What's up with short-length CDs nowadays?

[PolkaHero]

Picked up Megadeth's new CD last week, only has 11 tracks. This week I got Ozzy's latest release and it clocks in at only 46:28, 10 tracks. Slayer's release from last year was also short, about 45-50 minutes. Even Rush's new CD is only about 60 minutes in length. Don't these artists realize that a CD can hold 80 minutes of music? Quality vs. Quantity? Or is this some kind of retro movement back to LP playlists?

[Mcrelly]

back with "records" vinyl the most music you could fit was about 20 min per side, about 45 min total. some records could jam a few more minutes on, but this would comprimise the sound quality of the grooves. I have some 25 to 30 min TOTAL time albums, now on cd, from the early 70s. van halen even put out some albums around 35 min!!! nowadays if I get 45min or more on a new cd I'm content. oh, on the van halen cd it only had like 10 min of good songs!!! IMHO.

I'd rather have 30 min of quality than 60 min of mediocre. sadly nowadays many money grubbing record companies are willing to churn out mediocre because they know many listeners are fickle and will listen to almost anything with a constant beat or hook.

[jenderfazz]

I'd also much rather have a 30 minute album that's nothing but good. For the most part, I'm not fond of very long CDs with or without songs that seem to be filler material. Only 60 minutes? Many full-lengths nowadays are only 30-40 minutes! I think 40 minutes is a good length for my purposes.

[Lazylion]

Originally Posted by PolkaHero

...Don't these artists realize that a CD can hold 80 minutes of music? Quality vs. Quantity? Or is this some kind of retro movement back to LP playlists?

In a few years, look for re-releases with Bonus Material! Sucky Outtakes We Almost Threw Away! Inane interviews! Single versions! Between-take studio babbling! Other stuff you'll listen to once, then wish wasn't there! Etc.

[Ibanezzer]

+1 on the shorter is better approach, I hate cds that take an entire hour to listen to and then to realize that a third of it is filler. I like the short and sweet higher quality albums out lately much better.

[Thunderbird91]

45-50 minutes is quite of bit of music if you think about it. For me atleast the majority of the music I listen to I don't always want to hear an hour straight of the same band. With longer albums usually there are some crap songs thrown in. I think its better to have a shorter album with the best of the songs that were written. Usually the ones that dont make the album suck.

Thats what b-side collections are for.

[Thunder Pulse]

Originally Posted by PolkaHero

Slayer's release from last year was also short, about 45-50 minutes.

Hey, that's still almost twice as long as their first release or two.

[Spector_Ray]

I'm all about quality not quantity. If an artist puts out an epic 45 minutes, then I'll scream for more.

[Jazz Ad]

Music is art, not pizza or stuff. It's doesn't sell by the length.

[Nino Valenti]

Originally Posted by PolkaHero

Picked up Megadeth's new CD last week, only has 11 tracks. This week I got Ozzy's latest release and it clocks in at only 46:28, 10 tracks. Slayer's release from last year was also short, about 45-50 minutes. Even Rush's new CD is only about 60 minutes in length. Don't these artists realize that a CD can hold 80 minutes of music? Quality vs. Quantity? Or is this some kind of retro movement back to LP playlists?

"Megadeth's new CD last week, only has 11 tracks."
Bought it, listened to it. Thought it was freaking AWESOME!!!!!

"Slayer's release from last year was also short, about 45-50 minutes."
Bought it, listened to it. Thought it was freaking AWESOME!!!!!

"Even Rush's new CD is only about 60 minutes in length."
Bought it, listened to it. Thought it was freaking AWESOME!!!!!

I'd rather listen to a great album instead of a good album with filler crap.

[ALiP BoB]

Originally Posted by Nino Valenti

I'd rather listen to a great album instead of a good album with filler crap.

+1