Did the CD-length album kill the album?

Obviously a lot of factors have contributed to the sales decline of albums over the past decade - unbundled song files, streaming, competition for entertainment dollars - but do you think that the length of typical CD albums made the average album too long to maintain consumer interest? Did the increase of filler tunes exacerbate the consumer desire to only pay for the one hit they really wanted?

Two Rolling Stones examples...

Exile on Main Street (1972) is 67:07
A Bigger Bang (2005) is 64:23

I have to admit that nothing makes me happier than a nice, tight 40-minute new release.

 

No, the record industry did an inside job on it - instead of introducing the laser turntable to the public - they destroyed it so they could make a far bigger profit off of the CD format.

Maybe someone like Jack White can introduce the Laser turntable to the masses and lower the price at the same time!

ELP Laser Turntable | »

 

No. I'm an Allman Brothers Band devotee, so no.

 

The album is not dead, it's a shining Blackstar.

 

Oddly, it feels to me like there are more people still making long albums in the supposedly short-attention-span pop world -- Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake -- while rock and "indie" albums have by and large reverted to LP length. (Exceptions on both sides of course.)

Probably because there's more demand for vinyl in the rock world.... isn't there?

 

Every music idea that came before the one that came before killed every kind of music that came before and after.

 

Why do you list Exile on Main Street???

 

Yeah I didn't get that at first, but I think he means CD "single album" Bigger Bang was nearly as long as LP "double album" Exile.

 

When CDs first came out, they were so bloody expensive that artists felt the need to fill them up to give buyers more "fair value" for their purchase. Yeah, that made most of them way too long, tiresome even.

I still love CDs, but I'm glad that the vinyl resurrection has meant that more albums are now under 50 minutes. I don't want us to go back to 30-35 minute albums either though.

 

It did not kill the album...but delayed new releases. In the 40 minute album era, it was not unusual for bands to release an album every year. As soon as the CD format came, time between albums became longer and longer.

 

I thought the laser turntable was a fantastic idea until I read more about them.
Although I've not heard one myself, the general consensus seems to be that they don't sound that great.
And unless the disc is 100% free of any dust or dirt, it's not going to play perfectly without noise.

 

Yes!

One of the reasons I liked AC/DC's "Rock Or Bust" so much is that it is a nice 11 song, 35 minute release. The song structures are tight and by the time the album is over you're ready to hear it again.

Even if an album is good, after 75 minutes of it, YOU'RE DONE!!

 

Yes, and I hate that lack of momentum. It was great when an artist could release one, maybe two albums a year and even if one wasn't up to par, you knew another one would be released soon enough. Now it can be 3-5 years between albums and that causes people to get bored.

 

Maybe a different more improved model can be perfected. The original technology was from the late 1980's.

I would love to see a demonstration of a newer Laser turntable somewhere!

 

We've discussed this many times here. Before CDs, artists would rarely have enough worthy material to put out a double vinyl (or they didn't want to put out a pricey item). The CD age meant that artists felt obliged to fill up the 70-80 minutes so people didn't feel ripped off. The problem is that hardly any artist or band has that much to say every time, so filler material became the norm. For the past 30 years I've been saying, "finish it, the song is done!" after 3 minutes but no, they drag it on and on for 5, 6, 7 minutes to fill up the damn CD. They them perform the mush on-stage (most of the time without any solos from the musicians involved). This has all made music for the most part so freaking dull now.

 

I think it depends on the artist.

Prolific artists like Frank Zappa benefitted from the format. He was constantly releasing double and even triple albums back in the pre-cd days, so a medium like the compact disc was perfect for someone like him.

Other artists however seemed to go from making concise albums to long albums with material that should have been relegated to b-sides. I usually want as much as I can get from my favourite artists, but not always in one big lump.

 

Bad example. It was a stupendously beautiful double album.

Good example!

 

Yes, there were tons of complaints over albums shorter than 50 mins back in the late 1980s early 1990s.

 

Me too.
If they could improve the sound quality and other issues it would be fantastic.
It also makes no sense that these machines don't fix the issue of records being cut off center before tracking them with the laser.
If the disc is cut off center, it's still going to have pitch issues, no matter how great it can track the grooves.

 

no

But i love a 40min, tight, release

 

This doesn't bother me anymore. If everybody I like released an album every year, I couldn't absorb it all. Even a two year space seems quick to me now. (It helps that time passes more quickly as you get older!)

 

Extra long albums seemed to be a 90's thing. Loads of albums from that era are around an hour long or longer.

 

It didn´t help. I prefer to listen to albums that are between 30 and 50 minutes long, but there are many exceptions. If the music is good, it´s not a problem. If the music isn´t all that interesting, it´s hard to sit through the entire album. Same as it ever was.