Do you think that if bands started making 30-40 minute albums we'd start seeing a large number of classic albums again? In my opinion, yes.

Everytime Weezer releases a new album, someone pisses and moans about how short it is. My experience is that, in general, the longer an album goes on past about 35 minutes, the less likely it is I'll think it's "great"..filler tends to intrude.

There are almost NO double albums where I like all the tracks (yes, including the WHITE ALBUM). One of the great things about pop music, no matter how it's derided, is the pressure to say all you need to say in 3 minutes and 30 seconds, give or take, and stuff in a couple choruses so irrestible that your audience is still singing them when the song ends. Better to leave someone wanting more than overstay your welcome...

I agree with this to a certain extent. I think Electric Ladyland is pretty perfect as far as double albums go, but off the top of my head I can only name that and Blonde on Blonde as double albums with no filler. London Calling is close, but I could live with it being 2-3 songs shorter.

London calling is my favourite album, but generally 35-45 minute albums are better. However I don't find that albums on a whole are that much longer than previous decades.

John, your post sounds like you don't believe as many good albums are being released anymore. I'm sure 10-15 years from now there will about just as many albums considered classics from the 2000's as any other decade

Depends on the album.

Should they shave Blonde On Blonde down to 40 minutes? Absolutely not.

Should they shave Illinois down to 40-50 minutes? Hells yeah.

Should Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness be one, 40-50 minute CD? ...GOD YES.

Would I trim 69 Love Songs down at all? Probably not, or if I did, very sparingly. Maybe I'd make it 50 Love Songs, sex references be damned.

What they really should do is find a group of their target audience, play it for them, and see if they get bored before the album is done. Or at least find somebody they trust to give their frank opinion of how long the album really needs to be. If you've got 70 minutes of classics, put 70 minutes in. If you've got 40 minutes of classics and a bunch of decent songs, only put the classics in. Put the rest in an outtakes disc to be released later, get some free scratch from your hardcore fans.

I think good albums are still being released Wes, it's just that the filler holds a lot of modern releases back from being really great. I'm by no means a guy who thinks that the greatest music came out decades ago and nothing can come close. There are plenty of bands putting out music that rivals the classics but most albums seem to put those songs on the disc to fill it out. Why?

I would agree with you for Blonde on Blonde and Mellon Collie, but Illinois to me just works as a long album. The entire 50 states project is, to me, about writing epics. Length usually helps that, as their structure isn't as "tight". He already cut an hour off the project anyway.

Interesting.

I don’t think I’ll go into why fewer albums of the last decade or two are considered classics, except that I don’t think it has much to do with filler.

Let me add something new to the discussion: for artists of the last two decades, new albums seem to come out every two years or so, rather than one per year. I think that’s a more striking development than album length.

It used to be conventional wisdom that a band needed to maintain a constant presence in the marketplace. For most of their career, the Beatles released two albums per year. Down to 1972, the Stones had at least one album a year. The Clash’s five (real) albums—including one double and one triple—came out over a six-year period. Dylan released seven albums in five years before he “went into seclusion” following his motorcycle crash…and then John Wesley Harding appeared only 17 months later.

My sense is that this changed around 1990. It took six years for R.E.M.’s first six albums to come out (1983-1988); it took another thirteen years for the next six. Blur, a prolific band by 90’s standards, took nine years to release their first six albums—not bad, but not as fast as earlier bands. Oasis? Nine years. White Stripes? Nine years. Radiohead? Eleven years. The Strokes’ first album came out in 2001; they’ve released only two others since.

My point is this: all else being equal, if you’ve got one band releasing an album per year, and another releasing one every two years, which one is going to be putting out more filler?

With the exception of Revolver, every single Beatles album contains some filler—in some cases (the White Album), quite a lot of filler. My sense is that the great albums of the last 20 years contain a significantly LOWER ratio of substandard tracks than those of 30-40 years ago, if only because there’s more time for artists and producers to cull the runts of the litter.

It may be true (or it may not) that there are fewer classic albums these days than there used to be. But if so, more filler’s not the reason.

i really like your post schleuse, and i actually agree with it. i might start a new topic where we can discuss if and why there are less classic albums these days. i have my theories...

but i just wanted to say that i really wish outkast's speakerboxxx/TLB was a single album. if it was, i reckon it would be all time top 50ish.

agree with what BillAdama said too.

Speakerboxx/Love Below is a very strange case, because it was essentially two people releasing two separate albums together like it was one thing.

most of my favorite modern albums are between 40-50 minutes.

That said, my four favs of all time, The White Album, Blonde on Blonde, Exile, and London Calling are all 75 minutes plus. I'm also a fan of more modern double albums like Being There and Daydream nation.

It all depends on the abilities of said artist to keep you captivated for 80 minutes.