Too many songs....

[asi9]

We are in the process of planning our record, and came to the reallizations that we have a lot of songs that we want to go on the album. 15 to be exact. We are also a comedy band, so we plan on having several brief tracks of goofy stuff. That will probably put us at about 18 to 20 tracks. The 15 songs themselves total about 56 minutes. Is there any reason we shouldn't have that many tracks? We are doing most of the tracking ourselves, so studio time/money isn't that big of an issue.

Just curious of what reasons I'm thinking of that we may have for not having that many songs. And it won't be for "using up ideas", we get more ideas for songs everyday. If we compiled song ideas, we could probably do 3 albums right now with them all.

 

[Buck62]

I'd toss one or two of the "weakest" songs and use only two of the "shorties".
That way, you put out your best stuff and it doesn't seem as if you're adding "filler" material.
Keeping the CD in the 44 to 50 minute range is reasonable and pretty much standard.
If you've got more good tunes, why not save them for the next CD?

 

[dave62]

No matter how good a band is, I get tired of listening after 45 or 50 minutes anyway. An LP (vinyl) had about 44 minutes max. One phylosophy is to "leave 'em wanting more". I think about 40 minutes is a good length. --Dave

 

[regebro]

If the shorties are funny, keep them. A short almost funny thing is good. A LONG almost funny thing gets repetetive and boring.

And I agree, 45 minutes is quite enough.