View Single Post
Old 6th May 2011
  #2
Special Guest
 
phill brown's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
The constant value, I'm guessing, from "then" to "now," is the emotional hold that a potent song exerts-- maybe this feeling is universal, timeless, and was established in the days of the cavemen.

But in your era, when the album was king, there were benchmarks-- any album could only hold 10 songs, 12 if you really pushed things. Sometimes as few as eight.

Everything about the process needed to swirl around this "packaging." Any band would play many more than 8 or 10 or 12 songs at a show... but I'm wondering how this limitation governed your work, were you aware of it?
We roughly worked on 38 - 40 minutes for an album. Tough to cut more than that on vinyl without taking a hit in level, quality etc. I still think 40 - 50 minutes for a CD is good - I am not a fan of 65 minute albums. Also back in the 60's and early 70's bands often released an album or two a year (Simon and Garfunkel often released albums that were 16 mins a side. - plus live sets were often only 30 - 45 mins. A long time before the 2 and 3 hour shows so favoured today...... so in answer to your question - We did not see this as a limitation - I guess I was not aware...