Can Length Ruin An Album?
 

Ever been listening to an album, and though 'Wow this is just TOO long!'?
It's not neccasarily because an album has filler, but sometimes I just don't have enough time to listen to a whole album, and can even get bored if I feel like the album's neverending.
Perfect example:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/ivan1087/SBReZ8...me%20large.jpg
Almost all of the songs on it are great, but I can't give 2pac 2hours of my life every time I want to listen to him.

Discuss?

Well, I usually listen to an album halfway, listen to something else, then come back to it if it is a rather song based album. So album length doesn't really matter to me.

I feel longevity can almost make or break an album at times. I don't necessarily have a problem with short albums - In fact, I reckon an album's quality can be improved by keeping the length lower and controlled, rather than offering a cluster**** of 80 minutes, half of which is garbage. Keeping the songs at a minimum also means that there is a greater chance for a quality album overall (Simply because bands don't need to fill it with filler) and that the fans will also get albums at a better rate.

A good example of an album going overboard IMO concerns Techno Animals release 'Re-Entry'. The album starts with promise and interest, and then you look at the track list... Double album
http://www.discogs.com/image/R-150-68435-001.jpg

1-01 Flight Of The Hermaphrodite (10:56)
1-02 The Mighty Atom Smasher (10:04)
1-03 Mastodon Americanus (7:23)
1-04 City Heathen Dub (10:04)
1-05 Narco Agent Vs. The Medicine Man (14:00)
1-06 Demodex Invasion (19:14)

2-01 Evil Spirits / Angel Dust (9:45)
2-02 Catatonia (15:44)
2-03 Needle Park (10:41)
2-04 Red Sea (11:20)
2-05 Cape Canaveral (21:28)
2-06 Resuscitator (7:46)

And its a fine album unfortunately, but I rarely chuck it on. It just isn't worth it. Half the time its pure wank to drag an album on that much.

Unfortunately there are a few albums I have that just drag on far too long, and I rarely chuck them on and listen throughout.

I can handle an album of just one hell long song though, oddly enough (The Necks or Kashiwa Daisuke sort of songs, 45 to 60 minutes a piece).

Perfect album length - 35 to 45 minutes. I find it much more satisfying to get a short album that is perfect in its entirety over a pointlessly long album that's a hit and miss.

Short answer: YES.

Maybe not ruin, but reduce overall rating.

Many don't necessarily feel like they have to, but want to give people their money's worth, don't want to make them feel cheated. In the process they are stretching/thinning out what could be a more solid body of work.

Exactly. I'd even say 40-50 minutes but it depends on the genre. A fast punk album is better in the 30-35 minute range and something slower or more creative where ideas take longer to develop could be at the longer end of the range.

I'd rather be left wanting more than wishing something would end.

Single CD albums are fine I should say, however, there are box sets and compilations like 3 or 4 CDs which have something like 70 to 80 songs and these are just not possible in a single session. More likely have to put them on and go to sleep...

But...those are compilations and box sets. Not albums. They're not created with the intention of continuous play.

Quite right! Just that I'm the kind who likes to listen to the entire album even if its a greatest hits/best of compilation. Never heard the Buffalo Springfield so got the Buffalo Springfield Box Set recently and it has like 88 songs.

I really don't like to listen to a few songs and then come back later to the rest of the album, maybe that's just me but that's the way I am.