On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 11:50:27 GMT, you wrote:
quoted 13 lines Was keen on getting the new Welt album but if it really is 30mins>Was keen on getting the new Welt album but if it really is 30mins
>then this IS taking the piss a bit. I personally thought Cylobs new
>album was pretty short at 44 mins(I think) but it is also a product
>of our expectations. The gentle people single may have been 40 mins
>but this is fairly rare and in the past 15 mins would be normal. It
>is also worth bearing in mind that the concept of albums/eps and
>singles as distinct formats is made obsolete by the existence of cds
>which can hold 80mins - its just more money, even if it is nice to
>have unavailable material. Vinyl is the only format that these
>formats make sense on but i think that those prices are too high
>really and at the end of the day a scratch on vinyl is like a
>physical wound on your own body!
>So do I get Bochum or not?
Do you think we should start rating albums on a "Which? Magazine"
price per minute value kind of basis?
Aphex's new album "Richard D. James" is only 32 mins btw.
Most recording contracts I've looked at class an album as being 10
tracks and 40 mins, but generally speaking an album is an album when
the artist says so, unless a record company is really arsey about it,
in which case said artist bolts on a few fillers...
heh, what's going to happen now that DVD has arrived - who's going to
be the first with a 8.5 hour (16bit44kHz) album? what will that do for
the price/min value factor? And where will 40 min albums sit in that
context? will that make them even less desirable? "Blimey Computer
World that's only 30something minutes. That's a bit shit".
Interestingly and semi-tangentially a new superdooper standard (24bit
96kHz, and 2.5hours of it) has been proposed to fill DVD's massive
17GB capacity with something useful. At last - decent sound for CDs!
g.