Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[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:

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.

[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.

[the_pied_piper]

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.

This is very wrong. In fact, many bands i listen to have tracks over 5 mins, several over 10 mins even. I say that i prefer an EP to have less tracks as the bands with short songs will put out an EP that is short in length and it will be called an EP by all while several people, possibly yourself included, will call what i would call an EP (4-6 songs) an album, e.g. Explosions in The Sky - All of A Sudden I Miss Everything is ~45mins but with only 6 tracks. Personally, i would call this an EP regardless of track length (you might disagree) but that is how i refer to an EP.

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.

Note: I should have researched a little better as How, Strange Innocence has 7 tracks.

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.

I agree that the definitions of an EP are arbitrary but that is why the question "What do you think defines a good EP (in terms of length, tracks, how often they're released etc.?" was asked. It wasn't for someone to come in and say definitively this is an EP, this is an album; just to say what they think.

[Harun]

a good ep is an ep that doesn't have songs that are also on (later) lp's. live songs and covers are also nice, but are usually mediocre/lame.

i'd rather wait until the band has enough songs for an LP

[michaelicious]

EPs are great. Lots of truly wonderful records are EPs.

Belle & Sebastian have pretty great EPs.
Bedhead's EPs are incredible.
Vaya is my favourite At the Drive-in record.
Burst & Bloom by Cursive is excellent.
Barely Real by Codeine is also excellent.
Colossal's Brave the Elements is tops.
Deerhoof have a pretty good track record for EPs.
Memento Mori by Ghosts & Vodka manages to accomplish quite a bit in only 10ish minutes.
Metal Circus has some of my favourite Hüsker Dü stuff.
Rome is far and away my favourite recording by Les Savy Fav (apart from Inches, which is just a collection of singles as well).
Neko Case's Canadian Amp EP is pretty cool.
Pipas have pretty much only released EPs and they have all been solid.
All Through a Life by Rites of Spring. I don't really need to say anything about that one.
Desert Strings and Drifters and Pause and Clause by Sharks Keep Moving are both spectacular.
Spoon's Love Ways and Soft Effects EPs rank pretty close to the top of their output.
Times New Viking's Stay Awake can only be described with two words which are "Hell Yeah".
I dunno if anyone here even knows this band, but The Vermicious Knid's Days That Stand Still is among my favourite records ever.
You Were Always is a pretty new band who have put out two spectacular EPs so far.


That's just off the top of my head. I think the evidence speaks for itself.

[Hat]

This is very wrong. In fact, many bands i listen to have tracks over 5 mins, several over 10 mins even. I say that i prefer an EP to have less tracks as the bands with short songs will put out an EP that is short in length and it will be called an EP by all while several people, possibly yourself included, will call what i would call an EP (4-6 songs) an album, e.g. Explosions in The Sky - All of A Sudden I Miss Everything is ~45mins but with only 6 tracks. Personally, i would call this an EP regardless of track length (you might disagree) but that is how i refer to an EP.

I agree that the definitions of an EP are arbitrary but that is why the question "What do you think defines a good EP (in terms of length, tracks, how often they're released etc.?" was asked. It wasn't for someone to come in and say definitively this is an EP, this is an album; just to say what they think.

But if two people are trying to say "what makes a good X" don't they first have to agree what does and doesn't constitute X to a certain extent? I mean, maybe you define an EP by the number of tracks, but I remember a while back when a friends band of mine released a five track CD going for something like 55 minutes, and how sensitive two of the members were in regard to it being referred to by the street press as an EP, because they had basically sweated out a piece of work clocking in significantly longer than a lot of albums, and felt the term EP downgraded the sheer amount of effort that had been put into it. I just don't think track length OR quantity is really good enough to differentiate  between an EP and an LP in all circumstances, hence my distaste for the term. I mean, if we use track quantity as the distinguishing feature of an EP, then Dopesmoker is a single. The only remotely satisfactory definition I can think of is 'a release of substantially shorter duration than the average output of that band', and even that has almost as many problems as your definition, such as the question of how can a band know what their average album length will be when releasing a debut EP.

[E. Spaceman]

This is very wrong. In fact, many bands i listen to have tracks over 5 mins, several over 10 mins even. I say that i prefer an EP to have less tracks as the bands with short songs will put out an EP that is short in length and it will be called an EP by all while several people, possibly yourself included, will call what i would call an EP (4-6 songs) an album, e.g. Explosions in The Sky - All of A Sudden I Miss Everything is ~45mins but with only 6 tracks. Personally, i would call this an EP regardless of track length (you might disagree) but that is how i refer to an EP.

By this definition, Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas To Heaven which has 4 tracks would be an EP. Given that it is in fact a double album we can safely discard this idea as being utterly wrong.

[the_pied_piper]

By this definition, Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas To Heaven which has 4 tracks would be an EP. Given that it is in fact a double album we can safely discard this idea as being utterly wrong.

You give one example of a post-rock band which is possibly the most difficult genre to define the difference between EP and album for then dismiss my ideas as utterly wrong? Thats pretty unfair.

For example The Eightie's Matchbox B-Line Disaster's album Horse of The Dog is 25:22 with 10 tracks; also, Weezer's self-titled album is 28:15 again with 10 tracks. On the other hand Moonsorrow released Tulimyrsky with only 5 tracks and length of over an hour and X-Japan released a one-track album of 29 mins exactly.

This doesn't prove me right, but nor does it prove me 'utterly wrong'.

[Sox]

Does the band call it an EP?
Then it's an EP.
Does the band call it an LP?
Then it's an LP.

Which is better, LP or EP?
It depends on how good they are on an individual basis. They're all records. This thread is silly, the debate is really really silly. It's just a thread where people list the names of good records, be they EPs or LPs.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't feel like being silly on this one. It may as well be a thread where we discuss which pop songs are better. Pop songs under two and a half minutes, or pop songs over two and a half minutes.

[valley_parade]

Sub-minute punk songs, Darryl. C'mon.

[A Shoggoth on the Roof]

yea, but if it gets too short that's pushing it. I think songs peak at about ten seconds and then either end, like they should, or go downhill from there. any shorter and you really can't get anything out of listening to it, any longer and you get bored.

god I hate Opeth.

[sean]

Remember kids, Enjoy Eternal Bliss by Yndi Halda is so fucking long yet they officially call it an EP. So...

Does the band call it an EP?
Then it's an EP.
Does the band call it an LP?
Then it's an LP.

[october1983]

Man I'm going with Darryl on this one, it's a pretty context-sensitive idea that really depends on the band, their music, what they're trying to achieve etc. Trying to pin it down to "I think bands should start by releasing an EP and then this and that and so on" assumes that most bands should be following a similar trajectory rather than the path that best suits them, which is frankly ridiculous. It's like trying to argue which is better, a short story or a novel - the best one is the one that fits best for whatever's trying to be achieved.

[dancarter]

It's really apples and oranges right?  It depends on the EP and it depends on the record.  An EP can be brilliant or it can be an exercise in extreme torturous departure because a band wanted to try something foolhardy that was better left on the cutting room floor or better yet, in their heads.  Same with any album.  Some are great.  Some not so much.  I've heard 70 minute albums that I hate and 30 minute albums that I love or vice/versa.  Conversely, I've heard some fantasic and staggerlingly horrendous EPs along the same lines.  Okay.  I just repeated myself. Time to end my blather.