46 minutes of vinyl spread over 4 sides. Why, why, why???

I went to buy my daughter a vinyl copy of Harry Style's Fine Line album.

It's 46:37 in length with the last song (the title track) on Side D by itself despite a running time of only 6:17.

I may just buy her something else instead.

I honestly can't figure out why artists/record companies think spreading the material this thin is a great solution. I appreciate you give up some of the convenience with vinyl, but surely that's ridiculous.

The tracks could be split over three sides so the user doesn't have to change sides so often or....shocker, some of the 'bonus tracks' that appear so often on CDs could be on the fourth side. I have a copy of Lana Del Rey's Ultraviolence with three bonus tracks on Side D alongside the solitary track from the original album: nicely done.

This is clearly not symptomatic of one album or one artist and it's not the first time I have decided against purchase because of this. I bought something else instead of Suede's 47 minute long Night Thoughts four sided double album.

Thoughts?

Some of the technical detals.
Deciding How Long To Make Each Side Of Your Vinyl Record — Masterdisk

 

I think there are three things, all of them a bit cynical, all of them tie together.

A double vinyl makes it easier to justify some of the high retail prices being asked for vinyl and produces a higher profit margin.

Tied in with that is the fact that it looks nicer and feels more substantial - given that research has indicated that a lot of new vinyl remains unplayed and is bought for display or completism, this is a factor - 2 discs on a nice colour of vinyl in a gatefold sleeve: it all goes into a frame or into a curated display and the download code goes onto their phone. Win-win for label and customer.

It's also part of the sales-pitch. 2 discs, 45rpm etc for optimum sound quality, 180 gram and suchlike are all cyphers used to attract a certain audience. A double album feels more important, more of a statement.

Essentially, the vinyl revival is eating itself with waste and focusing on visual aesthetics rather than audio.

 

Joe Nino-Hernes cut the lacquers for this at Sterling Sound in Nashville. You could probably send him an email for an explanation as to why it was done this way? Sorry, I don't have an email link at the moment.

 

My thoughts:

If your daughter wants the Harry Styles record; buy her the Harry Styles record.

I agree with your point but I don’t think not buying her what she wants is going to make much difference to this trend!

 

I agree with you, but ... buy your daughter the record, Daddy-o!

P.S. And be thankful she wants the Harry Styles record and not Heavy Death Metal Goth Satanic Mass, or whatever, with a voucher for all-over body piercings and facial tatoos!

 

Another reason my vinyl purchases dwindled, that and not including a download code. Off center and warped pressings, stitching... Record company greed...

 

I dunno, I bought Nirvana's Incestide on 45 rpm, 2 LP. Perfect pressing and hands down I never heard those tracks sound so good before. Remarkable.
I guess it really makes a difference for bass heavy music.

 

As someone who is virulently anti vinyl I get this. They are manufacturing these 45 rpm albums because of the weakness of the LP format.

 

One song at 45 RPM on a 12" slab used to be standard for singles, no? It's a bit weird on an album but hey, live and let live I say

 

There have been lots of albums like this, and I hate it.

Local H's "As Good as Dead" is an album spread over 4 sides on vinyl (it didn't come out on vinyl in 1996) and it's the same length.

One side is about 10 minutes long like an old release on Pickwick.

The flow of this album is ruined on vinyl, as far as I'm concerned.

Local H - As Good As Dead

 

It would fit perfectly well on two sides of vinyl.

If Todd Rundgren's "Initiation" is 67 minutes long in a single piece of vinyl with zero SQ issues, everything is possible in this life.

 

On one level, it's a hard core fanatical audiophile issue with people who are more concerned with optimum sound fidelity than the quality of the music. This accounts for extreme things like the Jefferson Airplane's 34-minute Surrealistic Pillow being remastered at 45 RPM and released as a double album. The industry takes advantage of this mindset and stretches what should be single albums onto double albums so they can price them higher. If enough of us boycott this greedy trend, maybe the industry hacks will get the message.

 

And for years it was "BOO! HOO! HOO! The CD format is ripping us off!".

 

No is correct. One song at 45 RPM on a 7" single was standard. The 12" versions were usually promotionl releases, EPs that had bonus tracks that were not on the LP, or extended version(s) of track(s). And they cost or more that the 7" versions.

 

... and here I thought the 4 sides of vinyl was The Beatles Story....

 

Genesis couldn't even put out albums nowadays, unless they were doubles. Their single albums were quite often 50 minutes long...

 

Better sound quality.

 

I have a fair number of non-promo 12" discs in my collection that only have the single version (not extended) of one song on the A-side, and yes there was usually more than one B-side or an extended mix or other stuff, but if it's a long-ish track (say, 6:17 as in the O.P.) it wouldn't be that unusual. Can't speak to price, I wasn't really collecting these until after the fact

 

I agree with you that some albums are spread too thin over two albums. Bruce Springsteen's Western Stars is a good example 51 min over 4 sides isn't a great listening experience. Letter To You at 58 min over 3 sides sounds fantastic and a better listen on vinyl.
For the most part I will skip buying records that are 12 min sides even if I like the music. I find it's a fragmented experience. I will just listen to them on high quality streaming.

 

I agree, I hate the now common practice of spreading an album over 45 minutes to a double album. Some at least do spread it over three sides and use side four as an etching or just blank. But double records and the double jackets start to take up too much space and too much weight on the shelves. I'd rather sacrifice a little bit of sound quality and have 22-25 minutes a side on a single record than have to get up every 8-10 minutes to flip a record over.

 

You want over 24 minutes of music on one side of a record? I don’t. The occurrence of IGD will, in all probability, be quite noticeable.

Give me less groove cramming, and even give me 45 rpm for best quality, and I’m happy.

 

I mean...if sound quality is such an issue, why not release 12" 45RPM versions of albums with 1 song per side? Like the maxi singles from the back in the day. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. 6 discs, 12 songs, but hey! Great sound quality!

There's quite a difference between cramming 23 minutes on one side and the 10 minute sides that have been proliferating lately. Middle ground!

 

100% agreed. Especially for bass heavy dance music, which I’m guessing the Styles LP would be. I have a Vince Staples record that’s 36 min and I’m glad it’s on 2 LPs. The bass sound is massive.

 

More vinyl rip off bs.