U2 Album Length--Old School thinking?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

stargift

The Fly
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
241
Location
California
The story goes is that Mercy got left off because U2 thought the cd would be too long. without Fast Cars it is under 50 minutes. I believe that is old school thinking. When I got my 12 song disc I burned it to cd (not mp3) and I still had about 27 minutes to fill up a cdr. I filled up every second of it. When I saw I still had 1:47 left I found some little snippet at got up to my 100%. I know the quality of my cdr isn't as good as my original cd, but I listen to the 80 minute cdr because that is what I have come to listen to with the advent of home burners. Do any of you do the same thing, or do you usually think--' 49 minutes is plenty I'll leave the rest of the cd blank?" I'll usually stick on some live versions of the same songs, or demos, etc. So, in my mind U2 could have easily stuck on Mercy, Fast Cars, alt. versions, etc.
 
I think it's not that it would be literally too long for the disc; rather, the experience of the album should be limited for the most impact
 
I've always felt 12 is the perfect length for an album. 11's ok I guess. 10's too short - especially if you're Weezer and you songs are 3min long and your album ends up being less then 30min! :) I think it's a bit much when albums are like 17 songs.
 
The only album I can think of that really worked with a lot of tracks, is Marilyn Manson's Holywood. 19 in total.

...I might be alone in this thinking but....:wink:
 
I don't know when people started to think that longer is always better. It's not. Long albums always tend to get boring near the 60-minute mark if you listen all the way through. Short and sweet. That's how I like them.
 
Back
Top Bottom