Innuendo. Vinyl.

I do have question.
The duration of the album "Hysteria" by Def leppard - 63 minutes. All the songs in full on vinyl. I think a lot of such examples. The duration of the album "Innuendo" - 53 minutes. Why were cutting duration some tracks?
Thank you!

Some people will tell you it's because vinyl albums will inevitably be of poorer quality the longer they are, but I think Queen's decision is all about making an exclusive CD version of the album without using any new songs.

Back in 1991 cd exclusive bonustracks were in fashion, and with Innuendo this was achieved by cutting 3,5 minutes of material away from the vinyl version.

The cuts were deliberately made into several tracks, because most people would have thought it was a good thing that three minutes of guitar solo on Bijou was removed! :P

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

Some people will tell you it's because vinyl albums will inevitably be of poorer quality the longer they are, but I think Queen's decision is all about making an exclusive CD version of the album without using any new songs.

Back in 1991 cd exclusive bonustracks were in fashion, and with Innuendo this was achieved by cutting 3,5 minutes of material away from the vinyl version.

The cuts were deliberately made into several tracks, because most people would have thought it was a good thing that three minutes of guitar solo on Bijou was removed! :P[/QUOTE]




what can you say not referring to some other people ?

Only the first sentence ("it's because vinyl albums will inevitably be of poorer quality the longer they are") is what other people say.

The rest is what I say.

Makes sense to me. I remember when you had the option to buy either a tape, record or cd, the cd was always the more expensive option. There had to be some encouragement to choose the more expensive option.

Queen used the whole CD thing to make a profit from its 'fans'. It's almost like they see us as nothing more than cash cows...... ?!

1981 GH UK version, is 58 minutes, and it's one vinyl, each side counteins 29 minutes

As a lover of vinyl I can tell you that the Innuendo vinyl sucks! The cuts are unbelievably bad. Even the reissues did not fix it. The could have spread the album over 2 records. They chose to go cheap. And in this case, original CD's (not remasters) are more dynamic. The best sounding version of Innuendo is 1st Dutch pressing on CD. Find it and turn it up.

, Well, my question was about why some tracks on vinyl edition has not same duration as on CD?

The previous Queen albums had a length of 40 minutes on vinyl, and the cd versions had a few extra tracks (remixes and b-sides).

When the Innuendo album was finished, they chose to put all their material on the album, because they didn't know if they would have the opportunity to release anything afterwards.

The first single of the album featured the complete version of Bijou, making it in effect a "B-side song" which was inlcluded as a bonus track on the cd version of the album.


Together that makes for a nice theory that the edits on the vinyl album were designed to create an exclusive cd release, but you won't find any interviews to prove it conclusively.

[QUOTE] [b]rocknrolllover wrote:[/b]I do have question.
The duration of the album "Hysteria" by Def leppard - 63 minutes. All the songs in full on vinyl..[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]Some people will tell you it's because vinyl albums will inevitably be of poorer quality the longer they are, but I think Queen's decision is all about making an exclusive CD version of the album without using any new songs.[/QUOTE]

i do think that quality comes into it - I had Lepps' Hysteria on vinyl on initial release and the sound quality was cack. It had an empty sound to it on vinyl - and the CD release sounded so much better.- so maybe there is something in this?

I've heard that the best length for a 33 1/3 LP side is about 17 minutes. Vinyl surface noise is quite high so if you want to hear bass frequencies on a 30 minute long side all other frequencies would need to be reduced which brings surface noise to much more audible levels..

This doesn't apply to mono LPs though.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
I've heard that the best length for a 33 1/3 LP side is about 17 minutes. Vinyl surface noise is quite high so if you want to hear bass frequencies on a 30 minute long side all other frequencies would need to be reduced which brings surface noise to much more audible levels.. [/QUOTE]

I don't have any first hand exprience about this, so maybe you can help?

We know that the usual album around 1980 was 40 minutes, but was that due to sound quality or was it because people simply expected albums to be 40 minutes long?

Was the sound quality of the vinyl albums an actual issue, ie. are there (m)any examples of an artist dividing a 60 minute album into two vinyls before 2000?

Today of course vinyl is an exclusive product and we expect a maximum of 15 minutes of material on each side, but back in 1992 (just over a year after the release of Innuendo) Queen's Live At Wembley album was divided into two vinyls, leaving 33 minutes of material onto the first side.

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
I've heard that the best length for a 33 1/3 LP side is about 17 minutes. Vinyl surface noise is quite high so if you want to hear bass frequencies on a 30 minute long side all other frequencies would need to be reduced which brings surface noise to much more audible levels.. [/QUOTE]

I don't have any first hand exprience about this, so maybe you can help?

We know that the usual album around 1980 was 40 minutes, but was that due to sound quality or was it because people simply expected albums to be 40 minutes long?[/QUOTE]

Bit of both. New techniques in the late '70s and '80s allowed for between 50 to 55 minutes of good-quality audio on vinyl, but albums were traditionally between 35 and 45 minutes long (dating from the time when albums were 10" rather than 12"), so that's what artists tended to aim for (disregarding certain exceptions). Note that this applies mainly to rock music, which used the audio spectrum differently from certain other kinds of music. For instance, classical music tends to have a greater dynamic range, so shorter LP sides give better results. Folk music (e.g. Dylan) is often less demanding on the grooves, resulting in 50+ minute albums in the '60s. There is not always a sensible reason. Some Beach Boys albums run just over 25 minutes in all, and even Dylan, who notoriously stretched his LP length to the max ("Highway 61 Revisited" ran 51:26 in 1965), released "Nashville Skyline" which ran for only 27 minutes. Sometimes, the record label an LP was issued on had a lot of influence on the final length. CBS LPs tended to be longish, and ESP LPs were often very short.

[QUOTE]Was the sound quality of the vinyl albums an actual issue, ie. are there (m)any examples of an artist dividing a 60 minute album into two vinyls before 2000?[/QUOTE]

Yes. I have a couple of ethno-musicological records from the '60s, and for reasons of audio fidelity they have a max of 14 minutes per side. I think Dylan's "Blonde On Blonde" was the first pop music double-album in 1966, which was just under 72 minutes in its original pressing. In the mid- to late '70s, audiophile double albums were popular for a while, for instance, Creedence Clearwater Revival had a live album ("The Concert", released in 1980) that ran 49:25 minutes and was released as a regular single LP as well as an 'audiophile' 2LP with exactly the same running time.

[QUOTE]Today of course vinyl is an exclusive product and we expect a maximum of 15 minutes of material on each side, but back in 1992 (just over a year after the release of Innuendo) Queen's Live At Wembley album was divided into two vinyls, leaving 33 minutes of material onto the first side.[/QUOTE]

You can fit 23 minutes of good quality audio on one side of a 12" record without any trouble over quality, even if it's (e.g.) jazz music with a lot of brass and reed instruments, which have broad spectrums.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Yes. I have a couple of ethno-musicological records from the '60s, and for reasons of audio fidelity they have a max of 14 minutes per side. I think Dylan's "Blonde On Blonde" was the first pop music double-album in 1966, which was just under 72 minutes in its original pressing. In the mid- to late '70s, audiophile double albums were popular for a while, for instance, Creedence Clearwater Revival had a live album ("The Concert", released in 1980) that ran 49:25 minutes and was released as a regular single LP as well as an 'audiophile' 2LP with exactly the same running time.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the info!
Of course I knew that 70 minute albums would be divided into two vinyls (as it still happened in the 80's and 90's), but it's interesting to know that even those 50 minute albums were divided into two vinyls.

Of course the next question is just how popular were they?
Are we talking about a CD vs. SACD type of situation, where only a marginal section of the customers are interested in a better quality product?


[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]You can fit 23 minutes of good quality audio on one side of a 12" record without any trouble over quality, even if it's (e.g.) jazz music with a lot of brass and reed instruments, which have broad spectrums.[/QUOTE]

23 minutes of course, but what about 33 minutes?

If Queen were worried enough about the sound quality of Innuendo to cut the side down to 25 minutes from the 27,5 minutes, surely they wouldn't have put out a 33 minute side he following year?

listen to the longer "greatest hits" type lps from the late 70s/early 80s - the general audio dynamic is poor

i can give you two definite examples:
Slade : Smashes (which ran at almost an hour)
and - Deep Purple : 24 carat purple (54 mins)
...both lack any kind of real bass sound on vinyl

as for the CD/SACD - thing - this is a weird argument: primarily because CDs chosen time length - by Red Book standards (circa 1980) was 74m33s - enough to contain a full mono version of Beethoven's 9th.

However, we all know this is nOT a valid reason - beyond some posh t*at at Phillips/Sony "quite liking that recording"....I had a copy of a Thin Lizzy live CD that ran for 78m10

also CDRs were set at 80 mins
and I also bought some 100min cdrs at a computer fair in the late 90s - and these worked fine on all my hifis with no listenable deterioration in sound quality