hi dispeople

what's too many songs for an album? the vague list for our new album is 18 tracks + a few sample collages and we're freaking out that we've gone too far. about half of the songs are loud guitar pop like what we do, and the rest is all manner of notwisty/sparklehorsey/baby d stuff.

ysee, before we got to this point, we didn't think there was a too much. our reference points were melon collie and wowee zowee; both amazing records with a running time meaning it was kinda impractical to ingest in one sitting.

i've always thought, if the artist is ok with it, has accepted and presented it as such, then everything is cool. billy was kind/pretentious enough to note which songs we could listen to in the am and which in the pm, pavement sounded like they were having too much fun to bother to stop the tapes, and when i got/got into those albums it was like finding out you'd bought a scalextric with an extra track pack in the box.

but in the last couple of weeks, talking to people about it, ive heard things like "that amount of songs would put me off buying it" and "reviewers will flat out not bother to listen to something so long"

so now we're kinda worried that what we see as making something epic and sprawling and awesome, is actually going to suicide whatever little career we have.

not interested in people's opinions of how shit my band are, ib4 ZERO SONGS, etc, i'd just like to read some informed opinions on what constitutes "too much". what consciously over long albums you think work, and which don't, and why..

thankee/ hope everyone is having a wonderful day

xlex