Should the standard change?

[Der Nister]

I was thinking about this yesterday after seeing that Sloan are releasing their next cd with 30 songs that isn't it time that bands started putting more songs on their cd's to give their audiance more for their money?

As any of you know cd's can more than handle the extra info so should it become industry standard? The only reason bands (in the past) would released x number of songs at a time was because records and tapes only had so much room so bands were limited by lack of space. But things have changed and technology allows for more freedom.

Maybe it's just me but I think bands should put at least 17 tracks per disc, if not more.

Thoughts/comments?

[Homicidalheathen]

I agree totally. Especially if they want to compete with the underground market......they must know I can find all these songs for free. Give me a good reason to buy it full price and I will. I don't like getting 3 mixes of the same song on one cd either.

[phee]

I was thinking about this yesterday after seeing that Sloan are releasing their next cd with 30 songs that isn't it time that bands started putting more songs on their cd's to give their audiance more for their money?

As any of you know cd's can more than handle the extra info so should it become industry standard? The only reason bands (in the past) would released x number of songs at a time was because records and tapes only had so much room so bands were limited by lack of space. But things have changed and technology allows for more freedom.

Maybe it's just me but I think bands should put at least 17 tracks per disc, if not more.

Thoughts/comments?

Instead of track #, how about length of CD.... some of my favorite artists can have one track that lasts 25 minutes (Steve Roach, Tangerine Dream) for example.... how about like a CD needs to be over an hour?

[phee]

And Heck... there is one Steve Roach CD that is only one track... it just happens to be 75 minutes long.... There is a Fantomas CD that does the same thing....

[BrassFusion]

how much longer are cds really going to last, though? I'm not advocating switching to strictly to internet downloads NOW, by any means, god no... they aren't high quality enough. but will they be in the near future?

[phee]

I know that there can be no actual standard for this.... but what about quality? It's easy for a band to fill up space with sound on a CD and make "many tracks" but what if they are just filled with nothing? and they just put them there to meet the standard?

[BrassFusion]

I know that there can be no actual standard for this.... but what about quality? It's easy for a band to fill up space with sound on a CD and make "many tracks" but what if they are just filled with nothing? and they just put them there to meet the standard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there's no accounting for taste and there can be no standard for "quality." i think you just answered this argument- the groups that put out stuff that sells will succeed and those that don't will fail.

[Paper Hearts]

I was thinking about this yesterday after seeing that Sloan are releasing their next cd with 30 songs that isn't it time that bands started putting more songs on their cd's to give their audiance more for their money?

As any of you know cd's can more than handle the extra info so should it become industry standard? The only reason bands (in the past) would released x number of songs at a time was because records and tapes only had so much room so bands were limited by lack of space. But things have changed and technology allows for more freedom.

Maybe it's just me but I think bands should put at least 17 tracks per disc, if not more.

Thoughts/comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I don't think that I deserve more songs on an album. Sometimes a band will release 9 songs as an album, somtimes 20. I know some great albums that have relatively short play times and I know albums with lots of songs that would have been more listenable to me if they'd excluded two or three songs.

I think what we truly miss lately are B-sides on 45rpm 7 inches, because there are certain groups that I am interested to hear every song they record...but sometimes there are songs that will destroy the aesthetic continuity of an album. -I don't want songs on an album that shatter the mood or flow of an album (as a piece). Songs like that used to be released only on B-sides of "45s"...and now I think we find them on the actual album and it's almost like the art of good 'album' making is dead.

As far as realeasing 10 or 15 songs every year or two, I'm comfortable with that if that's what a band can produce for an album...I wouldn't want to wait 3-4 years just so that I could have 22-30 songs in one package. And I don't think we can suddenly expect a band to write 30 great songs in year. I would rather have a nice album with 10-11 songs and then later, If I want 22 of their songs on a single disc, just rip a couple albums onto a single CDR, it's cheap enough.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You seem to forget that CDs have a limited capacity and 80min of audio is it. It would take a major overhaul of the CD to get more on them.

[BrassFusion]

You seem to forget that CDs have a limited capacity and 80min of audio is it. It would take a major overhaul of the CD to get more on them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean like storing mp3s on them?

[phee]

*Phee spits on MP3's* damn compressed music format... sounds like butt

[BrassFusion]

*Phee spits on MP3's* damn compressed music format... sounds like butt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

just as a deadbolt is needless if your door's a sheet of plywood, a hi-fi audio cd is useless in my car stereo or on my computer. so half my shit is mp3's and i really can't tell the difference.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Not all CD players can play MP3s. A majority of them can not. MP3s get rather large if you want good quality and are useless if you want real fidelity. Then again, CD audio looses a fair amount of the music too but not as much as MP3.

[BrassFusion]

Not all CD players can play MP3s. A majority of them can not. MP3s get rather large if you want good quality and are useless if you want real fidelity. Then again, CD audio looses a fair amount of the music too but not as much as MP3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is why i'm thinking that CDs will eventually be obsolete anyway and it seems silly to argue whether groups should increase their offerings.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I just wish they would go back to Analog. Records may have a few pops and zings do to dust, but have a much higher quality.

[Paper Hearts]

If I purchase music, it's on vinyl; the only time I want anything to do w/ a compact disc is when I'm in my car (at 85mph on the freeway) and for that I've made CDRs of all my records and...a lot of times I can fit about 2 albums on one of those--which is nice.

I suppose though that if a group can give us 30 songs that fit well together, at a time, that I'm not against that...and some times it has happened that bands can do that, but even for the greatest of bands, it's not often or common that it's possible to write four or five great songs/month and then to make good recodings of those songs at a pace of 10 per month and give us a great, big album at the end of the year...It's been done, but even for some of the greatest bands it's more of a once-in-career thing, generally.

I don't say that quantity is quality and in the case of this Sloan album, we've waited some years for those 30 songs, so it is a good album because they have had plenty of time, but...I'd rather not wait years in order to have more songs sold in the same bundle, when it's avoidable. And it does effect me even though I don't buy compact discs because records are not the main format, they simply follow what is on the CD...and on top of that, a lot of times the record companies shove the songs too putrid for even the the CD release on the B side of the vinyl and it makes an already bad arrangement even worse. -Plus when I burn a CDR, I like to burn an entire album in the correct order of running...I don't like snipets of this and that, I'm an album person...and as I've suggested earlier, I think the popularity of the compact disc format dictates that some songs that aren't right for an album find their way on, anyway.

So, no, I wouldn't demand more songs for my money, regardless of format. & I don't see how we ask something like that from artists, at any rate.

[Head Wreck]

quality not quantity i want

why have 30 songs when 20 are pants

rather a CD with 10 good tracks that i dont have to skip through.

and before phee's second post i was about to sudjest a progish metal band i have an album of with 1 amazing track (60.03 long) that i can play start to finish without fforwarding on

[Marblez]

why have 30 songs when 20 are pants

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't get phee's hopes up, man. It's not nice to tease!!

CD's are fine just the way they are.

[Scary Guy]

Unfortunately when you demand more music either the production time increases or you get more "filler" tracks. I'd rather just see them lower the price or increase the audio quality (more HDA disks).

[Der Nister]

why have 30 songs when 20 are pants

rather a CD with 10 good tracks that i dont have to skip through.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again with these kind of remarks - each person could decide for themself if they like the extra songs. Some people only like radio hits and others like songs that recieve little attention - song writing quality is a person to person issue. What works for you might not work for me so who's to say what's filler and what isn't??

Unfortunately when you demand more music either the production time increases or you get more "filler" tracks.  I'd rather just see them lower the price or increase the audio quality (more HDA disks).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll just restate my opinion - I believe that now all bands are in a posistion to elaborate on their songwriting. At one time bands were limited by the ability of records and had to shorten songs to release them as singles or to include them on records ( all records only have roughly 28 minutes per side for great audio qaulity) and this is no longer the case. At different times in history someone came along and changed what was industry standard. The Beatles did it in the 60's by writing their own songs - Queen did it in the 70's by releasing a six minute single that their record company thought would never get played ( w/ Rapsody) and that gave all artists more freedom. I think now is another turning point.

[BrassFusion]

Again with these kind of remarks - each person could decide for themself if they like the extra songs. Some people only like radio hits and others like songs that recieve little attention - song writing quality is a person to person issue. What works for you might not work for me so who's to say what's filler and what isn't??

I'll just restate my opinion - I believe that now all bands are in a posistion to elaborate on their songwriting. At one time bands were limited by the ability of records and had to shorten songs to release them as singles or to include them on records ( all records only have roughly 28 minutes per side for great audio qaulity) and this is no longer the case. At different times in history someone came along and changed what was industry standard. The Beatles did it in the 60's by writing their own songs - Queen did it in the 70's by releasing a six minute single that their record company thought would never get played ( w/ Rapsody) and that gave all artists more freedom. I think now is another turning point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There doesn't need to be a turning point now because it's already happened. Artists know they have the freedom to make really long albums and tracks, and many of them do. They also have the freedom to be brief on a release... what we don't want to do is force them to provide more music than they already are. It's their art, and it's their choice how to present it, so if they feel the body of work is complete but they're forced to make it longer, there will be filler that takes away from the album.

[Guest Game of Chance]

I dunno man, The Circle Jerks "Group Sex" is only 14 minutes long and its one of the greatest records ever made.

[Fierce Critter]

The Beatles' White Album half-sucked.

Thus, I agree with the "quality over quantity" theory.

[Scary Guy]

Not to metnion when you get more quantity you get a lot of tracks that start to sound the same as other tracks on the album.

[Der Nister]

The Beatles' White Album half-sucked.

Thus, I agree with the "quality over quantity" theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to metnion when you get more quantity you get a lot of tracks that start to sound the same as other tracks on the album.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess it only comes down to personal preferance. With any group you run the chance of two or three releases sounding the same to some but not to others.

well............it was worth bringing up.