This is the telling line - "Record labels are urging the clampdown on album tracks as a way of reversing a three-year-long slump in album sales."

They don't give a rat's ass what the artists produce, as long as people buy it en masse.

Well, I have been saying this for a while. I think that the CD length has ruined a lot of albums because artists feel compelled to fill it all up. They should focus more on writing complete albums regardless of length.

Here are some of my favorite albums of all time.

Pearl Jam - Ten - 11 Tracks
Nirvana - Nevermind - 12 Tracks
Mineral - Endserenading - 10 Tracks
Death Cab - Transatlanticism - 11 Tracks
Pink Floyd - Dark Side - 9 Tracks
Smashing Pumpkins - Gish - 10 Tracks
Coldplay - Rush of Blood - 11 Tracks
Counting Crows - August - 11 Tracks
Acid Bath - Kite String - 14 Tracks
Coinmonster - The Schematic - 11 Tracks

It's like my friend the film major used to say about movies. "You can make a movie shorter by increasing its running time, and you can make a movie longer by decreasing its running time." It's more about substance and how it all fits together instead of actual measurements of quantity.

I'm in the camp -- if the space is there, then use it. There are other things the artist's can put on these CDs besides songs to encourage me to buy their CDs. How about wallpaper? Screensavers? Extras like they do with DVDs.

Stuff I cannot get if I buy it through iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster, etc.

That's a fair comment, I am just saying don't include songs that interrupt the continuity of a record. I think we can all agree on that one.

Tales From Topographic Oceans - only 4 tracks (oh wait..)

i just bought that on vinyl a coupla weeks ago.

I see that the CD reissue of "Tales From Topographic Oceans" has added material.

I would like access to bonus stuff either on a separate CD in the package, or online via a password or whatever, but I would like to see the actual CD reflect the very strongest material, and be put together in a logical manner.

I like how they did the Elvis Costello reissues, with the added material on a second disc and the price comparable to a new-release single CD ($18.99 list, which is still too expensive, but it could be worse).

Why the need for a separate CD, Eric, when the space is available and there? I mean, put the CD in your computer and get additional content? To me, it sounds like a win-win-win for the consumer, the record company and the artist (links or promotion to their website).

Just imagine if Blogcritics released music and you could pack in website content (reviews and extra content) on the same CD? Good promotional value there ;)

The problem with short CDs is that people don't feel like they're getting their money's worth out of them. No matter how good the music is, they're going to feel like they're getting a better deal on something else that has more songs and a longer running time. The conundrum, as pointed out, is that all that material may not be so strong. I've really noticed this with the Elvis Costello remasters by Rhino. Having all the b-sides/etc. relegated to a separate disc entirely changes how I feel about some albums that I'd felt were just way too long on the Ryko versions. If you didn't know the original CDs, which reflected the vinyl running time limits, you never really knew what the "real" end of the album was. It just kept going and going, mixing in distracting demos and live tracks.

It would be nice if the running time of the album could be reflected in the price, so that 35 minute disc costs significantly less than an 80 minute disc. 35 minutes is just slightly above EP length to me. Why shouldn't I pay slightly above EP-length price, too?

TD, I'd like separate to keep downward pressure on prices - you should only have to pay for the "good" stuff, the best the artist has to offer at the time - and to have that "best" material put together into a single entity, formerly know as an "album." I want free access to bonus stuff, but i dont' want it cluttering up my "album."

"The problem with short CDs is that people don't feel like they're getting their money's worth out of them."

They also don't feel like they got their money's worth if they pay good money for an album that has a lot of bad songs on it. If your album can have 3 good singles and the other 7 songs are good filler that take a listener on a journey, your album will be successful. If you pepper them with every piece of crap that was recorded in the studio you will leave a bad taste in their mouth.

There's no reason for the bonus material to not be on a second disc. The raw materials are dirt cheap. (Which is why I REALLY balk at having to pay double the price for two-disc sets - it does not cost the record company twice as much to produce two discs of material that was already recorded anyway.) I'd much rather see a good flow of songs than have it all lumped together.

i kinda like shorter cds...that's probably because of years of listening to vinyl.

but last night i listened to Let It Be and was struck by how concise it is....short too.

but i don't think concise-ness means that the recording has to be short.

as far as bonus material goes, i don't mind if its tacked onto the end...though i prefer a second disc (like the Costello reissues).

anybody have any cds with the alternate takes interleaved with the original tunes? man, i hate that!

I see your point Tom & Eric on the separation but for me it's a matter of convenience.

Keeping track of one CD is easier than two ;) I don't know about the rest of you but it seems like the plastic CD packaging for two CDs is often too fragile and not very handy. You have to dig the CD out to get to the one on the other side. Several times I've bought CDs where the docking holes were already broken from shipping, so the disc doesn't seat properly.

Also, while on this subject, does anybody know where you can buy replacement 2-CD containers?

So to recap, for me anyway, this has nothing to do with pricing, just convenience. If Disc 1 has 200 MB free, then use it I say, don't put it on Disc 2 and call it a bonus disc because as a matter of convenience I don't think that works. To me this bonus disc equates to: easier to misplace/lose/damage disc

TD, and I can understand your view also, but for me the convenience cmes from not having to dash to the player to shut it off when the crap starts to flow, or worse yet, as Makr said, when the crap is interspersed with the "A" material.

You can buy CD case replacements from a number of places, I like to use this one.

http://www.sleevetown.com/

Well as far as separating data from music content, that's already happening, Eric. If you put a disc in your computer it has the potential to behave differently then putting in your stereo. And of course most car stereos would ignore the data tracks.

But maybe we are talking apples and oranges here? You are talking about additional music tracks and I'm talking about adding bonus (web/computer) data to the same disc as the music if the space is there.

I think in the case of adding more songs, which is the central focus of this piece, then I think that all depends on the artist. As I put in my blog entry earlier (see trackback) there are some artists I wouldn't mind hearing whatever they produce. Yeah, even the crap LOL

Fans are fans, yanno?

I'm curious, for example, what the hell Guns 'N Roses has been up to all these years. Axl Rose claims this new GNR has nearly 3 albums worth of material. Does this mean 30 songs? 40, 50? Whatever, I'll be buying at least the first offering no matter how many songs are on the disc(s).

Also what about Van Halen? I refuse to accept that Eddie hasn't been in their 5150 studio cranking out mucho quality material that will someday be releashed (I sure hope not posthumously)

Mucho quality material like the stuff he did with Gary Cherone? This goes back to another conversation we were having about music holding up to stand the test of time. I don't think Van Halen will stand the test of time. For me personally it is an anecdote at this point anyway only because David Lee Roth keeps popping up. When he dies so does the Van Halen stuff IMO. Then again, I have never been a big or even moderate fan of their stuff, so....

That brings up something else about playing music in your computer. You can select which tracks you can skip tracks you don't want to listen to, effectively changing the content on the CD. And of course you can rip/burn only the quality tracks and then make your own CD with your favorites on it.

I'm sure there are some stereos / boomboxes that allow customizing track lists also, but I do acknowledge that this requires additional programming (and thus may not be very convenient for some folks).

I am all in favor of the cafeteria/buffet concept for music (bet nobody could tell! LOL) -- in other words I'll pick and choose what I like and leave the rest for somebody else to choose from. The more choices the artist gives me, the better, IMHO.

It is entirely possible the artist left some really good song on the cutting room floor and by reducing the tracks, then we may miss out on discovering a gem in the slushpile.

Now that we can pay this way through online music services, this is a really exciting period of time for music fans.

"anybody have any cds with the alternate takes interleaved with the original tunes? man, i hate that!"

"Fool No More" on the Fleetwood Mac "Complete Blue Horizon" box set: it has all the false starts (like, eight of them) on the same TRACK as the master take. It's my favorite song on the album, and I have to fast forward three-and-a-half minutes into the track to listen to the only complete version of the song. That was a serious formatting fuck-up.

I've been wondering if I can transfer an edited version of the track to a recordable CD, but the computer guy here at work says my CD burner won't do that.

Craig - I don't blame Eddie for Gary Cherone's vocals, do you? Yes, of course the music (VH III) wasn't as good as their other stuff, but not all the stuff with Hagar was spectacular either.

I think someone as mega talented as Eddie Van Halen simply cannot be discounted, no matter how much ring rust he has.

Even Stephen King (ok, different area) has churned out some lemons. The great ones don't always do great things.

Michael Jordan shouldn't have come back and played with the Wizards, but that doesn't mean he couldn't kick most our asses on the court.

I am not sure that there is such a thing as being "washed up" on the guitar until one physically can't play any more. This assumes, of course, that the person playing the guitar is talented like Eddie Van Halen.

And when you have your own studio in your basement or garage or wherever 5150 is located, that convenience lends itself to plenty of availability for creating some "mucho quality material"

The album Passion, Grace and Fire by DiMeola, McLaughlin and DeLucia is only 30 minutes or so long. While it leaves you wanting more, I've never heard anyone say they felt cheated because it was too short.

Best to leave the fan wanting more, like Barry Sanders, than hang around too long, like Michael Jordan.

Eddie Van Halen is criminally under-rated right now, as witnessed by the rather bland Mr. Clapton ranking above him even in the respectable "best guitar players" poll by Taloran. I predict that at some point there will be a Van Halen revival as their place in music history becomes better appreciated.

But that last album sounded far too weak for it all to be Gary Cherone's fault.

It depends on what you are rating your guitarists on. Is Clapton better than EVH? Technically? Maybe. In other areas like songwriting? Probably not.

I hate most of Van Halen's music no matter how much Eddie can shred. I don't care. Yngwie Malmsteen can shred too, but his records all sound like a pile of shit tossed into an industrial sized fan turned on at full speed. It takes more than pure technical ability to pump out mucho quality material.

Eddie Van Halen isn't on par with Jordan, or even Stephen King at his profession unless you are going to say his profession is "guitar playing." Last time I checked it took a lot more than that to make great albums. I am sorry, but party music like Panama, Jump, etc has its place and I did think some of the more serious Haggar stuff was pretty good, but they aren't the Michael Jordan of bands in my opinion.

Not even close. Criminally under-rated? I think not.

"Is Clapton better than EVH? Technically? Maybe. In other areas like songwriting? Probably not."

Did you get this backwards?

one thing you've got to give to eddie is that he pretty much invented a new style of rock guitar.

when that crazy splatteration of notes came blasting out of the first vh record the landscape was changed.

Van Halen was by far more innovative, more versatile, and clearly technically better than Clapton. He changed not only the way guitar was played, he influenced the way guitars are built. In my opinion, he was every bit as good a songwriter as Clapton; while I like Cream and Derek & The Dominoes, Clapton wrote very few songs I listen to regularly. And Van Halen's compositions were arguably more original and sophisticated than Clapton's.

Okay, that's my opinion. Let's see in ten to twenty years if Van Halen hasn't taken his place in the top two guitar players of all time.

Absolutely, the first VH record is classic and epochal, but it's been all downhill from there. There are good songs along the way, and 1984 is very solid, but they have never rocked again like "Eruption/You Really Got Me," nor written a song as good as "Jamie's Crying."

The guitar poll results are far from perfect. Segovia in 32nd? Stanley Jordan in 114th?

I think we did a better job that Rolling Stone, but the results generally reflect popular musicians with whom the participants are familiar.

Can anyone truly tell me that Kurt Cobain left a body of evidence of better guitar playing than Stanley Jordan?

Clapton and Eddie are each going to have their rabid fans and detractors. Clapton got 15 more votes than Eddie, and more than twice as many in the top 3 (24 to 11, currently) but fewer number ones (3 to 1).

you're probably right about that eric...though there is some cool stuff on Woman & Children first.

Ice Cream Man is my favorite VH song. Dunno if they wrote it though.

wasn't that by Elmore James?

Says on allmusic.com that Ice Cream Man was written by Brim. Allmusic says about John Brim -

John Brim may be best-known for writing and cutting the original "Ice Cream Man" that David Lee Roth and Van Halen covered on their first album. That's a pity, for the seriously under-recorded Brim made some exceptionally hard-nosed waxings...."

My take on the guitar thing is that the ability to shred is weighted far far lower on the scale for me than the ability to write and play good parts. I feel like there are guitar players with much less technical ability (like Kurt Cobain) who wrote much better parts than Eddie Van Halen ever did. I don't blame anyone for liking music for whatever reason they want, but I can't handle some of this misdirected technical ability.

John Brim's version of "Ice Cream Man" can be heard on the "Chess Blues" box set.

For my part, I don't just like EVH's playing for his skill; I think he's written and played some fantastic music. I like Eric Clapton and Nirvana well enough. But for me, something like the solo on "Push Comes to Shove" just has this sound, an intensity and strange beauty that Kurt Cobain or Eric Clapton have never approached. Likewise the face-melting tip-toe of the first eight bars of "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love". Or the thundering ray-of-sunshine riff to "Dance the Night Away". And there's no denying the songcraft of even such raised-lighter classics like "Love Walks In" and "When It's Love" and "Right Now" from the crime against nature that was Van Hagar.

What I like about Eddie Van Halen has little to do with technical ability. There are any number of guitarists since then who have surpassed EVH in technique; but I still get off on the sheer enthusiasm, the oddball cleverness and the edge-of-the-seat intensity of his solos. He's the Charlie Parker of rock. It's not his technique, it's what he does with it.

I can understand not liking Van Halen's music; to each his own. But don't pretend that those of us who do only like it because of EVH's technical ability. And don't kid yourself that his ability and innovation don't make him a greater guitarist than Clapton or Cobain regardless of who's more popular right now.

JR, I agree with most of what you say about Eddie, and the examples you cite are kiler, but that is why overall I am so disappointed with him and VH in general, because so much of what he has doen doesn't have those kinds of moments - he and they have coasted way too often.

I can understand all that you are saying with the exception of the last sentence. I don't think his ability and innovation make him a greater guitarist than Clapton or Cobain. That is the opinion portion of this argument and I still feel the guitar playing of many other guitarists a lot more than I do EVH's.

I remember many years ago, like maybe 10 years or so, the Chili Peppers put out this one album, I can't remember the name of it, as my friend borrowed it and never gave it back (If I see that cowboy, he's a goner, for sure!) and it just went on and on forever. And I said to the future Mrs. Bricklayer at that time: "This would have been a great EP, but it is a crappy album. Just because a cd hold 90 minutes is no reason to fill them all up!" The future Mrs. Bricklayer nodded her head in agreement before going back to watching Touched by an Angel.

comment #40 is yet another reason why we've gotta get Barger to hogtie BRICKLAYER into being a friggin' blogcritic.

I vote for BRICKLAYER to suck it up and join so we can read full posts from him. Although if you are talking about Blood Sugar Sex Magik, I don't agree with you.

This argument of EVH vs. Cobain just kills me. I don't see how there could be any disagreement about this at all. Are you guys arguing about which of those two is the better guitarist or which of those two is a better songwriter, or what? Imagine, say ten years ago, Eddie invites Kurt over to his place for a little jam session. You're invited to come over and hang around and watch. Who on Earth is going to tell me that you would see Kurt matching Eddie in any department having to do with guitar playing? Kurt is a strummer, Eddie is a fucking virtuoso. Don't be absurd.

An analogy: imagine some guy saying that he is a better driver than Al Unser, Jr. You say, "You're nuts!" He says, "Al just drives around an oval...how boring...I don't like where he drives. I drive along the shore, through winding mountain passes, places that I like. That makes me a better driver." It's an absurd argument.

My problem is that a lot of these guys who are considered "great" guitar players are shredders who are unlistenable to me. I won't consider someone a good guitar player if what they produce is unlistenable to me. Sure they are supposed to play their instrument with the most technical ability possible, but if the end result is unlistenable, are you really a good player? I don't think so. It is an opinion point and I obviously don't agree with a lot of people. That's fine.

despite ev's obvious soloing prowess, what really drew me to the vh sound was the rhythm guitar....Ain't Talkin' Bout Love, Jamie's Crying, I'm The One...all on the first release...had killer riffs.

as we have reductio'd this absurdum ad nauseum in the past, I will boil down my position:

technique for its own sake is masturbation

technique harnessed to expression is sublime

but you have to have something to say in the first place

My original point about Van Halen remains: In the 2000+ days since they've done anything musically I refuse to believe Eddie has let the 5150 studio gather dust.

And since he created great songs before, one could argue that he could do it again. I don't think time has anything to do with his ability or foreshadows his ability to write/release some great music in the future.

Time with Michael Jordan had everything to do with it. He didn't have the skills he had in his prime. He got old. Not the end of the world. It happens to all of us.

Stephen King has said that he is going to stop writing because he has run out of things to say. I don't believe this, but I can understand from a prolific writer like him that a break from the action might make some of future work better. I don't think a writer can ever quit writing until they are physically unable to put pen to paper (or finger to key) or speech to type ... or however they generate their work.

I don't think for a minute musically Van Halen has run out of things to say. Am I in the minority on this belief?

it's hard to say. i didn't think he came up with much of anything interesting in most of the hagar years....and the only thing i remember about vh3 was that i didn't like cherone's voice (that, and i thought the cover photo was just plain stupid)

now that i've said that, i'm gonna make myself listen to it tonight.

Whether he has run out of things to say or not, he doesn't have a suitable mouthpiece anymore. People either loved or hated Sammy, and nobody even bothered to listen to Gary Cherone. If nobody is listening, are you saying anything at all? Without a lead singer EVH is lost. Ask the DeLeo brothers from STP or Slash for that matter.

This might sound farfetched but I still believe a reunion is possible. Dave dropped his lawsuit against the boys.

Wouldn't that be sweet?!

I don't think it would last because of conflicting egos, but damn would it be a good album and tour while it lasted.

i've always wished for an eddie solo instrumental album.

could be great.

could suck (tho i sort of doubt it).

Wouldn't this fall under the masturbation category that Eric mentioned previously?

that totally depends on what he comes up with.

all solo guitar records do not sound like vai/satriani/malmsteen.

in theory.

Satriani's one of the few rock instrumental guitar gods whose albums have, for me, maintained an even, high quality throughout his career. He peaked with Surfing With The Alien, of course, but I think his post-Alien output has been more even and interesting, actually. I can't say the same thing of Steve Vai, whose solo albums I repeatedly check out and wind up trading in because they're just too wanky. Satch . . . he's like listening to a singer whose voice is made of guitar strings. I never tire of him.

I'd welcome a EVH solo album. I'm not sure he has enough to say in that spotlight, however. Satch is great because his guitar mimics singing, but I don't know that Eddie's talent lies in filling in the spots a singer would normally occupy. His solo pieces on the VH albums were great, of course, but maybe they were great precisely because they were occasional things.

On the other hand, if you're using a guitar to mimic a voice, why not just get a vocalist? The guitar is a pretty versatile instrument, but it's often a good thing to make it sound like a guitar. Vai can make his guitar sound like a horse (Bad Horsey), but I'm not sure that's the best use of the instrument. Satriani is a hell of a guitarist, but with Vai we have another case of the student surpassing the teacher. Tom I don't understand how you can like Satriani, but not Vai. Isn't that like saying that April is your favorite month, but that you hate May? Wanky? I don't get it.

I've never been a fan of Van Halen, but I'd love to hear an Eddie solo album. If he surrounded himself with virtuosos (or is it virtuosi?) and let them influence the way the music was played, it could be truly inspiring.