aeroplane
In Urgent Need of Advice
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2010
- Posts
- 1,842
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Aerosmith ~ Done With Mirrors (1985)
The trouble is that having more songs on there is fine if they are "good." If you are putting songs on there just to get to a magic number, that portion of the album is going to be downgraded by fans, critics or whoever might be reviewing this album or comparing it to the band's previous works.
If a band is "capable" of doing 6-7 really good songs for a particular album and they ultimately record and release 9 songs on a cd, it is a whole different story than using those same 6-7 songs on an album with 13 songs, isn't it?
Either way, I have always noticed that the majority of albums with middling to fair reviews tend to either be 35 minutes long or 75 minutes long, usually on account of being too long or too short.
Personally though, I agree with the "more songs" thing just to get my money's worth. I hate paying $12-14 for something that is basically ep length. The only issue is I am not a "skipper." I'm a guy who likes to put on a cd and let it run, even if I've owned the album for years and have listened to it dozens of times.
Good point. I always thought the formula from the past was 10 tracks to an album. Of course there were time constraints on vinyl that you dont have now with digital CD technology.
To be honest, I like to see at least 13-15 tracks on a CD. In the 70's, I could buy an album for 10 bucks, hot off the press. Which actually was a lot of money, all things considered. Today, a new release goes for 13 bucks on debut....sometimes more. Which I consider pretty economical, especially when you see 13 tracks or more.
I would love to see a full cost analysis comparison from the 70's and 2000's for the costs to produce that first CD.
The trouble is that having more songs on there is fine if they are "good." If you are putting songs on there just to get to a magic number, that portion of the album is going to be downgraded by fans, critics or whoever might be reviewing this album or comparing it to the band's previous works.
If a band is "capable" of doing 6-7 really good songs for a particular album and they ultimately record and release 9 songs on a cd, it is a whole different story than using those same 6-7 songs on an album with 13 songs, isn't it?
Either way, I have always noticed that the majority of albums with middling to fair reviews tend to either be 35 minutes long or 75 minutes long, usually on account of being too long or too short.
Personally though, I agree with the "more songs" thing just to get my money's worth. I hate paying $12-14 for something that is basically ep length. The only issue is I am not a "skipper." I'm a guy who likes to put on a cd and let it run, even if I've owned the album for years and have listened to it dozens of times.