Originally Posted by Walleris (Post 1262469)

You think you're arguing against my points, but you're actually proving it.

Every one of those 3 Bon Jovi albums, while already great, would have been even better if you remove the 2-3 filler songs off each of them.

Appetite For Destruction would be better if it didn't have Anything Goes or that version of You're Crazy. Not a huge Metallica fan, so can't comment on the latter, but it's thrash metal, and they were known for big song lengths. Some genres are more niche and can get away with breaking this rule. Prog is another one. I haven't seen good research comparing album lengths of the past eras, but I would not expect there to be a "fairly even split" as you suggested. Whenever I listen to anything from the 70s or 80s it's almost always shorter.

Same with movies. I'd be hard-pressed to watch anything over 1h40min runtime. Are there great movies that go longer? Of course. But most directors are aware of people's attention span and general fatigue and try to not take liberties. With music, it's possible to have a classic 70-minute album and some still succeed, but it becomes a challenge to overcome, rather than something that adds value.

Originally Posted by rolo_tomachi (Post 1262473)

The problem is that knowing Jon, he will leave the best out of the album, and the worst will be included. That is why I prefer it to include more songs. You can better adapt and configure that 10 song disc by ignoring and adding thanks to selection. But if we only get 10 songs, and no bonuses, you won't be able to choose. We are in 2020, not 1986, its best moment passed, so getting a large number of songs per album makes everything more tolerable.

Originally Posted by Walleris (Post 1262469)

You think you're arguing against my points, but you're actually proving it.

Every one of those 3 Bon Jovi albums, while already great, would have been even better if you remove the 2-3 filler songs off each of them.

Appetite For Destruction would be better if it didn't have Anything Goes or that version of You're Crazy. Not a huge Metallica fan, so can't comment on the latter, but it's thrash metal, and they were known for big song lengths. Some genres are more niche and can get away with breaking this rule. Prog is another one. I haven't seen good research comparing album lengths of the past eras, but I would not expect there to be a "fairly even split" as you suggested. Whenever I listen to anything from the 70s or 80s it's almost always shorter.

Same with movies. I'd be hard-pressed to watch anything over 1h40min runtime. Are there great movies that go longer? Of course. But most directors are aware of people's attention span and general fatigue and try to not take liberties. With music, it's possible to have a classic 70-minute album and some still succeed, but it becomes a challenge to overcome, rather than something that adds value.

Originally Posted by rickysambo (Post 1262475)

EXTREMELY subjective points.

Originally Posted by IWantYou (Post 1262478)

I don’t know if I understand wrong (because my English is very bad... obvious jajajajaj) but, I think Jon was saying here that he was writing a new song.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B9_qCMPh...=19189cl0w6s9f

Originally Posted by Xavi (Post 1262470)

I dont see any filler song on NJ,KTF and TD.
End of discussion.

Originally Posted by Captain_jovi (Post 1262480)

You dont see any filler, plenty do though. Would KTF be better without "Woman in Love"? I think yes, some thing it'd be better without "I Want You". It's subjective because the songs that don't make the cut in order to make it that length might be great or might be terrible. A leaner album is more likely to be less filler.