Jump to content
Soul Source
  •  

Records That Go On & On & On

Posted

Been listening to some 70s cds in the car lately for a change (mainly a 60s person)

I started to wonder why the trend towards longer record times came about, what were the writers thinking and why change? Irrespective of your taste and whether you like these records or not some of them go on for so long and are so repetitive, doesn't it do your head in after a bit?

So what I'm asking really is even if you like the 70s records doesn't it get on your nerves after 4 mins or so?

Give me 2mins 30secs, wham bang thank you ma'am any time!

Disclaimer:- this thread is not intended as another 60s v 70s debate, any move in that direction will be due to individual posters and the thread starter will accept no responsibility for any such circumstances arisng :huh:

  • Replies 62
  • Views 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most active in this topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Diddy Morgan
    Diddy Morgan

    hey mick , just my opinion but terry callier - dont wanna see myself, is very" northern " just will take 15 years for all to realise it :D

  • Wrongcrowd
    Wrongcrowd

    It was only a matter of time.....

  • Guest
    Guest

    Most records longer than 3 and a half minutes annoy me. Once you've heard the chorus twice or at most three times - what's the point ? After that you're getting into Hey Jude territory zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Featured Replies

All R&B AND POPCORN SHITHE

Come on train - love the first half of the song but thats it

  • 2 weeks later...



Think they ran out off writing paper...
 
 

Edited by WheelCity45

i have a 7" single that plays at 331/3rpm and jumps during the chorus :dash2: ....that apppears to go on and on and on and on and on..... :hypo: does that count ?

ktf

tfk :rofl:

Edited by tfk

Barbara Lynn -Trying to love two.... 4mins 40 secs (ish). I love the record and have a minty issue on Ichiban, but it's 2 mins too long I think. :yes:

ORDINARY JOE - TERRY CALLIER

Does go on a bit, I tend to fade out the end before i fall asleep when DJing

This ! love it

As it still reminds me of walking into the Casino !

Been listening to some 70s cds in the car lately for a change (mainly a 60s person)

I started to wonder why the trend towards longer record times came about, what were the writers thinking and why change? Irrespective of your taste and whether you like these records or not some of them go on for so long and are so repetitive, doesn't it do your head in after a bit?

So what I'm asking really is even if you like the 70s records doesn't it get on your nerves after 4 mins or so?

Give me 2mins 30secs, wham bang thank you ma'am any time!

Disclaimer:- this thread is not intended as another 60s v 70s debate, any move in that direction will be due to individual posters and the thread starter will accept no responsibility for any such circumstances arisng :huh:

Bit like my Mrs.......she goes on and on and on and............

Edited by ZootSuit

dare i say it but gladys knight "no one could love you more" is great for the first 45 secs, then gets very repetitive, cant play it all the way through,

also "strange" by tradewinds once again less than a minute would be enough

All 70's records that take 30 seconds before anyone actually sings a note. I have lost the will to live before that and taken the needle off the vinyl.

There should be a limit of 2 minutes 30 seconds on ALL songs. [except for that Adele, and she should be limited to 2 min 30 sec per album]. maximum!

Get involved with Soul Source

Go to topic listing