which would have been stronger had a few tracks been omitted and shoved out as B-sides instead (if B-sides exist anymore). |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,080
|
Quote:
When the CD was introduced you could get 80 mins of music on it. Now back in the 60s and 70s the vinyl record you could get about 30-40 over two sides. Though some were pushed for 50 mins.
Now that meant unless you released a double album. Songs had to be fine tuned to make them fit. That was good because it trimmed the fat. When the CD came out you could fill it up and not worry about trimming. So you got a lot more filler material IMO. A bit like double albums of the 70s with excess eg Yes Tales of Topographic Oceans. The imperfections of vinyl made artists think carefully about the order of tracks as well. The beginning of a vinyl LP always had more bass with a reduction in sound quality as it got near the end. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,454
|
Quote:
It was possible to achieve 80 mins on 2 sides on vinyl but the result was terrible sound quality hence why it was rarely done.
The imperfections of vinyl made artists think carefully about the order of tracks as well. The beginning of a vinyl LP always had more bass with a reduction in sound quality as it got near the end. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: london-essex
Posts: 8,811
|
go back to the 70s early 80s and 4 tracks on each side was common for an lp..
tape would be made to the size of album so there wasnt lots of blank space between sides... (island records to save money released u2 albums with all on one side and off the shelf sized tapes, likely a c90, with the other side not blanked to stop recording over of the duplicate of the first side and was labeled "for your use" (the gimmick being in the car or in the walkman you could have the U2 album and music of your choice!) prince albums in the early 80s likely lasted 44 minutes... two sides of 22 minutes on a tape. lp of course at 33rpm gave about 22 minutes of music (that could be made a few minutes longer subject to the laws of analogue recording) on each side... so the number of tracks depended on how long the track... that gives the idea albums were rarely more than 45 minutes long... the cd format giving 74 or 80 minutes gave both a marketing advantage and a disadvantage (advantage the "offer" could be made better with more or longer tracks, "now" double lp/tape packs could be 1 disc... of course the "deep heat" series went from 2 tapes to 2 cds full! but so did the cost of making all the music and the chance more duff tracks would spoil the album where the marketing showed was in the cd single... suddenly they were more like eps with several mixes on a single "cd single" (the 3inch (8cm) cd format was not universally playable so the 24 minute limit was not held in the normal 12cm size.... until the charts people agreed with the industry to not count single with more the 3 tracks... which ruined the value in dance music singles that came with several remixes... |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,708
|
Quote:
Duration is probably more important than how many songs are included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,325
|
Quote:
Is that still the case with these modern vinyl re-issues or have they improved the mastering?
I've never heard a disc with 40 minutes per side but I can't believe it would sound any good. There are some very good mastering engineers around but nowadays no one would release a single album with 40 minutes per side. They'd split it up into shorter discs and maybe even press it at 45rpm like Father John Misty's I Love You, Honeybear. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Herts
Posts: 17,006
|
Quote:
...tape would be made to the size of album so there wasnt lots of blank space between sides...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,217
|
Pop albums usually had 14+ tracks, most of which were filler, and that doesn't seem to have changed.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:53.



