Recently bought the new one by Amy Winehouse, 34 bloody minutes, surely she can come up with more material than that in her long break since Frank??? Going back just 9 years to something like the Velvet Rope by Janet Jackson, it's epic at 1 hour 15 mins! come on people, get writing!
2006-11-14 00:02:23 · 13 answers · asked by curlyshen 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Maybe the record companies have worked out that fans buy ANYTHING a singer puts out, so producing one short album every 2 years is more financially rewarding than one album every 4 years with the same amount of material?
2006-11-14 00:05:44 · answer #1 · answered by rosbif 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
CDs can't be any longer than 1 hour 20 minutes because that's all that they can contain. Maybe some acts don't want to include more tracks on a album. I think I'd rather have a short album - James Blunt's CD isn't 40 minutes long - than have a album where I either have to sit through silence or fast forward it just to hear a secret track - like some of Robbie Williams' 70-minute+ albums.
2006-11-14 01:20:58 · answer #2 · answered by Rachel O 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is complete nonsense - the Beatles albums were all under 40 minutes and they have stood the test of time pretty well ? It is surely much better to have 35-40 minutes of decent music without all the filler ? Quality not quantity (and if you will buy albums by people such as Amy Winehouse on this occasion it appears you have neither quantity or quality !).
2006-11-14 01:11:00 · answer #3 · answered by misbehave4me 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
some, not all artists would rather spend less time writing and release a short crap album once a year to make money, than spend two years writing something better. and have you noticed that you can buy all the singles on an album before they even release them as a single. begs the question why is there a singles chart.?
2006-11-14 00:40:08 · answer #4 · answered by *♥* donna *♥* 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I don't think a studio album should be any longer than 55 minutes. That way, you give the consumers just enough music without wearing out your welcome. There are plenty of albums out there that are waaaay too long. However, a live or greatest hits album should be long.
2006-11-17 04:40:25 · answer #5 · answered by JLee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
rock on, My sentiments exactly. Its going back to the old days. 50's and 60's when the songs were only a few minutes long.
No talent i say. However reviews on the new Winehouse album much appreciated ??
2006-11-14 00:14:51 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's only one way to stop the companies pulling this trick - if an album runs less than an hour, DON'T BUY IT - A N D let them know why. They'll soon start to alter their ways !
2006-11-14 00:57:52 · answer #7 · answered by Dover Soles 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are full of it, back in the day, 8 epic tracks at least 4 minutes long would fill an entire album.
neil young's 1972 harvest album was about 50 minutes. you really need to do some research before you ask such insulting questions to the broader music community. shame on you! you should be ousted from yahoo answers fo your disrespect!
2006-11-14 00:12:30 · answer #8 · answered by jivesucka 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Mm i think its a case of 6 or 7 songs makes an album its a bit of a rip off its to make money then in another year they fire out another one.
2006-11-14 00:08:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
IM SO WITH YOU! BEYONCE HAD 10 SONGS ON HER ALBUM IT WAS LIKE 45 MINUTES! IM USE TO ALBUMS BEING OVER AN HOUR! THEY ARE SO CHEATING US AND THEY SEE WHY PEOPLE BURN MUSIC!
2006-11-14 00:31:35 · answer #10 · answered by Kia 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋