That's okay. I don't think you should keep concerning yourself with what people are saying. From all your posts, you seem to be getting annoyed, and more annoyed by the post. I think you should try to just ignore it. But maybe I didn't read ahead far enough before quoting. It's not that. It's the fact that a 30-minute album is boring and gets old after a while. If an album's considerably longer than 30 minutes, there's a better chance you won't get tired of it so quickly. Most (read: some) punk albums are 30 minutes long or shorter, and they get boring as all hell really quickly. But some of the better albums out there, the ones that exceed 50 minutes in length, tend not to get boring, because there's more to listen to, even if there are still only 12 tracks. I'm just happy we're finally getting new music, period. Like I said above: it's not that it won't be worth it, it's that we want to hear more than 30 minutes of music after four years. If it doesn't keep your attention for longer than that, then there's a good chance that Linkin Park fucked up and totally didn't think the album out the way we thought. But if it's longer than that, around 45-50 minutes, and you CAN keep your attention the whole way through, then you can surely say that they knew what they were doing. But if it's only 30 minutes long, you'll get bored of it more quickly, because there's less to listen to. I agree, actually. I can't see it being longer than 45-50 minutes, at the most. But those extra 15-20 minutes can make a huge difference. Like I said above: it's not that it'll be bad if it's short, it's that we want more after four years. It's upsetting when some bands put out four quality and unforgettable albums in the time it takes Linkin Park to put out two.