Fun Stuff > BAND

EPs Vs. Albums - what do you think?

(1/4) > >>

spoon_of_grimbo:
Another music forum I often frequent recently started a discussion on the merits of EPs against those of full-length albums, particularly concerning bands' debut releases, and I figured this might be an interesting discussion to raise here on the QC boards.

So, would you prefer your favourite band to put out mostly EPs or mostly full-lengths?  Or maybe both?

Should new bands start with an EP or a full-length?  Would one or the other make you more inclined to check them out?

What, to you, defines a good EP (in terms of length, tracks, how often they're released etc.)?

To kick things off, here's the response I gave in the aforementioned forum; my two cents on the matter:


--- Quote ---I think it varies according to the genre of music the band is playing.  I mean an EP by a post-rock band would likely be longer than some hardcore/grind bands' albums!  It's got less to do with track numbers than it has running time.  For me, an EP is anything up to 20 minutes, and an album is anything more than 35mins (30 at a push).  Anything in between would be a mini-album.  And the price should relate to the running time, not the amount of tracks - there's nothing that fucks me off more than having to pay album price for a 12-track "full length" by a band whose songs barely top a minute each.

Having said all that though, I think the EP is undervalued by a lot of bands, both as a debut (like many have said, it's easier to part with cash for a cheap EP than a full-length if it's a new band you're checking out), and also as a stop-gap between albums (whether it part new/part rarities like the new Loved Ones EP, or just 4 or 5 new tracks).

Also, I heard (and this may or not be true, maybe someone more in the know can confirm/deny this) but apparently the rules for chart eligibility in the UK have recently been changed to allow slightly longer singles with up to 4 tracks (rather than the previously-allowed 5) to enter the singles chart, so hopefully this will see the resurgence of full-blown EPs as singles, rather than multi-format discs padded out with remixes/live tracks.
--- End quote ---

the_pied_piper:
I would agree that the EP is undervalued by some bands and that the first release, other than maybe a single, should be an EP. However, i would attribute track number rather than track length. To me, an EP is about 4-6 tracks (anything less being a single and b-sides) and an album is 8 or more tracks. I realise this leaves 7 but i haven't yet come across an album (mini-album perhaps?) with 7 tracks, it just seems a strange number.
Personally, i like an album to be 10 tracks plus and then i feel more inclined to pay out as i am getting my monies worth and that an EP should be about 1/2 of the price of an album as it would have about 1/2 the number of tracks.

A good release structure for me would be for a band to start with 1 or 2 EPs then release their full-length debut as this would have allowed them to mature at least enough to try and produce a worthwhile album. I have no problem with bands releasing EPs between albums and if an album is taking a while to be produced an EP is a good stop-gap so that at least there is some new material around.

I like the suggestion of an EP being able to enter the charts also as i'm not a big fan of singles being padded out with remixes. If a single has 1 or 2 b-sides (as in separate tracks) with it then that seems ok but remixes seem a little lazy (for want of a better term) and too much like padding to persuade me to buy a single.

StaedlerMars:
I'm gonna argue for the EP here.

With the advance of the internet people are going to be more likely to download singles, or just a few songs. Especially if they don't know your band. They want small samplings of what your music is like, and EPs are best for this. They're also generally cheaper, and as a result will attract a larger audience.

As an example: I bought the Animal Collectives EP that came out in march, but I don't think I would ever buy a full length album by them.

I think it would be in a band's interest to make short introductions to their work more of a priority, since people are now more likely to be able to access your music more then ever, and you don't have to throw full albums at them, especially if you want them to be more quick to buy your music.

Then again there are some bands that don't produce that type of music.

Hat:
The idea that the difference between an EP and an album should be determined by track quantity rather than by the total recording length, to me, implies that you have never listened to a band with a song much longer than 5 minutes. I think the distinction between the two is pretty unnecessary, really. Sure, if you don't have enough material to cram a record entirely full of music, don't just throw any old shit on there to make up the room, but honestly, what kind of band uses all the space available to them. I mean if your average pop band releases 25 minutes of music and calls it an LP, then releases a record that is 15 minutes of music and calls it an EP, but then a drone band releases an album that goes for 75 minutes and why is this still an LP instead of a third distinction? The difference between the first two is much less than the difference with the third.

It just seems really arbitrary, and although while vinyl is still produced, there is still some kind of legitimate need to have the term EP still exist, I think the definitions of what an EP is that people are coming up with here are entirely pointless and silly.

PS All argumentativeness aside, and using the definitions provided here, I usually prefer albums, because of their coherency and general tendency to hold together thematically better than an EP might, although if you can just put four fucking hot tracks on a CD and call it an EP, and charge half as much that is just as good for me.

Thrillho:
1. I prefer my favourite artists to mostly put out albums. It's better value for money and you just get more product each time. I don't want to wait over six months of studio time for just an EP.

2. Bands should start with an EP. I like when a band has early material that only their hardcore fans know, and/or alternative versions of their popular singles that some fans prefer.

3. A good EP is the perfect length and shows all sides of a band.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page