Viability of 'Double-Albums' in the modern era

[boilk]

Do people still like 'double-albums'? Do you even want bands to release new music that won't fit on a single CD/vinyl anymore? We all know and (mostly) love the classics from the Golden Age; The Lamb, Umma Gumma, Living in the Past, Zeit, even the infamous TFTO, but when it comes to newer versions of the form, is this still true?

I have noticed on more than one occasion people commenting that they wish that a band - for example Snarky Puppy's Empire Central and Tigran Hamasyan's Bird of a Thousand Voices - wouldn't release longer albums, citing that they just don't have the concentration or time to take in that much new music anymore. Personally, if a band feels that they are in a really creative period, have a concept they feel requires more time, or just simply have a lot of material that they want to get out there, I'm fine with it. But in this modern age of so many world-wide releases and new music to choose from and absorb, what say you?

Neil

[Threemboy]

Do people still like 'double-albums'? Do you even want bands to release new music that won't fit on a single CD/vinyl anymore? We all know and (mostly) love the classics from the Golden Age; The Lamb, Umma Gumma, Living in the Past, Zeit, even the infamous TFTO, but when it comes to newer versions of the form, is this still true?

I have noticed on more than one occasion people commenting that they wish that a band - for example Snarky Puppy's Empire Central and Tigran Hamasyan's Bird of a Thousand Voices - wouldn't release longer albums, citing that they just don't have the concentration or time to take in that much new music anymore. Personally, if a band feels that they are in a really creative period, have a concept they feel requires more time, or just simply have a lot of material that they want to get out there, I'm fine with it. But in this modern age of so many world-wide releases and new music to choose from and absorb, what say you?

Neil

I’m a fan. Notably the new double platter from Frost takes advantage of the format. The discs aren’t maxed out and the material is well paced/structured throughout.

[interbellum]

Double LP from the past can mostly be released on one single CD, so in fact modern double-albums are even twice as long as the oldies. Personally I prefer albums between 40 and 50 minutes nowadays.

[progmatist]

The vast majority of people, outside the prog, jazz or classical realm now listen to playlists. Not albums. A double album is twice as irrelevant to most listeners.

[Steve983]

The vast majority of people, outside the prog, jazz or classical realm now listen to playlists. Not albums. A double album is twice as irrelevant to most listeners.

Yes but we are NOT most people.

Personally I have got rather fed up with overlong albums, a single cd that goes on for 79 minutes is a tad too much for my liking. I'd rather have a shorter album that's 'all killer and no filler' as they say.

[MudShark22]

As noted above, the classic double albums are mostly (not all) under 90 minutes total.

DT's "Six Degrees..." is not even a concept album and it's way too long at 1hr 36min. And "The Astonishing" is over two hours of 2112/Clockwork MF Angels rip-offs... ;-)

Death inspires me like a dog inspires a rabbit.

[boilk]

Of course, many of the classic double-albums would fit on a CD, but the concept of it is more what I'm thinking. The fact that something needs to be sprawled out over a longer run-time. I just find it surprising that some seem upset, if a band releases a long album. Assuming, of course, said album justifies (subjective, of course) the longer time.

Neil

[Sputnik]

Double LP from the past can mostly be released on one single CD, so in fact modern double-albums are even twice as long as the oldies. Personally I prefer albums between 40 and 50 minutes nowadays.

This has always been my sweet spot. There are albums from the 90s-present that exceed 50 minutes or approach 80 minutes that I like, but I often feel they could be trimmed a bit. I agree with the OP that when inspired, a band should feel free to run with that and do a longer album, but generally, I'd say 40-50 minutes is quite sufficient.

Personally I have got rather fed up with overlong albums, a single cd that goes on for 79 minutes is a tad too much for my liking. I'd rather have a shorter album that's 'all killer and no filler' as they say.

I did too. I don't think it was good for a totally full CD, or even a 60-minute CD, to have developed into the "norm." But as I said above, I do think that length is viable if a band is really inspired or wants to stretch for artistic reasons. When every album is like that, though, there winds up being at least some, if not a lot of filler.

Today, I think people go too far in the opposite direction, often under 35 minutes, which I think is a bit of a gyp, espeically when those albums contain a certain amout of what I consider "filler." That really irks me. Yeah, shorter records were the norm in the 70 because of vinyl, but bands released up to 50-minute albums on vinyl, too. I still say that for today, 40-50 minutes is a reasonable range for most albums.

Bill

[Kcrimso]

For me, the perfect album is 35-45 minutes, so yes... double albums are a bit too much. On the other hand, if a band splits the material into two parts I have given myself the right to listen to it in two parts. So I might listen to the first album of a double concept album today and the second one the next day.

(I always listen to music as a collection of albums, I don't do playlists or individual songs, ever really.)

[Snikle]

I also prefer albums in the 35-50 minute range to listen to as albums. Longer ones I usually will listen to on streaming and break them up over a few listening sessions.

[SteveSly]

Double LP from the past can mostly be released on one single CD, so in fact modern double-albums are even twice as long as the oldies. Personally I prefer albums between 40 and 50 minutes nowadays.

You pretty much said what I was going to say. I mostly prefer albums that are 40 to 50 minutes long unless they are compilations or live albums. Some bands can pull of 2 hours of new music, but most of the time they just keep the filler in.

[Batchman]

Depends. If the super-sized album is (1) a collection of more individual songs than usual, then as long as there's no filler I say why not. If it's (2) a lengthy "concept" with one or a few extra-long tracks, then it's more challenging.

Us proggers may not be "most people," but not all of us are "not most people"; I used to listen to albums all the way through in my younger days when only vinyl was available, but now I listen to playlists or one-at-a-time selections, partly because life makes other demands on my time and partly because it's useful to have the computer decide for me what to listen to, much of the time. So (1) works just fine for me but (2) would be a discouragement.

Same issue with classical works, the most notable of which tend to be even longer than your average prog album. While not many composers these days are writing symphonies comparable to Mahler or Bruckner in length and scope, there are still those who make significant demands on your listening time (many of whom are minimalists, which seems to be a contradiction). But classical composers have always offered shorter works (bagatelles and the like) for those who can't make the time for the full-length oeuvres.

The longest such works are operas, which have a visual/stage element so they intrinsically require full attention anyhow.

[smcfee]

I don't really care, although it seems a lot of the albums in our space are naturally going back to LP-length in part because groups want the option to do a vinyl pressing. A double-LP pressing is going to be that much more economically challenging, or let's say, less viable.

I checked the stuff I've picked up this year so far and all of it is in LP range except two albums that were an hour long (which I suppose is still LP-range depending how much you care about sound quality).

For me personally, when I started collecting prog I got into Italian prog pretty quickly, where a lot of the classic albums are in the 30-35 minute range. I don't feel ripped off if that's the amount of music I get provided they use the time well.

[JKL2000]

Of course, many of the classic double-albums would fit on a CD, but the concept of it is more what I'm thinking. The fact that something needs to be sprawled out over a longer run-time. I just find it surprising that some seem upset, if a band releases a long album. Assuming, of course, set album justifies (subjective, of course) the longer time.

Neil

I sometimes prefer something like what Marillion did with Happiness In the Road - dividing it all into two separate but sort of related disks that were released together to fans, though it was sold as two separate albums for normies. Less pressure to listen to them back-to-back I suppose. I guess Echolyn is doing sort of the same thing with their upcoming material.

[arturs]

I think double albums worked better back in the day because you would listen to one 15-25 minute LP side at a time and at least take a short break to flip the record if nothing more. With a 75-minute 2 LP set that fits on a single CD sometimes it is just too tiring on the ears and brain to listen to that much music without a break. Of course I could just turn off the player but I often don't catch it right between songs and I don't want to stop the music mid-track.

Discipline's Unfolded, which I have been binging on recently, is a perfect example. Treat it like a 3-sided album, listen one "side" at a time, and it's a masterpiece. But when I try and listen to the whole damn thing in one shot I go berzerk even before Into the Dream finishes.

[Vic2012]

In the CD age I don't think we need 2 CD sets. I have the early Chicago albums on single CDs.

[Mr.Krautman]

I'm not very fond of overly long "modern" double CD's, it's extremely difficult to maintain attention over a 50 - 60 minutes continuous music flow, no matter how good the musicians and compositions are.
130 minutesd "epics" à la Transatlantic are definitely not for me. In most cases it's a matter of quantity vs. quality. You know my choice and it's probably yours too.
The only exceptions are Live recordings and I have no issues (for example) listening to the recent Chicago Live (J.F Kennedy Center) TRIPLE CD in one uninterrupted flow.

[Zeph]

It depends, but mostly I prefer single albums, preferably with a 40-50 minute runtime. On longer albums I find it can extend it’s welcome and keep thinking about tracks they could have ommitted and made the album better.

I listen to complete albums 99.999% of the time, not custom playlists, and double albums are rarely in my rotation. Partly because there are less of them I suppose.

If the music is great and flows well, I can enjoy albums over an hour.

[interbellum]

The vast majority of people, outside the prog, jazz or classical realm now listen to playlists. Not albums. A double album is twice as irrelevant to most listeners.

There seems to be a movement that goes from listening to playlists to listening to albums. Those people have the idea that, when listening to playlist, they don't really hear what they are listening to anymore, while they also can't get grip of the immense amount of music Spotify and co. are offering. They go back to the album, use their MP3-players or Discmans again. There was an article about this in a Dutch newspaper this week. Well, I never went the Spotify-way, so for me things stay the same.

[Jacob]

It was exciting to discover double albums in the 60s. Of course I recall my interest as a young teenager and hearing about double albums from my sister who was a hippie and seven years older ....and owning Chicago Transit Authority...The White Album...and a few others in Rock that I began to take notice of.

Somehow I ended up with Tommy . One of the darkest Rock albums I heard in 1969 . The lyricism was different for a Rock album . Though people were generally aware of Procol Harum, The Moody Blues, and King Crimson.... the lyrics on Tommy affected people in a intrusive way during that period in time.

At age 12 I had yet to see a Rock LP that was double. It was unusual when they started appearing in record shops and department stores like Two Guys and Wilmington Dry Goods. It made Rock Music more interesting and for once in my life it was something detached from a "Back In The Woods " mentality in the social environment. A Rock band releasing a double album was challenging to the hard-core supporters of the band.

[Mota]

I'm looking forward to listening to my 5 CD Morsefest 2023, which is about 4.5 hours of music! 2 full 2+ hour concerts. Definitely not doing it in one sitting though.
I think there's a place for the 35 minute album, give me 10 concise songs and you're out.
There's also room for the bigger releases. You dig into those. That lasts both ways on my commute instead of just the drive to work.
This morning I was proud to see my 20 year old son's playlist, he actually added the full albums to the playlist, and is playing them in sequential order. That's ALBUMS!

[battema]

Do people still like 'double-albums'? Do you even want bands to release new music that won't fit on a single CD/vinyl anymore? We all know and (mostly) love the classics from the Golden Age; The Lamb, Umma Gumma, Living in the Past, Zeit, even the infamous TFTO, but when it comes to newer versions of the form, is this still true?

Sure If an artist has something to say that takes more than X minutes then I say go for it. Let the listener break it up if it's too much for a given "listening session." Or playlist the thing to a shorter version if they feel some tracks are filler.

I tend to regard albums like I regard books (or even movies). I don't feel particularly pressured to take a whole novel in at once. I do find my attention drifting when something feels like "padding" or "filler" for sure. But that's more about the quality of the writing rather than the quantity of the writing in my (very subjective personal) opinion.

[JKL2000]

There seems to be a movement that goes from listening to playlists to listening to albums. Those people have the idea that, when listening to playlist, they don't really hear what they are listening to anymore, while they also can't get grip of the immense amount of music Spotify and co. are offering. They go back to the album, use their MP3-players or Discmans again. There was an article about this in a Dutch newspaper this week. Well, I never went the Spotify-way, so for me things stay the same.

It would be great if that somehow led to something much easier and more common to use than iTunes for moving music files on and off iPhones! Hard to imagine newer listeners bothering with iTunes, ripping files, etc.

[Zeph]

It would be great if that somehow led to something much easier and more common to use than iTunes for moving music files on and off iPhones! Hard to imagine newer listeners bothering with iTunes, ripping files, etc.

I doubt you'd find many younger listeners that has anything to do with music files anymore.

[Zappathustra]

Sure If an artist has something to say that takes more than X minutes then I say go for it.

This is the whole point. An album is not just a collection of songs, it can be a coherent work of art in itself. Tigran Hamasyan's latest album is a clear example of this, it has a specific narrative that demands a wider canvas to be spread upon.

Of course the attention span of us listeners has been ravaged, in an age of so many visual distractions, of so much information flowing freely for us to absorb. The listening process, the process of receiving art has deteriorated massively in my opinion. So everything that demands a bit more effort or attention from our part becomes problematic. We mainly look for our comfort, when we have so much to chose from for free. We get what we deserve in that sense, less and less of music that hits us deep, that can change or influence our course in life.