Latest on MJJC

Your ideal amount of tracks for an album

What is your ideal amount of tracks on an album?

  • 10

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • 11

    Votes: 4 21.1%

  • 12

    Votes: 5 26.3%

  • 13

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • 14

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • 15+

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Total voters
    19

analogue

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8,245
Points
113
I know that quality is more important than quantity but sometimes i do feel that many albums can have to many tracks on them and that makes the album drag on a little bit. In my opinion the perfect amount of tracks for an album is 10-12 tracks. I also think that having about 10-12 tracks on an album really gives that album a good ''knock out punch''
 
I agree its about 10 to 12 as well.. All these albums with 20 plus songs are very ridiculous.. To many songs with one or two good songs. But they do that in order to raise the price to get people to buy them but that aint working in todays industry
 
I picked 14 as the max....but again, that of course depends on quality....But I agree about those albums with 20 or so songs on them...and don't even get me started on "interludes" :doh:
 
12.

With the exception of Dangerous (which is perfect), anything over 12 is pushing it.

Take 2 or 3 tracks off HIStory, and 4 from Invincible (at least) and you have 2 much better albums.

In these days of iPod shuffles and playlists Janet's interludes drive me crazy!

Albums over 12 trax is like a 3 hour film, take out the excess and you enhance the quality.
 
12 is pretty ideal. There's a few exceptions of course.

Tony R said:
12.

With the exception of Dangerous (which is perfect), anything over 12 is pushing it.

Take 2 or 3 tracks off HIStory, and 4 from Invincible (at least) and you have 2 much better albums.

In these days of iPod shuffles and playlists Janet's interludes drive me crazy!

Albums over 12 trax is like a 3 hour film, take out the excess and you enhance the quality.
Click to expand...

Ah I never liked the hundreds of interludes on Janet's albums.. :D
 
I also hate interludes. I've always said that just because you can fit 88 minutes worth of music on a disk doesn't mean that you should. A 40-50 minute album is perfect
 
I remember The Time used to always have 6 songs on their albums. The songs tended to be 9 or 10 minutes long, but still. :p In the 1930s and early 60s, the average album had 12-14 songs and lasted 30 minutes, but the songs were 2-3 minutes long. Too long albums is one of the reasons I don't like CDs. A record couldn't hold much time, so the albums were a perfect length. People now just try to fill up the 80 minutes of a CD. It lasts about as long as a movie. You can stick two old albums on 1 CD and some record companies have done this. It's kinda odd that the albums are longer today (especially a 2 CD album), when the attention spans are shorter, lol.
 
Voted for 12, but honestly I could listen to a 15+ album of MJ's work, especially during the Invincible era. He had some amazing beats on that album.
 
9-10 if you ain't got a winning money track or two in there then what difference is having 14-15 gonna do?
 
Vince Gill

This might have been overkill. These Days was a four CD album of all new songs released in 2006. It was 43 full songs in all, with no skits or interludes.
202987315.jpg
 
12 and a bonus Itunes track, i also like the old skool 80's 10 tracks, 5 on each side
 
10-12 has always worked best imho. I'm very thankful Madonna has always kept her albums in that range. It leaves you wanting more and feeling satisfied at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top