Poll of the Day > What do you think is a good length for an album?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'd say 45-50 minutes is the sweet spot for me. I suppose maybe there is no such thing as "too long" if an album really is that great, but I find most of the time once you get in the 65+ minute range, you can expect it to drag and have some noticeable filler (at least in terms of single albums; I'm not going to get into double albums for this topic's purposes). I'd say that 35 minutes and under might fall under the "too short" range. Overall, I think I'd rather have one that's too short as it leaves you wanting more, as opposed to one that's too long because that kills your goodwill towards it a bit.

74 minutes

5" by 7"
---

50-60 sounds good. I hated back when I only listened to punk music and most of the albums were slightly over 30 mins.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

74 minutes

75 minutes tbh.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

74 minutes

75 minutes tbh.

Looks like Layla runs 77. Huh.

2 hours, because Hamilton could pull it off.
---

Depends a lot on the genre tbh
---

Oh man. I have a fondness for albums that combine a lot of shit in a short timeframe.

Milo goes to College by the Descendents - 15 songs in 22 minutes

Suffer by Bad Religion 15 songs in 25 minutes.

But if something needs to be longer, like American Don by Don Caballero(nearly an hour) because it works, thats fine. there is no set way, except I'd probably not want to hear an hour of sounds the samey punk rock(or heaven forbid, longer songs), and conversely I wouldnt want to hear math rock in a 20 minute album since it needs some time for songs to do their thing.

argonautweakend posted...

Oh man. I have a fondness for albums that combine a lot of shit in a short timeframe.

Milo goes to College by the Descendents - 15 songs in 22 minutes

Suffer by Bad Religion 15 songs in 25 minutes.

But if something needs to be longer, like American Don by Don Caballero(nearly an hour) because it works, thats fine. there is no set way, except I'd probably not want to hear an hour of sounds the samey punk rock(or heaven forbid, longer songs), and conversely I wouldnt want to hear math rock in a 20 minute album since it needs some time for songs to do their thing.

I was so disappointed when I saw suffer was only 25 minutes when it was my one cd purchase while we were out of town and at a place with a cd plus lol.
---

but its so good

though all ages would been far longer

I made this topic because I finally decided to listen to Load by Metallica. I wasn't really expecting to like it as I've heard some songs from it before, but I figured I should form my own opinion of it since I know everyone just says it sucks because it's easy to say. But it's like 80 minutes, which is why I put off listening to it. It's the same thing with their new album - I've been wanting to check it out, but it's so long that I feel like I have to get myself psyched up just to listen to it.


I'm only halfway through it and it feels like forever

It's hardly appropriate, so not at all universal recommendation, but I love when an artist can pull off 2 or 3 hour album. Thinking of Prince here.
---

18 songs, 3 minutes each. Just under an hour?
---

DorkLink posted...

I made this topic because I finally decided to listen to Load by Metallica. I wasn't really expecting to like it as I've heard some songs from it before, but I figured I should form my own opinion of it since I know everyone just says it sucks because it's easy to say. But it's like 80 minutes, which is why I put off listening to it. It's the same thing with their new album - I've been wanting to check it out, but it's so long that I feel like I have to get myself psyched up just to listen to it.


I'm only halfway through it and it feels like forever

Load and Reload should have been one album and all the filler been cut. There are a lot of songs that aren't worth anything on those two.

31.43 centimeters
---