[orthobiz]

I love buying vinyl. Seems like so many new releases have to come out on two vinyl discs, increasing the cost (obviously). Especially when you consider that a CD costs virtually nothing to make.

So I guess what I'm saying is that CD's are too long. Just because 70 or 80 minutes will fit, doesn't mean the artist has to fill it. I can remember first thinking about this on Liz Phair's Exile in Guyville. Great disc but by the 15th song I was fatigued!

Back in the day, Todd Rundgren's A Wizard, A True Star was amazing in that it packed so much music (?50 plus minutes) onto two vinyl sides. But most records were what, 35 or 40 minutes?

And with the mentality of buying "just" the song, wouldn't artists be better served with a shorter, more cohesive work? But they say the "album" as a collection of songs is doomed anyway.

Here I sit listening to Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion (on two LP's, no less). Three songs per side...Great stuff, but I'd be just as happy with one disk of, say, 7 or 9 songs.

Also comes with an MP3 download code.

Admittedly, a rambling, grouchy post.

Paul

[Kim S.]

Seems like it would not make sense, but I agree that some CD's are too long.  For example AC/DCs new CD Black Ice runs 55 minutes.  A good CD, but by the end it drags.  AC/DC songs tend to sound similar anyway which contributes to the feeling.  If they had cut some songs and trimmed it to 35 minutes I would have thought it a tight effort and wanted more.  On the other hand long is not always bad.  I like it when I buy reissues that have bonus tracks.  For example I have been buying some Moody Blues reissues that contain live versions, unissued tracks, etc that are very interresting.  Finally sometimes if I know a CD is long I start it half way if I don't feel like listening to the whole thing.

[orthobiz]

I like it when I buy reissues that have bonus tracks. 

Finally sometimes if I know a CD is long I start it half way if I don't feel like listening to the whole thing.

I agree on both points. Sometimes the reissues have vital stuff that wasn't on the original, like singles released between albums for some of the 60's bands (Kinks, Pretty Things, even early Pink Floyd come to mind).

Also, I will start the CD at track 6, just to get acquainted with a new disk. Lots of times I'm in the car and I keep hearing the same early songs over and over. Kinda makes me feel like I started the album on "side 2."

Paul

[mjosef]

Short and brief may work for pop/rock music, but other musical genre, like jazz and classical, needs much more space and time to explore the inner corridors of musical pieces.
Also Live recordings needs the time to capture the whole experience.

[PhilNYC]

I think the labels are insisting to artists that they put more music on the CDs because 15 tracks on a CD for $10 becomes very attractive compared to downloading 15 songs at 99 cents per song and therefore encourages consumers to buy the CD.  I know that this is somewhat counter-intuitive, since the labels would make a lot more money on a "per song" basis if everything they sold was via download.  But I think albums are far easier to market than singles, and despite the reports of downloads overtaking CD sales, CDs are not completely dead yet.