Should longer albums be held in higher regard

40 min vs 80 min is still ridiculous, Jason. To say that DOUBLE the amount of music and STILL BEING CLASSIC isn't better than the shorter version, while still classic is asinine. I'm over-exaggerating because you're holding on to this stupid little point about less being more. But since you openly admit you can't "judge a single song" but just "whole albums" I'm not discussing this with you anymore because that idea is simply fallacy.

"Hey man, you like the new Jay-Z single?" "Nah, I can't judge by just a song, let me hear the whole album and I'll tell you if I like it or not". Fucking idiocy.

ALSO, the whole argument for shorter albums being better? Comes from old fogies who complain about cds being able to hold more information than vinyl. Vinyl albums were shorter because they had to be, and not until the advent of formats did albums start being 20-30 tracks. More is ALWAYS more. ALWAYS. Would I rather hear 9 perfect songs from an artist or 20+ songs of above average quality? The second, because I actually love music and don't just wanna limit what I hear. Sometimes I enjoy hearing things that aren't perfect at all because I might still get some enjoyment out of it. You, sir, are the unenlightened one sticking to a flawed argument because it's what you prefer.

its not flawed, i dont see what you see wrong with his points.

It all depends on how the album flows together, if you get 20 great songs but there still uncohesive and dont flow as well as 12 great songs its easy to see why someone would prefer the other

honestly, too long of albums can get annoying cuz i never have time to listen to them in one sitting, that in itself takes away from the experience

Your ADD has nothing to do with the way 90% of people listen to music. I'm sorry you're from the douchebag generation, but that has nothing to do with me. I don't listen to every album on my mp3 player. I listen to most of my music in my living on room (on a STEREO! CHRIST!!) in my car or on my laptop. And I enjoy having a lot of music to listen to from my favorite artists cuz I like their music, so I want as much of it as possible. I don't sit around and go "hey man, I wish I had a lot less music to listen to". That's moronic. So basically you don't anticipate albums? Oh wait you do. But you don't want more music to listen to, right? Doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

Your ADD has nothing to do with the way 90% of people listen to music. I'm sorry you're from the douchebag generation, but that has nothing to do with me. I don't listen to every album on my mp3 player. I listen to most of my music in my living on room (on a STEREO! CHRIST!!) in my car or on my laptop. And I enjoy having a lot of music to listen to from my favorite artists cuz I like their music, so I want as much of it as possible. I don't sit around and go "hey man, I wish I had a lot less music to listen to". That's moronic. So basically you don't anticipate albums? Oh wait you do. But you don't want more music to listen to, right? Doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

UMMMM my listening habits are basically just like yours, mostly on my computer speakers or car, and also on my mp3 player when walking somewhere but less than the car and speakers

BUT, i honestly dont have time to listen, and i mean actually listen, to an album for 80 minutes in my living room. and how often do you drive in your car for 65+ minutes???? id say not often. Personally i think 50-60 minutes is a great album length, obviously there are exceptions

I'd say every day, idiot. I drive my son to daycare and then I drive to work. Since you know my life so well explain to me this:

How can you agree that it's more difficult to craft a longer classic then say that accomplishing said difficult task shouldn't be more celebrated?

If you can answer that question, get back at me.

even your favorite Face album (The Diary) is only 43 minutes, you dont complain about that

isnt that your favorite album ever??

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

I'd say every day, idiot. I drive my son to daycare and then I drive to work. Since you know my life so well explain to me this:

How can you agree that it's more difficult to craft a longer classic then say that accomplishing said difficult task shouldn't be more celebrated?

If you can answer that question, get back at me.

well i usually dont drive for 65+ hours straight, i definitely drive that long in a day but not in one drive, my bad

and its may be more difficult to create a "longer" classic, but i still dont think it should automatically be held in higher regard because its longer, thats ridiculous. It still depends, like Jason said, on the listening experience, cohesiveness, etc....

Didn't
Answer
My
Question

and on any given day my "favorite" changes, since I hold all classics at the same level. But, for me, it's easier for a double album or whatever to be held as a classic because it's more difficult.

Now if you'd address my point...

And, again, your DRIVING habits have nothing to do with the quality of the music. It's not ridiculous to say that something more difficult should be held in higher regard. Are you a simpleton?

So a person climbing Hamburger Hill should be given the same level of fame as people who climb Mt. Everest?

i did address your question

"and its may be more difficult to create a "longer" classic, but i still dont think it should automatically be held in higher regard because its longer, thats ridiculous. It still depends, like Jason said, on the listening experience, cohesiveness, etc...."

there are a lot of other factors that go into it other than length

why cant you just see that although length may be a factor, there are MANY other factors that come into play when people decide how high they regard certain classics

There are many other factors. I'll break this down for you:

All of those OTHER factors (production value, cohesiveness, etc) are also determined by the LENGTH OF THE GODDAMN ALBUM. Again, it's much EASIER to have cohesiveness when you only have 9 tracks. Getting 20 songs to get along on a single album is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. THEREFORE, all of those other factors sit behind length, which is also determinate of replay value, etc etc etc.

You're clearly grasping at straws here. Either A) admit you have a flawed argument but shorter albums are just your PERSONAL preference or B) admit you're wrong

Thanks.

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

There are many other factors. I'll break this down for you:

All of those OTHER factors (production value, cohesiveness, etc) are also determined by the LENGTH OF THE GODDAMN ALBUM. Again, it's much EASIER to have cohesiveness when you only have 9 tracks. Getting 20 songs to get along on a single album is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. THEREFORE, all of those other factors sit behind length, which is also determinate of replay value, etc etc etc.

You're clearly grasping at straws here. Either A) admit you have a flawed argument but shorter albums are just your PERSONAL preference or B) admit you're wrong

Thanks.

um no, because what you are describing is an unrealistic situation. It has not happened, its unrealistic, i dont do hypothetical, i fuck with real world situations and what you named hasnt been done, sorry, come again.

What are you talking about? I was talking about a real-world situation. You clearly have no idea what's going on here.

What about Wu Tang Forever, an album you've called a classic?

well lets read what you said again

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

There are many other factors. I'll break this down for you:

All of those OTHER factors (production value, cohesiveness, etc) are also determined by the LENGTH OF THE GODDAMN ALBUM. Again, it's much EASIER to have cohesiveness when you only have 9 tracks. Getting 20 songs to get along on a single album is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. THEREFORE, all of those other factors sit behind length, which is also determinate of replay value, etc etc etc.

You're clearly grasping at straws here. Either A) admit you have a flawed argument but shorter albums are just your PERSONAL preference or B) admit you're wrong

Thanks.

1. Forever is a double album, you said fit on a single album, if you wanted you could listen to Forever as separate discs

2. I CONSIDER Forever a classic, but i dont think its regarded as an objective classic and as far as purposes as this discussion go, objectivity of classics becomes very important or else you could just name any personal classic long album to make your point. In fact sometimes i think it may be the best album ever, but thats another story altogether.

3. i want a real world situation of an objective widely regarded hip hop classic thats 75+ minutes on on disc, thats fully cohesive as well

How long is Mecca & The Soul Brother?

T. Myers wrote:

How long is Mecca & The Soul Brother?

well if that fits the bill answer the question for me, what do you hold higher, that or The Diary?

Yo N3r0, you get too worked up, man. You're gonna end up having a stroke if you can't find a way to disagree more calmly.

Slang Editorial wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

How long is Mecca & The Soul Brother?

well if that fits the bill answer the question for me, what do you hold higher, that or The Diary?

Um, i'm not the one with a dog in this race. I was just giving you an example of an album you said didn't exist. Now that you have your example, you can answer N3R0's question.

T. Myers wrote:

Slang Editorial wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

How long is Mecca & The Soul Brother?

well if that fits the bill answer the question for me, what do you hold higher, that or The Diary?

Um, i'm not the one with a dog in this race. I was just giving you an example of an album you said didn't exist. Now that you have your example, you can answer N3R0's question.

Well to answer the question for him, i know he would say The Diary. Also, it shows an example of how length is not the deciding factor in how high of regard a classic is held

This whole thread seems to be a big argument with contradictions and exceptions.

The basic premise that 10 5 Star songs are more impressive to create than 5 5 star songs hasn't been answered by Slang or Jason with out some sort of exception or contradiction...that doesn't occur in real life, if I only ave 20 minutes to listen to music I prefer shortness, the album as a whole has to have a certain feel, there isn't an 80 minute classic, etc. etc. etc.

The most I can garner from those answers is "you're probably right, but here is some bullshit so I can avoid admitting as much."

By their logic a classic EP should be just as highly regarded as a classic album.

Man, I still don't think you're answering N3R0's question, and I'm going to leave it at that.

For the record, the run time for M&TSB listed online is 77:13.

ok so by some peoples logic here the best albums in all of their collections are all ranked by length. The longest classics are the best and the shortest classics arent as highly regarded by them. That is essentially what you are saying. And that may be the dumbest thing ive ever heard.


to list your favorite albums all you have to do is check the run time and rank them n order, that is nonsense

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

40 min vs 80 min is still ridiculous, Jason. To say that DOUBLE the amount of music and STILL BEING CLASSIC isn't better than the shorter version, while still classic is asinine. I'm over-exaggerating because you're holding on to this stupid little point about less being more. But since you openly admit you can't "judge a single song" but just "whole albums" I'm not discussing this with you anymore because that idea is simply fallacy.

"Hey man, you like the new Jay-Z single?" "Nah, I can't judge by just a song, let me hear the whole album and I'll tell you if I like it or not". Fucking idiocy.

There's a difference between "can't" and "don't." I don't take the time to rate individual songs, because to me, an overall album rating is not the same as an average of song rating, and my listening habits are album focused.

Quote :

ALSO, the whole argument for shorter albums being better? Comes from old fogies who complain about cds being able to hold more information than vinyl. Vinyl albums were shorter because they had to be, and not until the advent of formats did albums start being 20-30 tracks. More is ALWAYS more. ALWAYS.

More is always more? Wow, what a revelation. My argument for shorter albums often being better comes from listening to thousands of albums in my life, and finding that more short albums have stuck with me than long albums. More may always be more, but more is not always better. It's a cliche, but it's true to me.

Quote :

Would I rather hear 9 perfect songs from an artist or 20+ songs of above average quality? The second, because I actually love music and don't just wanna limit what I hear.

And I'd rather hear 9 perfect songs, because I actually love music, and I want to spend my listening time on music of the highest quality.

Quote :

Sometimes I enjoy hearing things that aren't perfect at all because I might still get some enjoyment out of it. You, sir, are the unenlightened one sticking to a flawed argument because it's what you prefer.

I'm sticking to what I prefer in an argument about preference? I apologize, from now on everything I say will reflect what you prefer instead.

Lionel Hutz wrote:

This whole thread seems to be a big argument with contradictions and exceptions.

The basic premise that 10 5 Star songs are more impressive to create than 5 5 star songs hasn't been answered by Slang or Jason with out some sort of exception or contradiction...that doesn't occur in real life, if I only ave 20 minutes to listen to music I prefer shortness, the album as a whole has to have a certain feel, there isn't an 80 minute classic, etc. etc. etc.

The most I can garner from those answers is "you're probably right, but here is some bullshit so I can avoid admitting as much."

By their logic a classic EP should be just as highly regarded as a classic album.

As I've said, there is no absolute answer. That's why I'm not giving one, not because I secretly agree and don't want to admit it. Five 5 star songs CAN be better than ten 5 Star songs when we're talking about the album format, because it involves more than just the quality of individual songs, at least for me.

And yes, a classic EP can (not should) be as highly regarded as a classic album. I can't think of any instances like that in Hip-Hop, but it could happen.

N3R0... smh

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

KJ Styles wrote:

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

Considering Shaun said both albums are flawless, I'd assume they are all 5 star tracks.

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

Considering Shaun said both albums are flawless, I'd assume they are all 5 star tracks.

Flawless doesn't mean all the tracks are 5 stars, it just means they're all dope.

KJ Styles wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

Considering Shaun said both albums are flawless, I'd assume they are all 5 star tracks.

Flawless doesn't mean all the tracks are 5 stars, it just means they're all dope.

Do you have a mental handicap? Asbergers? Autism? Seriously man... if you do I apologize for all the bullshit I put you through.

Lionel Hutz wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

Considering Shaun said both albums are flawless, I'd assume they are all 5 star tracks.

Flawless doesn't mean all the tracks are 5 stars, it just means they're all dope.

Do you have a mental handicap? Asbergers? Autism? Seriously man... if you do I apologize for all the bullshit I put you through.

I think you severely lack common sense. They don't teach that shit in law school apparently.

KJ Styles wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

Considering Shaun said both albums are flawless, I'd assume they are all 5 star tracks.

Flawless doesn't mean all the tracks are 5 stars, it just means they're all dope.

um, how can something without flaws be less than perfect(IE 5 out of 5 stars)?

KJ Styles wrote:

Lionel Hutz wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

Considering Shaun said both albums are flawless, I'd assume they are all 5 star tracks.

Flawless doesn't mean all the tracks are 5 stars, it just means they're all dope.

Do you have a mental handicap? Asbergers? Autism? Seriously man... if you do I apologize for all the bullshit I put you through.

I think you severely lack common sense. They don't teach that shit in law school apparently.

You didn't answer the question.

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

Considering Shaun said both albums are flawless, I'd assume they are all 5 star tracks.

Flawless doesn't mean all the tracks are 5 stars, it just means they're all dope.

um, how can something without flaws be less than perfect(IE 5 out of 5 stars)?

Simple. You know which albums you consider 5 stars right? Do those albums have nothing but 5 star tracks? If the answer is no, then you just answered your own question.

Take Illmatic for example. Of the 9 tracks on it. 8 of them are 5 stars IMO and one of them (One Time For Your Mind) is 4 stars. It's still a flawless album because all of the songs are of high quality. Comprende???

That makes absolutely no sense to me KJ.

A flawless album to me is an album with nothing but Flawless tracks. If I consider even one second of the album to be less than perfect it will not get a flawless accolade from me.

If something isn't perfect, it isn't flawless. That is the definition of flawless...

Shaun wrote:

If something isn't perfect, it isn't flawless. That is the definition of flawless...

yep, classic albums do not always equal flawless albums.

Fuck you idiots, I'm done with this topic. I swear my nephews (aged 16 and 12) have more common sense than most of the people in this forum.

KJ Styles wrote:

Fuck you idiots, I'm done with this topic. I swear my nephews (aged 16 and 12) have more common sense than most of the people in this forum.

Thank goodness. A little logic and common sense can be restored to this topic now.

"Fuck you idiots, I'm done with this topic. I swear my nephews (aged 16 and 12) have more common sense than most of the people in this forum."

How are we idiots, when you literally just said that a flawless album doesn't have to be flawless?

KJ Styles wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

T. Myers wrote:

KJ Styles wrote:

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.

It depends on the number of 5 star tracks on each album, as well as replay value.

Considering Shaun said both albums are flawless, I'd assume they are all 5 star tracks.

Flawless doesn't mean all the tracks are 5 stars, it just means they're all dope.

um, how can something without flaws be less than perfect(IE 5 out of 5 stars)?

Simple. You know which albums you consider 5 stars right? Do those albums have nothing but 5 star tracks? If the answer is no, then you just answered your own question.

My favorite albums do not contain nothing but 5 star tracks. However, i don't consider them flawless either. So what was the point you were trying to make again?

Mountain out of a mole hill for real.

I didn't think this topic would get this heated.

Some like it concise, and some appreciate epics. It's like Goodfellas vs. The Godfather. Depends on your preference. But academically speaking the accolades tend to go to the longer work. Goodfellas is highly lauded but TGF is a contender for GOAT by most. I hope that raps this discussion up.

It won't. lol

Nope, i don't think N3R0 is done getting his KJ on.

WHO CARES. THIS IS WAY OVERBLOWN! SHORT OR LONG A CLASSIC ALBUM IS A CLASSIC ALBUM. NO DOUBLE DISC ALBUM IS BETTER THAN ILLMATIC SO THERE'S PROOF RIGHT THERE THAT LENGTH OF AN ALBUM DOESN'T MATTER.

I hope that was sarcasm... I know for a fact of at least 5 double disc albums better than illmatic:

WTF
All Eyez on Me
Lost
Thug Mentality
Killer

I'd take Illmatic over any double album also.

Lionel Hutz wrote:

I hope that was sarcasm... I know for a fact of at least 5 double disc albums better than illmatic:

WTF
All Eyez on Me
Lost
Thug Mentality
Killer

That's your opinion and that's fine. I doubt you would find too many people that would agree with you. This whole discussion is a waste of time and pretty much stupid.

lol....no its not stupid, its only made stupid by stupid comments. the base question is one ripe for discussion if people would just stick to it.