quoted 3 lines I personally am concerned with "value" for my money, not "quantity." I
> I personally am concerned with "value" for my money, not "quantity." I'd
> rather spend $20 on, say, The Orb's recent _Peel_Sessions_ CD (36:41)
> than $7 on many other, much longer releases.
Nevertheless, I have to admit that my money is in with the folks are are
disappointed when they get an album home and its running time turns out to be
a shade over half an hour. *Especially* when I like the album -- then I just
wish there was more of it!
In re: the two examples you offered: I can live with the length of the Peel
Sessions disc, because I know there were only two sessions available to stick
on there anyway -- fair enough. But when you issue a 35-minute album and then
start putting out singles with new tracks as B-sides I get a little annoyed.
I'm much happier with the 74-minute BloodSugarSexMagik than I would have had
it been a shorter album with twice as many B's on the singles.
quoted 3 lines The only time I'm upset about the length of a release is when it is a
> The only time I'm upset about the length of a release is when it is a
> greatest hits package. There's no excuse for not filling one of those
> up.
Agreed. I felt really dicked over by the Graham Central Station best-of that
came out earlier this year -- they acknowledge right in the title that there's
more material that could have gone onto the disc (it's "Volume 1") but it runs
only 45 minutes...
--
::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com;
http://www.swcp.com/lazlo)