Why is a 30 - 35 minute album a bad thing? If the songs are good, and personally i have not been dissapointed yet, it shouldn't really matter how long the album is right? I'd rather have 30 minutes of awesome music than 50 minutes of shit.
Kind of disappointed that its that only 3:31. I was hoping that it would longer so we could get longer verses. With two feat. on this, I really wanted more time for Pusha and Stormzy to shine alongside Mike. Oh well, can't wait!
I didn't said I want this But when you consider that a song with just 3:31 length. which has 3 rap verses & 3 choruses (each verse is maybe 30-40s long + 20-25s chorus). then you get a full vocals song.
Because we only have the same 30 minutes to listen to over and over until the next album comes out. :/
Yeah, I'm really hoping we get some longer songs on this one. Even an extra minute can add so much without having to be a "long" song.
I really hope Mike changes his delivery on this one. He hasn't had a great flow or delivery since RECHARGED. Disappointed by the length (means the verses will likely be shorter) but still hyped. At least one Mike rap made the album.
Meh, I feel like I'm the only one who could care less about song length. A good song is a good song regardless of its length. I've heard 7 minute songs that have bored the crap out of me, and 2 minute songs that have truly touched me. That's not to say all long songs are boring though (I thoroughly enjoy watching / listening to orchestras play 45+ minute symphonies).
Oh i agree with that 100%. But i feel like making the songs longer just to have long songs on the album is a bad thing. Just imagine Heavy was 5 minutes long, it would make a good/catchy song pretty shitty/repetitive.
Oh definitely, and a lot of bands really don't know when to trim the fat; it's one of the things LP are really good at. I just in general prefer long songs to shorter songs, all other things equal.
I remember when I was young I was so pissed that both HT and Meteora were short that I burned both of them on a single CD back to back (cause in all honesty the DO fit on a single CD), but over the years I have listneed to too many bands that make long albums just for the sake of having long albums, and while in some cases it works, in most cases its pretty annoying. Thats what I love about all the LP albums. Theres not a single bad track on them. Too short for you? Listen to it twice in a row.
Huh. I kinda knew that for Hybrid Theory and Meteora, but I swore at least couple songs broke 4 minutes on Living Things. Alright, I'll be less salty if no song breaks 4 minutes.
Fun fact: Burn It Down is the longest song on Living Things. Another fun fact: Outside of ATS, only five tracks are over 4 minutes long, 3 of which are on The Hunting Party and 4 of which are also over 5 minutes long. LP really don't like the 4-5 minute range.
What y'all expect, huh? Linkin Park is Pop band folks. The longest songs are: A Line in the Sand 6:35 The Little Things Give You Away 6:23 Guilty All the Same 5:56 The Catalyst 5:39 Mark the Graves 5:05
I think it's interesting to note that it's how you produce it to maintain engagement throughout a song. It's true the length of a song doesn't dictate the quality of the song. I have listened to songs that feels so eloquently distant and enduring, yet the length is only 2/3 mins max. But sometimes some songs I love feel fast even though it's more than 4 mins. It's similar to films, I have watched short animated films(no longer than 15 mins)that feels more enduring and enjoyable than most modern feature-length films in cinemas, and vice versa. The trick is to work around it to make it engaging from start to end - which LP so far has done it well.