PDA

View Full Version : Album Length


noel411
02-23-2009, 09:56 PM
Imo one of the worst things about hip hop is the length of albums. It is not at all unusual for a hip hop album to be 1 hour + in length. In fact it is very common. Almost standard. This is far too long imo. Yes you don't have to listen to the whole thing at once, but you want to. At least I do. I like listening to an album as an album. That's why I generally don't bother with mixtapes and compilations.

And the worst part is that almost every album over 45 minutes (this is a good length imo, 40-45), could easily have a few tracks, and especially skits, removed to not only bring it down to that length, but at the same time make the album infinitely better by removing filler and skits. The days of good skits are well and truly gone. I'd happily see them done away with altogether. And I can't remember the last album I heard, over 45 min, that wouldn't have benifited from having a few tracks removed.

I even find that in a lot of cases I strongly favour the first half of an album over the second half. I think it would be reasonable to assume that this is largely a result of losing interest in an album due to its excessive length.

It would be nice to not have to utilize the skip and/or program button every time you play a hip hop album.

Answer the poll and discuss.

Ghost In The 'Lac
02-23-2009, 10:01 PM
....k

Ghost In The 'Lac
02-23-2009, 10:04 PM
I have nothing against my favorite artiss giving me value for money and filling the CD.

A long album doesnt make it wack, weak songs do lol. Why dont they just make more better songs?

I dont like skits however.

Uncle Steezo
02-23-2009, 10:04 PM
CRU - Dirty 30
30 songs no need to skip.


authentic manure my cracker

noel411
02-23-2009, 10:23 PM
I have nothing against my favorite artiss giving me value for money and filling the CD.

A long album doesnt make it wack, weak songs do lol. Why dont they just make more better songs?

I dont like skits however.
Call me insane, but I'd honestly prefer to pay the same price for 45 minutes of dope music, than I would 1 hour of dope music.

Why? Because even if it's 1 hour of straight dope music, I'm still gonna get bored of it, and like I said, I like listening to an album as an album.

Also, to me part of making a really dope album is keeping it at a reasonable length...I just sat here for a couple of minutes trying to figure out how to explain that statement and couldn't come up with anything, so I'll leave it there, ha.

But take this as an example. Cuban Linx is one of the top 3 hip hop albums of all time, imo. Everything on it is pure quality. There is nothing on it that shouldn't be on there. However, I very rarely listen to it. Why? Because it's too long. So I'm actually getting less value for money because of the extended length. If it were 45 minutes or less I'd bump it all the time. This is why I say I'd prefer 45 minutes of quality to 1 hour of quality.

This is just me. I was wondering how other people felt about this is all.

oldie
02-24-2009, 11:59 AM
I have nothing against my favorite artiss giving me value for money and filling the CD.

A long album doesnt make it wack, weak songs do lol. Why dont they just make more better songs?

I dont like skits however.

exactly! I'd love to keep the length of the albums but instead of filler tracks n skits, fill it with dope tracks, its not like they dont got em to replace, they just choose to put wack shit on em.

example album: Nas - Street's Disciple - the whole album, both discs was just pure filler material IMO:thumbdwn:

Edgar Erebus
02-24-2009, 12:26 PM
Generally, yes.

J-DON
02-24-2009, 12:40 PM
I pretty much agree with the OP. Unless its ALL absolute classic shit theres no need to have 22 tracks on the album clocking in at like an hour and 15 minutes. I sometimes find it hard to get through the last 20 minutes of albums over an hour because i just get tired of listening to the same voice and style over that period of time and wanna put on some other shit but for some stupid reason I feel a responsibility for seeing the album through to the end lol.


45m to 1h is good enough. No reason to go over the 1h mark.

sdeblasi
02-24-2009, 12:54 PM
I think a lot of albums are too long but some need the length. For example i think cuban linx is a perfect length because theres no filler and all classic tracks..
but many albums are too long like I can never listen to Kiss the game Goodbye or Purple Haze straight through because theres just too many damn tracks
I think 14 songs is usually a perect length with maybe an intro and one skit so 14 to 15 tracks about 55 to an hour long.

But there are always exceptions such as obfcl and wu forever...
also, I think group albums, or albums with a lot of guests should be longer albums but solo mcs with no to few guests should keep ther shit at about 50 mins 13 to 14 tracks to keep a cohesive sound all the way through

For example, imo killah priest made the Offering too long and I generally don't listen to it al in one sitting even though its a great album...

another exception is ''themed'' albums can be much longer bcuz r usually cohesive and easy to listen to all at once...albums such as Deltron 3030 and Prince Among Thieves

ya and sorry for the shitty writing I posted this from my cell phone

Rame
02-24-2009, 01:30 PM
I think a lot of them are too short.

b-dolo
02-24-2009, 01:41 PM
big pun-capital punishment
b.i.g.-ready to die
dmx- hell it hot
redman-muddy waters
gangstarr- moment of truth
prodigy- hnic

some i think could lose a track or two and be even more classic

Prolifical ENG
02-24-2009, 02:03 PM
Through time album length was always dependent on the medium it was mainly released on. You have some albums only 20-30 minutes long in the 50's.

Back when CDs were first being used, music was still released through cassette tapes until the mid 90's. I remember most of the albums between 97-99 had around 20 tracks on them and were mostly over 60 mins....many topping 70....I remember in this time albums has like 3 skits on them. When No-Limit was in its prime they were just pumpin out albums every month and filling up the CD.

It seems after a while in the 2000's, artists are starting to cut their album lengths again and just giving their 12-15 strongest tracks.

ALCATRAZ
02-24-2009, 02:15 PM
CRU - Dirty 30
30 songs no need to skip.


authentic manure my cracker

haha i was just bumpin "that sh**"

Rame
02-24-2009, 02:18 PM
big pun-capital punishment
b.i.g.-ready to die
dmx- hell it hot
redman-muddy waters
gangstarr- moment of truth
prodigy- hnic

some i think could lose a track or two and be even more classic

Is that because of the length or because of certain tracks?

THE MASON
02-24-2009, 02:22 PM
I have nothing against my favorite artiss giving me value for money and filling the CD.

A long album doesnt make it wack, weak songs do lol. Why dont they just make more better songs?

I dont like skits however.

exactly, they can make it as long as they want, just make worth my money with good tracks

skits can be done good, like on Take Me to Your Leader, that just adds the albums feel but most times they could be done without

b-dolo
02-24-2009, 02:40 PM
Is that because of the length or because of certain tracks?

maybe one or two tracks, but also way to many skits, interludes, intro's etc.

THE W
02-24-2009, 03:32 PM
i have no problem with quantity.

quality is the issue.