Best numbers of tracks???

[pbs1605]

12 - 14 but with every track good not some just thrown on the album to fill up space.

[darkswordz]

^agree. I find quality of songs and the overall feel as a much more importance factor. Wouldn't it be great if we have both quantity and quality

[Celaphorce]

16 Like (M)U, LOVEppears, A Song For XX, Rainbow, and I Am...

[HanabiChick]

About 15 - anything more than that and it ends up with more filler tracks than good tracks.

[darkswordz]

^agree RAINBOW and MY STORY are classic example

[Mad_Cactuar]

Originally Posted by sora-kara

and no album should be more than 45 minutes.

True, true. Over 45 minutes and your attention just wanes. I just recently liked Utada's Distance which I bought two years ago. I never listened to it in full earlier because it was longgg and never liked it because I never listened to all the tracks in one shot. Even Greatest Hits albums should be limited at 15 tracks max.

[hallelujah_united]

I'd say 11-13 will make a pretty good number. Anything beyond that could be too much, and bad tracks are more likely to pop up.

[PickleCookies]

Originally Posted by touchedstar

otherwise...why spend the money on it?

...Because you like good, quality music?

What's the point of spending money on an album with 17 mediocre tracks when you can buy one with 12 amazing songs?

[No_Doubt]

Doesn't really matter to me, as long is there is little or no filler. Usually, I prefer longer albums (15-17) to have a lot of variety so it can keep my attention (eg. (miss)undertsood) while I like short albums (10-12) to be more cohesive and less diverse (eg. Duty).

[ayu_fan929]

13-15 tracks with no interludes.

[Sakura_Genki]

Anywhere in Between 11 and 14 is Good for Me

[xiaou-xijiang]

between 11-14. I don't like CDs that have anything less because then I'm looking for more, and to have a lot of tracks would mean theres always the chance that I'm skipping through half of the CD to get to the good ones. Quality over Quantity. I'd rather have 11 of the best songs, then 17 tracks with only 5 really good tracks.
But then again if I'm really into the band then I might enjoy more tracks.

[Aisha_Angel]

I like them long...I think Xtina's album "Stripped" (sp...) had like 20+ songs & interludes. It's good when the album is a variety like Stripped because it gives you a taste of different KINDS of music. So I think the best number of tracks depends on the actual type of music it is.
One bad example of a 20-track album to me would be Janet Jackson's "Janet" album...I didn't like most of the songs because they were so repetitive...same sound.

Yeah, it depends on if it's a variety. Other than that; 14+ will do the trick for me.

[elepop]

12-16 songs.

But as long as the album is good, that's okay. You can have an album with lots of songs, but that doesn't mean it will be any good. (like "(miss)understood" and "MY STORY") An album with 12 songs can seem short, but if the songs are great. It's worth it. (like "LOVE COOK" or "Duty")

[Daking]

Depends on the type of music, for Ayu i think ~16 songs is good including an intro and maybe 1 interlude.

Generally Pop/Ballads i tend to think 16 songs is optimal because the songs are usually upwards of 4:30 per song

Rock/Hip Hop songs i would expect ~19 songs because usually the songs are upwards of 3:30 per song.

[FuNsTyLe]

I agree, but I also like smaller albums, they make you like each song more... On an album with 15 songs, there are sure to be some fillers,, that are just there to make the tracklist bigger, songs you really don't notice. So I think an album with 10 songs in some occations are just as good as one with 16. It makes the album seem more complete, and makes me see it moe as a whole

[~K+]

Doesn't matter, as long as the tracks are good. If you want a number, anywhere from 10 - 14 is fine for original albums, give or take one or two, 16-18 for best-ofs.

I like 40 minute albums.