I still haven't seen the Oscar winning motion picture "One Battle After Another." Why? Because it is two hours and forty two minutes long, which is about 50 minutes longer than I now want a film to be. This coming from a guy who has watched both "Godfather" films back to back, two times a year for as long as I can remember. Each of those back to back viewings equal six hours and twenty minutes, by the way.
When I first started writing in any serious way, I wanted to be a screenwriter. My roommate at the time, as well as two of my closest friends, already had three or four screenplays under their belts. I had one, my first feature after three one act plays, and it was both hilarious and cringemakingly horrible. The four of us would see five or six movies a week. It wasn't odd to see two in one day. We saw it as research. In 1988, I saw four films in one day, three times!
Back in the day, if someone asked, "Any interest in seeing (insert film here)?" My immediate answer was "Yes." Didn't matter what it was. Our goal was to see everything, which is how I ended up in an empty theater with just my roommate watching the 1986 Hal Needham movie "Rad." It was one of the only films left that we hadn't seen. Now, if someone asks if I have an interest in seeing a film, my question is always, "How long is it?"
I've recently been editing down classic double albums to more manageable 40 minute playtimes. I'm trimming "The White Album" and "Quadrophenia" as if cutting fat off of chicken cutlets.
Our friend Cleveland Jeff wrote a rave review of the new Cal Everett record over at his place "...Like Dancing About Architecture," and this paragraph stood out.
"The artist
suggests listening to the record as a whole, and I did that the first
couple of times, and that works. But that takes an hour. Without the
little interludes and maybe four of the songs, it would be a perfect 45
minute record, and that's a big deal. Perfect is a high bar."
What exactly are we doing with those extra 15 minutes?
If the goal was to create a more perfect album, then I guess one man's fat is another's meat. But I think it's more than that.
Back in 2019, I wrote one of my favorite posts, thinking I was onto something, hoping it would open the eyes and ears of many. It received a measly five comments. The idea was simple.
Long songs seem to be a turn off, especially when they are long prog rock songs, like the Genesis masterpiece "Supper's Ready," which clocks in at 23 minutes. But seven 3 minute songs, and for some reason, we've got a deal.
But guess what? "Supper's Ready," the legendary sidelong epic from Genesis IS seven 3 minute songs and they are mostly all terrific. There are seven different titles and if you have the vinyl, you can easily see the bands that separate each of the parts. But the jacket says, "Supper's Ready- 23:06," and that's the dealbreaker. The jacket also says "Genesis," so that may be the dealbreaker for some, as well
(There, I made the joke for you.)
The opening, "Lover's Leap," runs a bit under 4 minutes, and it is a
lovely piece of British folk/pop, that would not sound out of place on a
Cat Stevens or Sandy Denny record." "Willow Farm" isn't so far removed from British psychedelia, or for that
matter, something The Beatles might have attempted on "Magical Mystery
Tour." And "Apocalypse In 9/8" is quite frankly, some of the best drumming you
will ever hear, courtesy of the World's Punching Bag, the amazing Phil
Collins.
So, what is it exactly?
I realize that time becomes more precious the older we get, and maybe we have better, more appealing things to accomplish than binge-listening to the entire catalogue of one artist. But the aversion to length when it comes to music seems extreme. I like the instrumental title track from "Quadrophenia" just fine, yet I cut it on my edit. There ya go! Six more minutes in my life to do...what?
I am very guilty here. I am not pointing fingers.
When it comes to film, you can't just snip out awkward or uncomfortable scenes. There are no "The Very Best Of Mutiny On The Bounty" DVDs for the impatient out there, or at least I hope not.
Records don't have plots or stories, unless you listen to concept records exclusively. When I first saw "The Deer Hunter," the wedding scene made ME want to play Russian roulette. It felt like an entire movie I didn't sign up for within a movie I paid to see. I was also 50 years younger. Now, I couldn't imagine that brilliant wedding not being in the film. But trimming down a 60 minute record to 45 minutes, or in my case, feeling so daunted by double albums, and movies over 2 hours, that I skip completely what could be brilliant art, is a habit I need to break.
Why does music need to be said in 2:54, ten times?
What is so wrong with saying something in 7:21, five times?
I hear you. I feel like I'm always rushing cause there's no time to waste. If a line is too long, I bail. a lot of the new music I listened to, I listened to maybe 5or 10 seconds and move on. But with movies and music, it's very selective. I've watched 90 Minute movie that seemed in terminal I also seen three hour + movies that breezed by. There are some double albums that I would like to edit but there are those I'd never touch. I would pare cut down the Beatles White Album (Ok, maybe "Revolution 9" but when the remaster came out a few years ago I did listen to the whole track 'cause it sounded so great) but I would definitely cut the Rolling Stones' "Exile On Main Street". I wouldn't cut "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" but I would snip a bit off of "Physical Graffiti". I always let "Hey Jude" and "Bohemian Rhapsody" play out but I do prefer the shorter single version of "Heroes and Villains" to the longer album track. So it comes down to "it depends".
I'm glad I saw One Battle After Another in the theatre for several reasons. One of them is self-awareness; I trusted PTA to create something that is strongest when viewed as a whole, to let the momentum build uninterrupted. If I watched it on streaming, I knew I would get distracted or pause to get a snack or read a text. Going to the movies forces me to watch fully engaged, and it paid off.
I too enjoy many double albums more when I cut them down, and I think the advent of CDs inadvertently allowed artists to include things that in the past would have been left off, just due to space limitations of vinyl.
Based on the trailer, I wasn't interested in seeing One Battle... glad I did though, watching DiCaprio play Jack Nicholson was worth the time spent (all of it !!)
First, what a great bit of writing. I absorbed every word and then Sandy Denny (flutter flutter) Listened to Willow Farm and thought that this could have been a great Keith Moon song. I heard snippets of his voice all over it.
Thanks for the shout out. Much appreciated. I got the idea of reducing double albums to a shorter experience from you. Here's my take: https://kleaveburg.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-double-album-edited.html
The only song I still will skip on any album that I frequently play is No. 9 on the While Album. Once was enough. Otherwise, while there are cuts on many lps that we might all agree are filler, its still part of that lp, that artists' conception as to what they wanted you to hear. So, I listen. The length of time only natters as to whether I have to leave or start doing something that might interfere with listening to that lp. Hell, I'm retired - I got nothing but time on my hands.
I think what I was trying to get at was why I feel the need to edit at all. Why does anyone feel the need? Where's the urgency to cut 12-15 minutes from a piece of work? I never used to feel that way. Now, I do. Partly, at least for me, has more to do with wanting to get as much music in as possible on any given and less because I can't deal with "Revolution 9."
But Ken D, there are plenty that I don't feel need to be edited. I actually love "Mountain Jam" from "Eat A Peach," but at 32 minutes, that's an entire Beatles/Beach Boys/Hollies record I could listen to. I think that's where I am, more so than not wanting to actually listen to "Mountain Jam."
But specifically, "Exile On Main Street" is perfect, as is "London Calling." That's two right there, I wouldn't touch.
Funeral For A Friend/Love Lies Bleeding Candle In The Wind Bennie & the Jets Goodbye Yellow Brick Road The Ballad Of Danny Bailey Dirty Little Girl All The Girls Love Alice Roy Rogers Social Disease Harmony
I was really enjoying this Sal (v. well written) then I noticed how bloody long it was. I had places to go, things to do. So I started skimming and quickly lost interest. There's a lesson in here for one of us.
Skimming - the primary teaching of my 1960's summer school Evelyn Wood Speed Reading course. Works well with Stephen King books but not so much with Sal's musings today 😉
When it comes to movies, I want them to be either 90 min or 3 hours long! Two hours and 15 minutes? For a comedy? Just feels wrong! When I'd cover movies at festivals, I would always make a point of seeing the movie with the longest running time, figuring if they chose it for the fest the length must be justified. You're not typically gonna accept a piece of crap that's four hours long! I feel you and I get it. But I can't empathize, really, because I never listen to half an album or skip songs. The album is the album. If it's not worth playing in full, I just don't listen to it. The same with movies and tv shows. But an "off" running time can indeed be a sign of laziness on the part of the artist. Length is also affected by technology. Albums were about 40 minutes because that's what vinyl could handle. Then CDs made every artist deliver bloated 60 minute albums because they felt the need to "fill it up." Then streaming encouraged (for many dumb technical reasons) double and triple albums . Dolly Parton did a rock album of covers that's a ridiculous two hours and 20 minutes. No doubt one could edit it to a much better 35 minutes. But I just don't listen to it. Recently, I've sensed a trend to artists embracing again the "album" experience and delivering works at 40 min and less. Except Drake, of course. It's natural to want people to be good editors of their own work. But I won't do it for them. You're not wrong to see a lengthy running time and get your hackles up...unless it has really good reviews.
I know what I should have said. A bad movie is long at 80 minutes. A good movie is short at 150 minutes. Life is too short to see crap, whatever its length.
I was gonna say Prince's "1999" didn't need to be cut, but then I remembered they left off "D.M.S.R." from the first CD release for time constraint at the time. Not sure what I would cut from "Sign of the Time"?
Before CDs and streaming, when all I had were LPs, 45s and the radio, I rarely played an album in its entirety after the first few times. I'd get a new album, study it, play it side to side, read liner notes, lyrics, and do that until I knew the record inside and out, for better or worse. I knew every song on records I didn't like. Once that was accomplished, I'd just pull records off the shelf, play a song or two and move on, like a DJ.
When friends would come over, or if my cousin and I would be playing records, we'd do the same. We never just put on "Rubber Soul" and sat for 31 minutes. We never wanted to hear "Run For Your Life." Somedays we just felt like hearing "Nowhere Man" and "If I Needed Someone."
The idea of "If it's not worth playing in full, I just don't listen to it" seems to disallow so much great music. Not every album is 100%. Half of Elton's "Blue Moves" is fantastic and half is awful. I couldn't decide to never hear the fantastic half ever again because I have to sit through the awful half.
Rather than focusing on the length of a record and whether editing someone's art is a good or bad practice, what I am interested in is, "If you think a record is excellent, but still feel 45 minutes is preferable over 60 minutes, how does that extra 15 minutes benefit you?"
This is what I am feeling. This is what I am guilty of. I can't stand "Crocodile Rock," but I don't skip it because that album is 40 minutes. If "Don't Shoot Me" was 58 minutes, I'd skip both "Crocodile Rock" and "Midnight Creeper." The songs are tolerable. 12 more minutes of my time is the problem. How are th
Let me clarify. I love Elton John. I almost never listen to his studio albums. He's a singles artist to me. I enjoy lots of compilations that collect great singles. I might enjoy "Take Me On" but that doesn't mean I feel obliged to listen to an entire a-Ha album OR never get to hear the song because it's on an album I can't be bothered to play. It's when I am listening to an album that I either listen or I don't. I just feel no compulsion to improve it, change it, edit it, etc, much as I think R.E.M.'s Murmur should end with the loping, perfect fade out of "We Walk" versus "West of the Fields." I wouldn't skip chapters of a book. I don't just stream a movie to watch that one cool scene or read only the first act of a play. That's what the artist created. Either I dig it or I don't. Individual songs are a different matter. But the game of improving an album, switching orders or just trimming it down doesn't appeal to me. I'm sure it's rooted in part by growing up with cassettes. With cassettes, skipping a song and getting to the next one was a pain in the ass not worth the bother.
I don't think albums must be 40 minutes or a movie 100 minutes or a book 250 pages or less. I was eager to tackle the Japanese novel (and arguably the first novel ever) The Tale of Genji, which is 1000+ pages. Les Miserables? Same thing. A four hour movie with lots of acclaim? I'm chomping at the bit. An 80 minute comedy with David Spade? No thanks. Life is too short to keep reading a book after 30 or 40 pages if I'm not loving it. But I think it's fair to raise an eyebrow at an unusual running time/page count when choosing what to see. You don't have much to go on. But if the movie is One Battle After Another and one of the most acclaimed of the year, I wouldn't give a damn that it's 162 minutes. Chances are it will be better than two 81 minute movies. Or one 110 minute movie and 42 minutes to recover. I don't ever think "what might I do with that extra 15 minutes?" All I ever think is, "Do I think this is gonna be good?"
I'm working my way through the Penguin Guide to Jazz's hall of fame, the albums it has deemed essential at one time or another. I've got Horace Tapscott's live album The Dark Tree Vol. 1 and 2 up and when I cued it up on my Amazon Music streamer, I saw it was about TWO HOURS long! I'm excited.
I 100% get where you are coming from. As we all age, the time we have left is precious. For as much as I listen to music, I also read a lot. The days of wanting to pick up an 800-page novel are starting to make me question what I'm doing (a 300-400 page novel -- hey. I'll read two of them!) If I'm following four different TV shows, I find myself picking the shortest episode of the 4 first. This doesn't mean I'm making the best choices (I've read some great 800 page novels and a lot of crappy 300 pages ones) -- and a lot of longer TV shows are better than shorter ones. The Cal Everett album -- which I really really liked -- was one of those I listened to in the car where I have a 20-25 minute commute to the gym. I started it on the way, listened to more of it on the way home and then realized -- what? There's still more of this? Because of that, it felt too long for sure.
You can continue to listen to different music on a different album you like more than the 15 minutes you cut. Todd's A Wizard, A True Star is 60 minutes and I wouldn't cut that one.
I never feel the urge to edit down an album. If I decide to play it, then I’m listening to the whole thing (although I will always skip Revolution 9). Since most of my listening these days is via Spotify, playlists (mostly my own) dominate my ear time. I miss the good old days of radio, when you never knew what was going to pop up next. So I like pulling up a playlist from a couple of years back, when I can even surprise myself.
I was out on the road for long spells this past weekend, and thinking about the days of playing album sides instead of whole albums. That was a good option to cut the time investment without editing. I do miss listening to vinyl the way I used to. The convenience of streaming has won me over.
It was your suggestion years ago to listen to ‘Supper’s Ready’ as seven 3-minute songs that got me to listen (mainly to see if you were right). You were right. Thank you. I think it was your editing of Blue Moves that initiated my editing. I’ve become a fan of editing and/or reimagining albums. There have been instances where the artist will suggest a reimagining (Radiohead Hail to the Thief, U2 Pop). Also, there are many examples of song and album editing that were not the artist’s intent (Simon and Garfunkel’s ‘The Sound of Silence’, early Beatles albums in U.S., vinyl version compared to CD). Why shouldn’t we take advantage of technology to make the best experience? As for the runtime aspect of media: perhaps it’s dopamine and ADHD? Lol. Some of us can binge watch multiple episodes of a series with little hesitation but, a similar runtime in a movie is most often disqualifying. With infinite music and films readily available, it can be a challenge to remain focused for prolonged periods - because the art often suggests other art. And the mind wanders. One Battle After Another is totally worth it - even better the second time. Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair includes an intermission. And an awesome soundtrack. Lol. :)
When a movie that I want to see is two hours and forty two minutes long, my only thought is: "I hope I don't have to go take a leak any time after the 2:15 mark, because I'll miss something important". I saw "One Battle After Another" twice in a theater, straight through, and I highly recommend it. I probably walked quickly to the men's room when it ended, though.
I don’t consider the full length of an album when I skip a song, I just skip it because I don’t like it. “Not every album is 100%”- absolutely! A 60-minute CD doesn't bother me, it's more music from someone I like, and it's easy to skip a song I don't like. If I think a 60-minute album is excellent, there’s no need to cut 15 minutes from it. It’s not “too long” when it’s all good music.
I always listen to a new album straight through on the first spin, I believe that’s the best way to appreciate it. After that, I might listen to just one side of a vinyl album, and the first half of a CD, then listen to the rest later. I rarely pull out an album or CD and just play one or two tracks, unless they’re at least 8 minutes each.
No judging: I think editing a sprawling album is a fun, interesting exercise. Creating playlists from all the great songs you love on albums that are less than great? Cool. Creating the Beatles next album from the music on their first solo albums? I dig it. Oh, and I have a friend who just doesn't watch tv anymore. He loves movies most of all and says why should he watch a season of The Pitt at about 10 hours total when he could watch five classic movies he's never seen before? Hard to argue with.
29 comments:
Of course, the good thing about streaming long movies is that you can watch say half of it, go to bed, and finish it after dinner the next night.
That doesn’t really work for long albums, however.😎
I hear you. I feel like I'm always rushing cause there's no time to waste. If a line is too long, I bail. a lot of the new music I listened to, I listened to maybe 5or 10 seconds and move on.
But with movies and music, it's very selective. I've watched 90 Minute movie that seemed in terminal I also seen three hour + movies that breezed by.
There are some double albums that I would like to edit but there are those I'd never touch. I would pare cut down the Beatles White Album (Ok, maybe "Revolution 9" but when the remaster came out a few years ago I did listen to the whole track 'cause it sounded so great) but I would definitely cut the Rolling Stones' "Exile On Main Street". I wouldn't cut "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" but I would snip a bit off of "Physical Graffiti". I always let "Hey Jude" and "Bohemian Rhapsody" play out but I do prefer the shorter single version of "Heroes and Villains" to the longer album track. So it comes down to "it depends".
I'm glad I saw One Battle After Another in the theatre for several reasons. One of them is self-awareness; I trusted PTA to create something that is strongest when viewed as a whole, to let the momentum build uninterrupted. If I watched it on streaming, I knew I would get distracted or pause to get a snack or read a text. Going to the movies forces me to watch fully engaged, and it paid off.
I too enjoy many double albums more when I cut them down, and I think the advent of CDs inadvertently allowed artists to include things that in the past would have been left off, just due to space limitations of vinyl.
Based on the trailer, I wasn't interested in seeing One Battle... glad I did though, watching DiCaprio play Jack Nicholson was worth the time spent (all of it !!)
First, what a great bit of writing. I absorbed every word and then Sandy Denny (flutter flutter)
Listened to Willow Farm and thought that this could have been a great Keith Moon song. I heard snippets of his voice all over it.
Thanks for the shout out. Much appreciated. I got the idea of reducing double albums to a shorter experience from you. Here's my take: https://kleaveburg.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-double-album-edited.html
The only song I still will skip on any album that I frequently play is No. 9 on the While Album. Once was enough. Otherwise, while there are cuts on many lps that we might all agree are filler, its still part of that lp, that artists' conception as to what they wanted you to hear. So, I listen. The length of time only natters as to whether I have to leave or start doing something that might interfere with listening to that lp. Hell, I'm retired - I got nothing but time on my hands.
My white album no-nos are #9 and Piggies. To think an enlightened guy like George could write that one!
So Sal, are there any double albums (or full to the brim 75+ minute CDs) you'd find hard to edit down? Near perfect as is?
I think what I was trying to get at was why I feel the need to edit at all. Why does anyone feel the need? Where's the urgency to cut 12-15 minutes from a piece of work? I never used to feel that way. Now, I do. Partly, at least for me, has more to do with wanting to get as much music in as possible on any given and less because I can't deal with "Revolution 9."
But Ken D, there are plenty that I don't feel need to be edited. I actually love "Mountain Jam" from "Eat A Peach," but at 32 minutes, that's an entire Beatles/Beach Boys/Hollies record I could listen to. I think that's where I am, more so than not wanting to actually listen to "Mountain Jam."
But specifically, "Exile On Main Street" is perfect, as is "London Calling." That's two right there, I wouldn't touch.
My Elton "GYBR" Edit:
Funeral For A Friend/Love Lies Bleeding
Candle In The Wind
Bennie & the Jets
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
The Ballad Of Danny Bailey
Dirty Little Girl
All The Girls Love Alice
Roy Rogers
Social Disease
Harmony
I was really enjoying this Sal (v. well written) then I noticed how bloody long it was. I had places to go, things to do. So I started skimming and quickly lost interest. There's a lesson in here for one of us.
Which one?
:)
Skimming - the primary teaching of my 1960's summer school Evelyn Wood Speed Reading course. Works well with Stephen King books but not so much with Sal's musings today 😉
As long as you omit Sweet Painted Lady it’s a good mix in my book. Cleveland Jeff
When it comes to movies, I want them to be either 90 min or 3 hours long! Two hours and 15 minutes? For a comedy? Just feels wrong! When I'd cover movies at festivals, I would always make a point of seeing the movie with the longest running time, figuring if they chose it for the fest the length must be justified. You're not typically gonna accept a piece of crap that's four hours long! I feel you and I get it. But I can't empathize, really, because I never listen to half an album or skip songs. The album is the album. If it's not worth playing in full, I just don't listen to it. The same with movies and tv shows. But an "off" running time can indeed be a sign of laziness on the part of the artist. Length is also affected by technology. Albums were about 40 minutes because that's what vinyl could handle. Then CDs made every artist deliver bloated 60 minute albums because they felt the need to "fill it up." Then streaming encouraged (for many dumb technical reasons) double and triple albums . Dolly Parton did a rock album of covers that's a ridiculous two hours and 20 minutes. No doubt one could edit it to a much better 35 minutes. But I just don't listen to it. Recently, I've sensed a trend to artists embracing again the "album" experience and delivering works at 40 min and less. Except Drake, of course. It's natural to want people to be good editors of their own work. But I won't do it for them. You're not wrong to see a lengthy running time and get your hackles up...unless it has really good reviews.
I know what I should have said. A bad movie is long at 80 minutes. A good movie is short at 150 minutes. Life is too short to see crap, whatever its length.
I was gonna say Prince's "1999" didn't need to be cut, but then I remembered they left off "D.M.S.R." from the first CD release for time constraint at the time.
Not sure what I would cut from "Sign of the Time"?
Before CDs and streaming, when all I had were LPs, 45s and the radio, I rarely played an album in its entirety after the first few times. I'd get a new album, study it, play it side to side, read liner notes, lyrics, and do that until I knew the record inside and out, for better or worse. I knew every song on records I didn't like. Once that was accomplished, I'd just pull records off the shelf, play a song or two and move on, like a DJ.
When friends would come over, or if my cousin and I would be playing records, we'd do the same. We never just put on "Rubber Soul" and sat for 31 minutes. We never wanted to hear "Run For Your Life." Somedays we just felt like hearing "Nowhere Man" and "If I Needed Someone."
The idea of "If it's not worth playing in full, I just don't listen to it" seems to disallow so much great music. Not every album is 100%. Half of Elton's "Blue Moves" is fantastic and half is awful. I couldn't decide to never hear the fantastic half ever again because I have to sit through the awful half.
If anyone is still reading--
Rather than focusing on the length of a record and whether editing someone's art is a good or bad practice, what I am interested in is,
"If you think a record is excellent, but still feel 45 minutes is preferable over 60 minutes, how does that extra 15 minutes benefit you?"
This is what I am feeling. This is what I am guilty of.
I can't stand "Crocodile Rock," but I don't skip it because that album is 40 minutes. If "Don't Shoot Me" was 58 minutes, I'd skip both "Crocodile Rock" and "Midnight Creeper." The songs are tolerable. 12 more minutes of my time is the problem.
How are th
Let me clarify. I love Elton John. I almost never listen to his studio albums. He's a singles artist to me. I enjoy lots of compilations that collect great singles. I might enjoy "Take Me On" but that doesn't mean I feel obliged to listen to an entire a-Ha album OR never get to hear the song because it's on an album I can't be bothered to play. It's when I am listening to an album that I either listen or I don't. I just feel no compulsion to improve it, change it, edit it, etc, much as I think R.E.M.'s Murmur should end with the loping, perfect fade out of "We Walk" versus "West of the Fields." I wouldn't skip chapters of a book. I don't just stream a movie to watch that one cool scene or read only the first act of a play. That's what the artist created. Either I dig it or I don't. Individual songs are a different matter. But the game of improving an album, switching orders or just trimming it down doesn't appeal to me. I'm sure it's rooted in part by growing up with cassettes. With cassettes, skipping a song and getting to the next one was a pain in the ass not worth the bother.
I don't think albums must be 40 minutes or a movie 100 minutes or a book 250 pages or less. I was eager to tackle the Japanese novel (and arguably the first novel ever) The Tale of Genji, which is 1000+ pages. Les Miserables? Same thing. A four hour movie with lots of acclaim? I'm chomping at the bit. An 80 minute comedy with David Spade? No thanks. Life is too short to keep reading a book after 30 or 40 pages if I'm not loving it. But I think it's fair to raise an eyebrow at an unusual running time/page count when choosing what to see. You don't have much to go on. But if the movie is One Battle After Another and one of the most acclaimed of the year, I wouldn't give a damn that it's 162 minutes. Chances are it will be better than two 81 minute movies. Or one 110 minute movie and 42 minutes to recover. I don't ever think "what might I do with that extra 15 minutes?" All I ever think is, "Do I think this is gonna be good?"
I'm working my way through the Penguin Guide to Jazz's hall of fame, the albums it has deemed essential at one time or another. I've got Horace Tapscott's live album The Dark Tree Vol. 1 and 2 up and when I cued it up on my Amazon Music streamer, I saw it was about TWO HOURS long! I'm excited.
I 100% get where you are coming from. As we all age, the time we have left is precious. For as much as I listen to music, I also read a lot. The days of wanting to pick up an 800-page novel are starting to make me question what I'm doing (a 300-400 page novel -- hey. I'll read two of them!) If I'm following four different TV shows, I find myself picking the shortest episode of the 4 first. This doesn't mean I'm making the best choices (I've read some great 800 page novels and a lot of crappy 300 pages ones) -- and a lot of longer TV shows are better than shorter ones. The Cal Everett album -- which I really really liked -- was one of those I listened to in the car where I have a 20-25 minute commute to the gym. I started it on the way, listened to more of it on the way home and then realized -- what? There's still more of this? Because of that, it felt too long for sure.
You can continue to listen to different music on a different album you like more than the 15 minutes you cut. Todd's A Wizard, A True Star is 60 minutes and I wouldn't cut that one.
I never feel the urge to edit down an album. If I decide to play it, then I’m listening to the whole thing (although I will always skip Revolution 9). Since most of my listening these days is via Spotify, playlists (mostly my own) dominate my ear time. I miss the good old days of radio, when you never knew what was going to pop up next. So I like pulling up a playlist from a couple of years back, when I can even surprise myself.
I was out on the road for long spells this past weekend, and thinking about the days of playing album sides instead of whole albums. That was a good option to cut the time investment without editing. I do miss listening to vinyl the way I used to. The convenience of streaming has won me over.
It was your suggestion years ago to listen to ‘Supper’s Ready’ as seven 3-minute songs that got me to listen (mainly to see if you were right). You were right. Thank you.
I think it was your editing of Blue Moves that initiated my editing. I’ve become a fan of editing and/or reimagining albums. There have been instances where the artist will suggest a reimagining (Radiohead Hail to the Thief, U2 Pop). Also, there are many examples of song and album editing that were not the artist’s intent (Simon and Garfunkel’s ‘The Sound of Silence’, early Beatles albums in U.S., vinyl version compared to CD). Why shouldn’t we take advantage of technology to make the best experience?
As for the runtime aspect of media: perhaps it’s dopamine and ADHD? Lol. Some of us can binge watch multiple episodes of a series with little hesitation but, a similar runtime in a movie is most often disqualifying. With infinite music and films readily available, it can be a challenge to remain focused for prolonged periods - because the art often suggests other art. And the mind wanders.
One Battle After Another is totally worth it - even better the second time. Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair includes an intermission. And an awesome soundtrack. Lol. :)
When a movie that I want to see is two hours and forty two minutes long, my only thought is: "I hope I don't have to go take a leak any time after the 2:15 mark, because I'll miss something important".
I saw "One Battle After Another" twice in a theater, straight through, and I highly recommend it. I probably walked quickly to the men's room when it ended, though.
I don’t consider the full length of an album when I skip a song, I just skip it because I don’t like it. “Not every album is 100%”- absolutely! A 60-minute CD doesn't bother me, it's more music from someone I like, and it's easy to skip a song I don't like. If I think a 60-minute album is excellent, there’s no need to cut 15 minutes from it. It’s not “too long” when it’s all good music.
I always listen to a new album straight through on the first spin, I believe that’s the best way to appreciate it. After that, I might listen to just one side of a vinyl album, and the first half of a CD, then listen to the rest later. I rarely pull out an album or CD and just play one or two tracks, unless they’re at least 8 minutes each.
No judging: I think editing a sprawling album is a fun, interesting exercise. Creating playlists from all the great songs you love on albums that are less than great? Cool. Creating the Beatles next album from the music on their first solo albums? I dig it. Oh, and I have a friend who just doesn't watch tv anymore. He loves movies most of all and says why should he watch a season of The Pitt at about 10 hours total when he could watch five classic movies he's never seen before? Hard to argue with.
Post a Comment