Do albums have fewer tracks than they used to?

2 of 2

Doghouse Riley

06-10-2015

Originally Posted by Semierotic:
“Pop albums usually had 14+ tracks, most of which were filler, and that doesn't seem to have changed.”

From time immemorial, most albums had a few good tracks and an awful lot of filler. There were exceptions. Particularly jazz albums of "standards," so many thousands of tunes from which to choose, so unlikely to include any duds.

eastendersboi

07-10-2015

Originally Posted by JamieHT:
“Yes but that's exactly my problem. If they're good, just put them on the album. It's just a way to make more money. It exploits the fans.

B-sides were a different matter (do they exist anymore?), as they made singles better value for money.”

Surly that's the whole point, to make more money is what it's suppose to do, if the fans want to purchase the relic with extra songs that's den to them, it don't exploit no one, everything comes down to choice as no one is forcing anyone to spend more money than they choose to do so.

Peter the Great

07-10-2015

Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley:
“From time immemorial, most albums had a few good tracks and an awful lot of filler. There were exceptions. Particularly jazz albums of "standards," so many thousands of tunes from which to choose, so unlikely to include any duds.”

Jazz albums of standards?

I can't think of anything worse?

Doghouse Riley

07-10-2015

Originally Posted by Peter the Great:
“Jazz albums of standards? I can't think of anything worse?”

No one asked you to.

2 of 2