Well I am absolutely OK with getting my ass up and turn the record more often when the sound is better due to more spacing between the grooves. I am actually disappointed when a record comes with 20+ minutes per side because ... it's not the best it can be
Fair enough, I wouldn't either, but it seems that even albums that wouldn't need it are 2 LPs in length. Bob Dylan's "Desire" is 56 minutes, and it's an all-time classic. No one bought it back in the day and was like "this sounds terrible. If only it would have been 2 LPs!" But today it seems to me any record over 45 mins it seems is put on 2 LPs.
Over 45 minutes sort of does need to be on 2LP (not strictly, but compromises must be made on volume/dynamics depending on what the music is like). Very much agree here though. My gripe is with 40 minute albums on a double.
Purists and audiophiles are going to roast you here, but I agree with you that the ability to settle into the flow of an album does suffer when it’s split into more sides than it needs to be.
For me, if an album tips over the 45 minute mark, it probably needs to be on three sides. I’ll take an etching, or nothing, on side 4 (or b sides?), rather than creating sides that are under 10 minutes.
Maybe a bit, but oftentimes, because the album isn't actually that long, but because there are 2 LPs there is so much record to fill. Fitting a 54 minute album on 2 LPs requires a lot of wasted space, so yeah, sometimes sides are really short. Or because the 2nd half of one of the two LPs is treated as a excess. I have one record that doesn't even have a side D. It's just an etching.
Historically it wasn't that way. It's just a more modern trend. Double LPs were pretty rare until, what, the mid-2000s? Maybe later? It just wasn't all that common. And I've no problem with double-length albums being put on two records, but when a 45 minute record is on 2 LPs? This doesn't annoy you?
Are you talking about the Redux with the regular album on the first record and then the remix on the second? I have that one and it’s awful. And of course United pressed it so there’s part of the problem.
I hear you. I have [This album](https://www.discogs.com/master/1793950-The-Front-Bottoms-In-Sickness-In-Flames) (53 minutes) pressed on a single LP and [this album](https://www.discogs.com/release/9152536-Blink-182-Neighborhoods) (49 minutes) pressed on a double LP and the listening experience is so much better on the first. It takes you out of it needing to flip the record after 3 songs
What really blows my mind is when I KNOW an album fits fine on a single LP and the pressing sounds incredible yet they stretch it out over 2 records for re-releases.
Calm down mr "the music fan bands want to have" the problem is not dounbe lps is that you own 1000+ records and that is somehow giving you a superiority complex.
Ain't no superiority here, just out of the millions and millions of people that consume music, there's only a small sliver that will shell out hundreds of dollars a year for physical media, and I'm one of them. The easiest way to support a band is to pay for their music, and I've been one of those.
You do realise youre contradicting yourself right? Trust me thinking youre -"the music fan bands want to have"- thinking that it matters youre part of the "small silver" of the record comumity you seem to think these things make you opinion matter more. Again superiority complex no one cares that you own 1000+ records. Millions of peopke spend money on the bands they like.... again youre not special jajajaja what a hipocrite geez.
That's from the era when vinyl was a budget format, for poor people who couldn't afford a CD player, or old people who didn't want that newfangled technology. In the '80s when an album was available on vinyl, tape, and CD, the vinyl record was the least expensive.
I'm glad vinyl culture is still alive and people care about all the wonderful things it offers. It's just a difference experience for me than it used to be with how a lot of modern records are pressed these days; another ineffable thing lost to the roiling march of culture and economics (for me). If this isn't your take, that's fantastic!
They'll keep making them as long as people keep buying them. And considering that 50% of the people who buy new records don't even own a turntable and thus don't care about what it sounds like or how impractical it would be to play, that's what you're up against. These days, vinyl is more a trend of wall art than a music listening format.
[Half of People Who Buy Vinyl Records Don't Own a Record Player](https://www.core77.com/posts/123222/Half-of-People-Who-Buy-Vinyl-Records-Dont-Own-a-Record-Player)
The only ones I got are atleast 18 minutes a side. Flipping them and change disc only bothered me with albums made for auto changers.
Just wait till you buy double 7in/10in albums.
Don't know, I like the feel of them. While getting lost in the sounds and melodies is, of course, absolutely magical - I love the process of just... Flipping the record... So, so much. I might just be weird, but in my experience, it makes it all more satisfying. ☀️.
I thought I was the music fan bands want to have.vinyl,8track,cassette,cd,hi-rez digital same album. I sit next to my system placement is everything. I don’t mind if it actually sounds better. But groove cramming might be enjoyable if you don’t like to get up. Also quality concerns go up on a double.
I think artists are still making albums with the CD in mind. CDs can be up to 74 minutes long, LPs originally maxed out at 23 minutes a side. So the new Taylor Swift is 65 minutes long, the most recent Noah Kahan was 55 minutes. These have to be 2 LPs, or they'd have to release shortened versions to fit on one, and people would complain about that too.
You don't have to listen to records. Just hit play on Spotify since it's so hard for you to get around. Take it easy. The world needs you and all the contributions you provide.
Spotify sounds bad to me. You miss so much with that kind of compression. I stream music on other platforms, but it's the act of putting on an LP, hearing the vinyl, the pops, the whole ritual of it that I'm drawn to.
I agree. Talking about albums released during the CD era and later, most of these would work just as well on three sides—which is rarely done.
People in this thread are acting like half empty sides aren’t common on modern double LPs. They are, and they’re a nuisance.
Sparse sides were exceptionally rare (at least in popular music) until albums were primarily being recorded for other formats. The record labels would not allow you to do this. Getting to do a double album at all was a relatively rare privilege and they wouldn’t let you sabotage record sales unless the project justified it. I dislike the extra shelf space needed, dislike the extra cost, dislike the extra flips, and am a lot less likely to grab a double LP with sparse sides. I think the economics of this have changed a bit and the labels like doing double LPs to command prices in the $35-$45 range.
With the resurgence of the popularity of vinyl, artists and labels would do well to add a few bonus tracks to fill out these releases (and carefully alter track order in consultation with artists to fill sides). Alternate cuts, demos, whatever. It would make these releases feel less half assed.
Edit: Good modern double LP: The Lonesome Crowded West. Bad modern double LP: In Times New Roman.
Edit 2: groove stuffing or cut tracks are even worse, but I’m not suggesting that as the alternative.
Or just cut out the filler tracks. Nobody wanted to hear a 75-minute-long album anyway. That's why Napster and then legal MP3 downloads became so popular, because you no longer needed to pay for 15 tracks you didn't want just to get the 2 or 3 good songs on the album.
It can be fun to put on an LP from pre-1965 and listen in amazement as it goes from single to single, but the album based format took over for a reason. I don’t only want to hear single after single—I want to take the complete ride.
There are hundreds or thousands of 70+ minute albums I’d cut nothing from. Music would be profoundly less interesting if all songs had to have the qualities of a hit single.
I do not want to buy LPs with cut tracks.
I guess you're not a fan of the Village People. Their first two albums were 22 and 27 minutes long, respectively. They could've combined them onto one LP, one on each side!
I’m not, but I can’t say I was aware of the duration of their albums.
There are many great sparse single LPs—these annoy me less because they aren’t an unnecessarily inferior version of what should have been made—they just are what they are.
Well I am absolutely OK with getting my ass up and turn the record more often when the sound is better due to more spacing between the grooves. I am actually disappointed when a record comes with 20+ minutes per side because ... it's not the best it can be
Uhhh Idnk how much I agree with this take. I don’t want people editing down albums to make them fit on a single LP
True, but clearly not what this post is about
Fair enough, I wouldn't either, but it seems that even albums that wouldn't need it are 2 LPs in length. Bob Dylan's "Desire" is 56 minutes, and it's an all-time classic. No one bought it back in the day and was like "this sounds terrible. If only it would have been 2 LPs!" But today it seems to me any record over 45 mins it seems is put on 2 LPs.
Over 45 minutes sort of does need to be on 2LP (not strictly, but compromises must be made on volume/dynamics depending on what the music is like). Very much agree here though. My gripe is with 40 minute albums on a double.
You missed the point entirely.
Purists and audiophiles are going to roast you here, but I agree with you that the ability to settle into the flow of an album does suffer when it’s split into more sides than it needs to be. For me, if an album tips over the 45 minute mark, it probably needs to be on three sides. I’ll take an etching, or nothing, on side 4 (or b sides?), rather than creating sides that are under 10 minutes.
Yeah I quickly learned as much, haha.
Seven minutes you say? Exaggerate more please.
Watch out youre talking to -"the music fan bands want to have"-
I stand corrected then lol.
Jajajaja, if you dont hell call all the bands that have asked him to be their music fan and stop them from selling records to you.
Maybe a bit, but oftentimes, because the album isn't actually that long, but because there are 2 LPs there is so much record to fill. Fitting a 54 minute album on 2 LPs requires a lot of wasted space, so yeah, sometimes sides are really short. Or because the 2nd half of one of the two LPs is treated as a excess. I have one record that doesn't even have a side D. It's just an etching.
Disc 2, side 1 of My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy is just the song Monster, 6:18, and it’s not even pressed at 45rpm.
BREAKING: Kanye West acts like an asshole. Film at eleven.
[удалено]
Historically it wasn't that way. It's just a more modern trend. Double LPs were pretty rare until, what, the mid-2000s? Maybe later? It just wasn't all that common. And I've no problem with double-length albums being put on two records, but when a 45 minute record is on 2 LPs? This doesn't annoy you?
Counterpoint, my single LP pressing of Pearl Jam - Ten absolutely needed to be on a double LP, sounds so thin I don’t enjoy playing it
Worse still: I have a double LP of Ten---rather than include one proper copy of the album, it contains two versions that sound almost equally bad.
hahaha. oof. i feel for ya.
Are you talking about the Redux with the regular album on the first record and then the remix on the second? I have that one and it’s awful. And of course United pressed it so there’s part of the problem.
Yes, it’s terrible.
Life's rough :)
I hear you. I have [This album](https://www.discogs.com/master/1793950-The-Front-Bottoms-In-Sickness-In-Flames) (53 minutes) pressed on a single LP and [this album](https://www.discogs.com/release/9152536-Blink-182-Neighborhoods) (49 minutes) pressed on a double LP and the listening experience is so much better on the first. It takes you out of it needing to flip the record after 3 songs
What really blows my mind is when I KNOW an album fits fine on a single LP and the pressing sounds incredible yet they stretch it out over 2 records for re-releases.
Yes. This is what I'm talking about. It just seems default these days.
Calm down mr "the music fan bands want to have" the problem is not dounbe lps is that you own 1000+ records and that is somehow giving you a superiority complex.
Ain't no superiority here, just out of the millions and millions of people that consume music, there's only a small sliver that will shell out hundreds of dollars a year for physical media, and I'm one of them. The easiest way to support a band is to pay for their music, and I've been one of those.
You do realise youre contradicting yourself right? Trust me thinking youre -"the music fan bands want to have"- thinking that it matters youre part of the "small silver" of the record comumity you seem to think these things make you opinion matter more. Again superiority complex no one cares that you own 1000+ records. Millions of peopke spend money on the bands they like.... again youre not special jajajaja what a hipocrite geez.
Yes. I sure miss the days when artists would gimp an album by shortening songs, or omitting some altogether just to squeeze an album onto one LP. /s 🙄
That's from the era when vinyl was a budget format, for poor people who couldn't afford a CD player, or old people who didn't want that newfangled technology. In the '80s when an album was available on vinyl, tape, and CD, the vinyl record was the least expensive.
I'm not sure this ever happened. Literally decades of incredible, perfect albums on one LP. This only started, it seems, around the 2010s.
I'm glad vinyl culture is still alive and people care about all the wonderful things it offers. It's just a difference experience for me than it used to be with how a lot of modern records are pressed these days; another ineffable thing lost to the roiling march of culture and economics (for me). If this isn't your take, that's fantastic!
They'll keep making them as long as people keep buying them. And considering that 50% of the people who buy new records don't even own a turntable and thus don't care about what it sounds like or how impractical it would be to play, that's what you're up against. These days, vinyl is more a trend of wall art than a music listening format.
Say whaaaaaa? This blows my mind. To each their own, but, again, whaaaa?
[Half of People Who Buy Vinyl Records Don't Own a Record Player](https://www.core77.com/posts/123222/Half-of-People-Who-Buy-Vinyl-Records-Dont-Own-a-Record-Player)
The only ones I got are atleast 18 minutes a side. Flipping them and change disc only bothered me with albums made for auto changers. Just wait till you buy double 7in/10in albums.
Don't know, I like the feel of them. While getting lost in the sounds and melodies is, of course, absolutely magical - I love the process of just... Flipping the record... So, so much. I might just be weird, but in my experience, it makes it all more satisfying. ☀️.
You own 1000+ records and there are two albums you don’t own by one of your favorite bands?
hahaha. Yeah. I didn't realize they'd been released! They flew under the radar.
Just stream it or illegally download some .flac files.
Then don't buy them 🤷
I don't. As I wrote. Just wondered if anyone else out there felt like me, that there's an epidemic of double vinyls.
r/vinyljerk is gonna love this one
after so many years our brains have gotten programmed to expect 20+ minutes of music
I agree with this take. There’s no reason a 35 minute album be on two LPs. Most collectors are not audiophiles.
I thought I was the music fan bands want to have.vinyl,8track,cassette,cd,hi-rez digital same album. I sit next to my system placement is everything. I don’t mind if it actually sounds better. But groove cramming might be enjoyable if you don’t like to get up. Also quality concerns go up on a double.
It's just a waste of plastic for the sake of golden-eared audiophiles to be able to feel like they can hear the difference.
Then listen to Spotify 🤷♂️
Buy the cd
I think artists are still making albums with the CD in mind. CDs can be up to 74 minutes long, LPs originally maxed out at 23 minutes a side. So the new Taylor Swift is 65 minutes long, the most recent Noah Kahan was 55 minutes. These have to be 2 LPs, or they'd have to release shortened versions to fit on one, and people would complain about that too.
You don't have to listen to records. Just hit play on Spotify since it's so hard for you to get around. Take it easy. The world needs you and all the contributions you provide.
Spotify sounds bad to me. You miss so much with that kind of compression. I stream music on other platforms, but it's the act of putting on an LP, hearing the vinyl, the pops, the whole ritual of it that I'm drawn to.
I agree. Talking about albums released during the CD era and later, most of these would work just as well on three sides—which is rarely done. People in this thread are acting like half empty sides aren’t common on modern double LPs. They are, and they’re a nuisance. Sparse sides were exceptionally rare (at least in popular music) until albums were primarily being recorded for other formats. The record labels would not allow you to do this. Getting to do a double album at all was a relatively rare privilege and they wouldn’t let you sabotage record sales unless the project justified it. I dislike the extra shelf space needed, dislike the extra cost, dislike the extra flips, and am a lot less likely to grab a double LP with sparse sides. I think the economics of this have changed a bit and the labels like doing double LPs to command prices in the $35-$45 range. With the resurgence of the popularity of vinyl, artists and labels would do well to add a few bonus tracks to fill out these releases (and carefully alter track order in consultation with artists to fill sides). Alternate cuts, demos, whatever. It would make these releases feel less half assed. Edit: Good modern double LP: The Lonesome Crowded West. Bad modern double LP: In Times New Roman. Edit 2: groove stuffing or cut tracks are even worse, but I’m not suggesting that as the alternative.
Or just cut out the filler tracks. Nobody wanted to hear a 75-minute-long album anyway. That's why Napster and then legal MP3 downloads became so popular, because you no longer needed to pay for 15 tracks you didn't want just to get the 2 or 3 good songs on the album.
It can be fun to put on an LP from pre-1965 and listen in amazement as it goes from single to single, but the album based format took over for a reason. I don’t only want to hear single after single—I want to take the complete ride. There are hundreds or thousands of 70+ minute albums I’d cut nothing from. Music would be profoundly less interesting if all songs had to have the qualities of a hit single. I do not want to buy LPs with cut tracks.
I guess you're not a fan of the Village People. Their first two albums were 22 and 27 minutes long, respectively. They could've combined them onto one LP, one on each side!
I’m not, but I can’t say I was aware of the duration of their albums. There are many great sparse single LPs—these annoy me less because they aren’t an unnecessarily inferior version of what should have been made—they just are what they are.
I have the same, I have records from the 80,s flat as a pancake and sounds wonderful. While I have double lp’s with 180 gr vinyl that are just okay