Is there a perfect track list length out there? I certainly believe so. We currently live in a world where double albums and track lists spanning 20 or even 30-plus songs are the norm. In fact, if an artist releases a project with less than 20 tracks now… a lot of fans start asking questions like “Why so short of an album?” and “Guess they couldn’t come up with any more than that?” The long album has become the expectation. For some, a track list that features two-dozen songs is exactly what the doctor ordered. For me (and I’m hoping for others out there), my perfect prescription comes in at a lot less. You’ve heard it time and time again, but the old saying really does ring true more often than not… sometimes less is more. Why have albums become longer and longer? Mainly because in the age of streaming, there’s no limitation when it comes to an album’s length. Used to, an artist or band would need to create a project that could be condensed into a cassette, a vinyl record, or a CD. If they did go long, or put together a “Greatest Hits” album, that’s when they’d have to stretch into the two-CD and double vinyl sets. If you are young and reading this and you have no idea what I’m talking about… ask your parents about it. Now, artists like Morgan Wallen – who averages over 30 songs per album (at least in his recent endeavors) – throw seemingly endless amounts of songs into one project. In years past, a country artist might take a handful of years and two or three projects put together to release 30-plus songs. The new way of doing it is jam-packing just one album with dozens of songs… and it’s usually because they are going for “more total streams.” And that makes sense. Artists are just trying to make money off their music, and in the streaming age, that’s not as simple as it used to be. People who still buy albums and songs digitally, and opt to buy physical media, are the exception nowadays. While the sprawling, 20-or-more track lists are helping artists and musicians capitalize on their creations, it’s coming at a cost for the consumer of music. Albums used to be digestible in one sitting. If you have a record player, you know how cathartic it can be to throw on a vinyl, pour a drink, and listen to an album front to back… like God intended. It’s not terribly difficult to carve out 35 or 45 minutes to listen to a full-length project. But when you push that total play time up to an hour and a half (0r even two hours), that can be challenging to knock out all at once. That actually incentivizes music listeners to just pick and choose the “singles” and “hits” from the album. So how many songs should be on an album, you might be asking? Well, I’ve sort of alluded to that answer already. In my opinion, an album should only go as long as the listener can manage to complete it in one sitting (or drive, or walk, or whatever it might be). That obviously can look different for everyone, thus making the ideal track list a tad subjective. But I’d argue that the perfect amount of songs on a single project is this… 12. Before you all start sharpening your pitch forks and getting your torches prepped, that’s still plenty of songs. If the 12 songs all averaged to be somewhere between 3 and 3.5 minutes in length, that’s 36-42 minutes of music (quick math by me, I know). That’s akin to an episode of TV. That’s a commute to work for the average American, or drive to a nice dinner, maybe a family member or friend’s house. That’s a very palatable time commitment. Not only that, it allows for an artist’s work to really be appreciated. The more plates you have spinning, the less attention you can pay to each plate. It’s that simple. A 12-song track list allows for the listener to give proper concentration to each track, and even opens up the opportunity for multiple listens. I might not be speaking for everyone here, but a 30-song album can often feel like a chore to get through. There’s a good chance a lot of fans try their best to just listen through once… and then they move on to the next double album on the docket. Will the long-album-epidemic ever end? Probably not. As I said before, artists are somewhat encouraged to draw out their projects in the streaming age. But that’s why it’s so refreshing when modern day artists go against the grain and keep their albums short (or at least shorter by comparison). When Sturgill Simpson/Johnny Blue Skies rolled out the 8-song Passage du Desir in 2024, you didn’t hear anyone complaining. He’s keeping to that length with his upcoming Mutiny After Midnight record, which is set to include just 9 songs. And the wildly underrated Ashley McBryde has always been a proponent of 11 song albums. When she sat down with us on the Whiskey Riff Raff podcast last year, she explained her thought process like this… even as she’s told by others that she needs to up her track list numbers: “That is something that’s been really interesting to me in a time where more than 20 tracks are going on a record. It’s been really interesting to digest the different ways we all perceive it and the ways we take it in.  I’m getting advice via email that’s like, ‘If you’re not doing 20-plus tracks, you’re doing a disservice. You’re not doing enough to keep your audience fed all the way until the next record.’ For me, if I was a baby bird, and you just keep shoving stuff (down), then I don’t want you to come back and visit me because every time you do is too much.” Makes sense to me. And hey… 11 songs is good with me too. I know I said 12 is the perfect number, but that might just the ideal maximum. Maybe you are reading this right now and you wholeheartedly disagree. There’s nothing wrong with that. We can’t all agree on everything. But I’d like to think that most music fans don’t always need their albums delivered in bulk. Not everything has to be stuffed to the brim in this day and age. Thus, a 12 song album is more than enough (or at least should be enough) to suffice the modern music listener.The post In The Age Of 30-Track Projects, What’s The Perfect Number Of Songs For An Album? first appeared on Whiskey Riff.