Should longer albums be held in higher regard

Should classic albums that have a longer running time be valued higher than shorter classics? If an artist creates a classic album where there is more material judge, does the album carry more weight than an album that may only be 10 or 11 tracks and only 45 minutes in length? Or is a classic album a classic album regardless of it's length?

Yes, obviously. It's obviously easier to take 100+ songs and whittle them down to 10 really dope ones IMO, but it's much more difficult to craft a double disc classic, like so few have.

no, if a longer classic album is not as good as the shorter classic its not being held in higher regard by me

No, i wish all albums were no more than 13-14 tracks.

E. Taylor wrote:

No, i wish all albums were no more than 13-14 tracks.

Ok, but what if an album is 9-10 tracks compared to a 14 track album?

T. Myers wrote:

E. Taylor wrote:

No, i wish all albums were no more than 13-14 tracks.

Ok, but what if an album is 9-10 tracks compared to a 14 track album?

depends on the quality of the tracks

Slang Editorial wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

E. Taylor wrote:

No, i wish all albums were no more than 13-14 tracks.

Ok, but what if an album is 9-10 tracks compared to a 14 track album?

depends on the quality of the tracks

Keep in mind for this topic we are only considering classic albums.

T. Myers wrote:

Slang Editorial wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

E. Taylor wrote:

No, i wish all albums were no more than 13-14 tracks.

Ok, but what if an album is 9-10 tracks compared to a 14 track album?

depends on the quality of the tracks

Keep in mind for this topic we are only considering classic albums.

i know what you mean but i still think the quality comes into play...

if theres 10 flawless tracks versus 14 tracks 9 being flawless and the others being 4/5 the album is still potentially classic but it just depends on preference and what tracks you like better

A double disc classic does not exist. When it does exist, it will be held in the highest regard.

The length of an album means absolutely NOTHING!

Back in the days, most albums were like 10-12 tracks long. It wasn't until the early to mid 90's that the average really increased.

Illmatic has 9 tracks but all of them are bangers so it's worthy of being called the greatest hip-hop album of all time. Just as Thriller is widely considered the greatest album of all time in any genre and it's about the same length.

A short album can be classic (Illmatic). A long album can be classic (Masters of the Universe).

It all boils down to quality and run time, for the most part, is irrelevant, IMO.

Bushido Brown wrote:

A short album can be classic (Illmatic). A long album can be classic (Masters of the Universe).

It all boils down to quality and run time, for the most part, is irrelevant, IMO.

Co-Sign 100%

Classic is classic to me but I certainly understand the thinking of maybe giving more props to the guy who created a longer piece. However how much we love an album is not based on its length but the quality of the songs crafted and how they were woven together. A consistent vision is needed for a classic otherwise it will become hodgepodge.

This is ridiculous. Of course length matters. This is like saying an artist who makes one classic album is as good as an artist who makes 2. Because the quantity doesn't matter, right? So they both made classic material, so it's equal.

Wait, no it's not. And don't act like this isn't the same thing. If two artists only put out one album apiece, and both were classics but one artist had a double disc classic, anybody with sense would realize the quantity comes into play. This should also count when you're looking at whole discgraphies, because the QUANTITY of good material counts as a whole lot. I can only say the same fucking thing so many ways.

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

This is ridiculous. Of course length matters. This is like saying an artist who makes one classic album is as good as an artist who makes 2. Because the quantity doesn't matter, right? So they both made classic material, so it's equal.

Wait, no it's not. And don't act like this isn't the same thing. If two artists only put out one album apiece, and both were classics but one artist had a double disc classic, anybody with sense would realize the quantity comes into play. This should also count when you're looking at whole discgraphies, because the QUANTITY of good material counts as a whole lot. I can only say the same fucking thing so many ways.

I disagree entirely. I'll take quality over quantity anyday.

If one album has 9 tracks and 8 of them are 5 stars, whereas another album has 16 tracks and only half of them are 5 stars, then the shorter album wins IMO.

You also have to consider replay value. Which album do you find yourself bumpin more? Out of my Top 10 albums of all time, 3 of them are only 9-10 tracks. It doesn't matter how long an album is, it's how often I find myself playing the album. I find myself playing Illmatic, Paid In Full, and Criminal Minded frequently and they have multiple 5 star tracks so the length is irrelevant to me. Those are classic albums that I will play forever.

You have no idea what this discussion's about, do you KJ?

Kid Joe wrote:

You have no idea what this discussion's about, do you KJ?

Damn, I think I'm one of the few intelligent dudes in this fucking forum. Seriously, what part of what I said did you not understand????

Well to make a long story short for you, I'll just say that the length of a album doesn't mean shit. It's all about the quality and just because one 5 star album is longer than another 5 star album doesn't make it better.

Did you understand that? If not, then you're on your own. Same goes for anyone else whose head I fly over.

KJ Styles wrote:

If one album has 9 tracks and 8 of them are 5 stars, whereas another album has 16 tracks and only half of them are 5 stars, then the shorter album

This part here. The part that has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody's debating 50% albums. But you're so smart, maybe nobody knows what this thread is about except you.

KJ Styles wrote:

Kid Joe wrote:

You have no idea what this discussion's about, do you KJ?

Damn, I think I'm one of the few intelligent dudes in this fucking forum. Seriously, what part of what I said did you not understand????

Well to make a long story short for you, I'll just say that the length of a album doesn't mean shit. It's all about the quality and just because one 5 star album is longer than another 5 star album doesn't make it better.

Did you understand that? If not, then you're on your own. Same goes for anyone else whose head I fly over.

Wouldn't 20 5 star songs be better than just 10?

Isn't this basic math?

If I tell you I will give you 5 delicious apples or 15 delicious apples wouldn't you want the 15 most of the time? You wouldn't say "Well, a delicious apple is a delicious apple, no matter the number?"

Kid Joe wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

If one album has 9 tracks and 8 of them are 5 stars, whereas another album has 16 tracks and only half of them are 5 stars, then the shorter album

This part here. The part that has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody's debating 50% albums. But you're so smart, maybe nobody knows what this thread is about except you.

An album can be considered classic if half the songs are 5 stars and the other half are 3.5-4 or better. Just as long as none of the songs are must skip tracks. But an album that's loaded with 5 star tracks regardless of the length ranks higher to me. Now do you get it?

Kid Joe wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

If one album has 9 tracks and 8 of them are 5 stars, whereas another album has 16 tracks and only half of them are 5 stars, then the shorter album

This part here. The part that has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody's debating 50% albums. But you're so smart, maybe nobody knows what this thread is about except you.

well the thing is, a lot of classic albums dont have all 5 star tracks.

there are short classics with all 5 star songs, then there are longer albums that are classics with a lot of 5 star songs but also some that arent but there still dope

it really does all depend on preference of the songs, listening habits, replay value, etc.

i dont think he was trying to debate 50% albums, but more often than not the longer classics have some tracks that arent as good as others. Find me a classic album with 20 5 star tracks, it doesnt exist.

Lionel Hutz wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

Kid Joe wrote:

You have no idea what this discussion's about, do you KJ?

Damn, I think I'm one of the few intelligent dudes in this fucking forum. Seriously, what part of what I said did you not understand????

Well to make a long story short for you, I'll just say that the length of a album doesn't mean shit. It's all about the quality and just because one 5 star album is longer than another 5 star album doesn't make it better.

Did you understand that? If not, then you're on your own. Same goes for anyone else whose head I fly over.

Wouldn't 20 5 star songs be better than just 10?

Isn't this basic math?

If I tell you I will give you 5 delicious apples or 15 delicious apples wouldn't you want the 15 most of the time? You wouldn't say "Well, a delicious apple is a delicious apple, no matter the number?"

Show me an album with 20 5 star tracks and then maybe we'd have a debate.

Saying a longer classic album is better than a shorter classic album SOLELY because of the length is ridiculous. That's like saying that a longer 5 star movie is better than a shorter 5 star movie.

Slang Editorial wrote:

Kid Joe wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

If one album has 9 tracks and 8 of them are 5 stars, whereas another album has 16 tracks and only half of them are 5 stars, then the shorter album

This part here. The part that has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody's debating 50% albums. But you're so smart, maybe nobody knows what this thread is about except you.

well the thing is, a lot of classic albums dont have all 5 star tracks.

there are short classics with all 5 star songs, then there are longer albums that are classics with a lot of 5 star songs but also some that arent but there still dope

it really does all depend on preference of the songs, listening habits, replay value, etc.

i dont think he was trying to debate 50% albums, but more often than not the longer classics have some tracks that arent as good as others. Find me a classic album with 20 5 star tracks, it doesnt exist.

That's EXACTLY what I've been saying throughout this discussion. THANK YOU SLANG!!!

The thing is - KJ was going off on a tangent about bullshit that doesn't matter.

There shouldn't be different classics.

There should be a universal classic rating. If something is classic to me it is on par with anything else I call classic.

Everyone should feel the same.

Now if some people have "different" classics of varying quality they seem to have a bigger problem.

The main question here is - all other variables being controlled and the same - if two albums are classics and one is longer should it be held in higher regard?

The obvious answer is yes and i have seen but maybe one no answer that gives a logical reasoning to support the response.

Lionel Hutz wrote:

The thing is - KJ was going off on a tangent about bullshit that doesn't matter.

No I wasn't, you're just too ignorant to understand.

Classics are classics yes. But aren't there certain 5 star albums you dig more than others? If you say no then you're full of shit.

How much I like an album is determined by how often I find myself spinning it. For example, both Aquemini and ATLiens are both classics, but I spin Aquemini more often so I rate it higher.

Lionel Hutz wrote:

The thing is - KJ was going off on a tangent about bullshit that doesn't matter.

There shouldn't be different classics.

There should be a universal classic rating. If something is classic to me it is on par with anything else I call classic.

Everyone should feel the same.

Now if some people have "different" classics of varying quality they seem to have a bigger problem.

The main question here is - all other variables being controlled and the same - if two albums are classics and one is longer should it be held in higher regard?

The obvious answer is yes and i have seen but maybe one no answer that gives a logical reasoning to support the response.

Yo that's how I do it.

SRP, you're just rambling because you and Jeff are the only people who feel longer classics are better solely because of the length while everyone else that's posted so far disagrees.

No, KJ.

Let me break down the discussion for easier comprehension:

T. Myers: Should longer CLASSIC albums be held in higher regard than shorter CLASSIC albums? The assumption being that the quality is equal in both.


Intelligent Response:
E. Taylor: I generally prefer albums of a certain length, so longer albums will not be held in higher regard by me.

Norf: I think length is irrelevant when it comes to classics.

J. Peterson: I agree with norf - the length does not add or detract from a classic.


Stupid responses:

Slang and KJ:
yabadabadooooo if a longer album is not as good as shorter album it is not as good...

woo woo woo we will ignore the actual topic and ramble about some bullshit...

zippididy doo daaa illmatic is still a classic and it is short...

boom boom pow I call one CD a classic and it is all 5 star songs and another CD is classic and it has 3 songs I like but it still jams

I would say look at it like this let's say you have one album that is 9 tracks with 8 five star tracks and one 4 star track. Then you put up against a double album with ten 5 star tracks with five on each disc and six 4 star tracks and two 3 star tracks. The double LP has more heaters but more pitfalls as well. The double LP is a less pure cut as it were. So it would be which mattered more to the individual, it could honestly go either way.

At the club you have the attention of 5 dimes. Or at the club 3 dimes, an 8 and two nickels. In the end it's all pussy.

TheHazardous wrote:

I would say look at it like this let's say you have one album that is 9 tracks with 8 five star tracks and one 4 star track. Then you put up against a double album with ten 5 star tracks with five on each disc and six 4 star tracks and two 3 star tracks. The double LP has more heaters but more pitfalls as well. The double LP is a less pure cut as it were. So it would be which mattered more to the individual, it could honestly go either way.

At the club you have the attention of 5 dimes. Or at the club 3 dimes, an 8 and two nickels. In the end it's all pussy.

But that's not the comparison being asked of here.

The comparison is equal to equal:

1 album - 9 tracks:

1 Four Star
8 Five Star

1 Longer album - 18 tracks:

2 Four Star
16 Five Star


Is the longer album any better? I agree the question could go either way, the problem here is fools who try to compare a short 5 star album with a longer 4.5 star album and try to use that to justify their reasoning - it makes no sense.


If you want to make it about females the apt comparison is:

You can menage with 2 dimes or 4 dimes - which do you prefer? Their all dimes, it's only the quantity that would change.

I said basically the same shit Norf and Peterson said, but it went over your head as usual.

No, you didn't KJ. You're ignoring the question entirely. SRP has even kindergarten'd it for you, but you just don't get it.

It's not about how much material there is on an album, it's about an overall listening experience, and it seem that longer classics are inevitably less consistent than shorter classics and struggle to maintain a steady arc throughout. That's why shorter classics outweigh longer classics in sheer number, and why longer classics shouldn't be held in higher regard, because their flaws are already more overlooked to even achieve that status.

KJ Styles wrote:

I said basically the same shit Norf and Peterson said, but it went over your head as usual.

Actually KJ, you did say the same thing Norf and Peterson said... up to a point... and then you started going off on irrelevant tangents.

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

No, you didn't KJ. You're ignoring the question entirely. SRP has even kindergarten'd it for you, but you just don't get it.

I didn't ignore shit. You clowns just didn't like my answer. I don't give a fuck though.

Jason wrote:

It's not about how much material there is on an album, it's about an overall listening experience, and it seem that longer classics are inevitably less consistent than shorter classics and struggle to maintain a steady arc throughout. That's why shorter classics outweigh longer classics in sheer number, and why longer classics shouldn't be held in higher regard, because their flaws are already more overlooked to even achieve that status.

No. Again, half of your post doesn't make sense and contradicts the idea of "classic albums" and the other half just doesn't make any goddamn sense. Would you rather have 15 Silver Jews songs or 5? Simple question.

This is a lot easier than you guys (KJ, Jason, etc.) are making it.

What doesn't make sense? An album isn't just a random sequence of individual songs, with their own individual ratings. You can't balance it like an equation. At least, that's not how I view albums.

If you can't rate songs, how can you rate albums?

That's not what's on trial. Say there is a flawless album. Completely flawless, with no weak points whatsoever. And let's say it is 12 tracks. Now, say there is another completely flawless album with no weak points. This album is 18 tracks. Which would you prefer?

That is the question.

I always listen to albums straight through, and I'd rate the overall experience, not individual songs. I could go through and rate individual songs, but the album rating wouldn't just be an average of the song ratings. That's not how it works.

Shaun wrote:

That's not what's on trial. Say there is a flawless album. Completely flawless, with no weak points whatsoever. And let's say it is 12 tracks. Now, say there is another completely flawless album with no weak points. This album is 18 tracks. Which would you prefer?

That is the question.

The issue is that's not a realistic situation. It's never happened, as far as I'm concerned. So, I was discussing the question based on real, practical experience listening to classic albums.

smh. I knew you were going to say that.

Even taking the hypothetical, there might be times when I'd prefer to only listen to 12 flawless tracks, because I just wasn't in the mood to listen to something longer. So, at that time, I'd hold the 12 track album in higher regard, because I'd appreciate the brevity. There are no absolutes.

"Even taking the hypothetical, there might be times when I'd prefer to only listen to 12 flawless tracks, because I just wasn't in the mood to listen to something longer. So, there are no absolutes."

And, that's what the question is asking. Now, if only KJ can give an answer...

Jason wrote:

I always listen to albums straight through, and I'd rate the overall experience, not individual songs. I could go through and rate individual songs, but the album rating wouldn't just be an average of the song ratings. That's not how it works.

I agree except I can rate individual songs, and I do. But the album rating wouldn't be an average of the song ratings, so I agree with you there.

"Even taking the hypothetical, there might be times when I'd prefer to only listen to 12 flawless tracks, because I just wasn't in the mood to listen to something longer. So, there are no absolutes."

Only a Sith deals in absolutes...haha

EDIT: Ok I finally figured out this thread. Length does not matter at all.

This argument is retarded.

I don't know how many more ways there are to re-iterate this:

so if I make an album that's 3 minutes long and it's AMAZING, it's comparable to All Eyez On Me/Wu Tang Forever/Life After Death/Lost??? No, it's fucking not. Period.

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

This argument is retarded.

I don't know how many more ways there are to re-iterate this:

So if I make an album that's 3 minutes long and it's AMAZING, it's comparable to All Eyez On Me/Wu Tang Forever/Life After Death/Lost??? No, it's fucking not. Period.

Sir...with all due respect...

None of the albums you named are classics. Wu Tang does come very close, though.

Just sayin'. lol

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

This argument is retarded.

I don't know how many more ways there are to re-iterate this:

so if I make an album that's 3 minutes long and it's AMAZING, it's comparable to All Eyez On Me/Wu Tang Forever/Life After Death/Lost??? No, it's fucking not. Period.

I don't get why you want to look at this in the most extreme, unrealistic sense. Because you're that determined to get the answer you want?

3 mins vs 80 mins is not the same argument as 40 minutes vs 80 minutes (which is the kind of scenario originally presented here). Not in any practical sense. So, I wouldn't generalize between the situations.

co sign almost all of Jason's posts