Do bands' releases depend on the number of tracks it has or the length of the overall release when considering calling it an EP or a full-length release?
I know it may be stupid, with 'full-LENGTH' being a big clue, but I know of some quite long EP's... longer than some full-length releases.

I always saw EPs as both the number of tracks and length of release. Typically there are four to seven tracks spanning anywhere from 15 to 25 minutes. It varies really as indeed some EPs are longer than albums. Take Reverend Bizarre's EP 'Harbinger of Metal' which is near the 75 minute mark and Slayer's 'Reign in Blood' which is less than 30. EPs are usually put out as something to help you wait for the next full-length, at least in Metal. It also displays some extras. Take Behemoth or Vader's various EPs.

I have often wondered what determines an EP as well.Like you said C-Dub length isn't always the answer,take Dream Theater's "Change Of Seasons" for example it has 5 tracks and its about an hour long.

I've always though of an EP is something put out to tie you over until the release of a full length album or an album that contains only one or two new songs and alot of covers. That is why an album like A Change of Seasons is an EP because it only really had one new Dream Theater song on it so it was kinda difficult to call it an album.

EPs can allow the artist to try out some new and different ideas before committing to a full-length, which is really the purpose they ought to serve.

EPs have very few new songs. Some of them include live or mixed versions of older songs.

it depends on the way the band views it. the aforementioned reverend bizarre release was considered an EP because, despite its length, it included 2 covers and a few interludes to take up most of that time (can't be bothered to check my facts, but its something along the line of that). for this reason, the bands don't consider it a full-length album.

length or number of tracks are a factor but bare in mind that different types of music have different styles so this will vary depending on style. e.g. 30 minutes would be considered a full length album for a grindcore band because, for a lack of a better way of describing it, they cram more music into a shorter amount of time. 30 minutes would be quite a short album for most doom bands.

i don't think theres any real way of describing the difference between an EP and an album which perfectly sums it up. saying that one is longer is not necessarily true. i think whether something is considered an EP or a full-length album shoul be up to th band to decide fro mtheir point of view whether it offers a full effort from the band or whether its not truely representative of what theyare capable of making.

EDIT: this post was on the basis that we're not talking about worthless singles and stopgap releases.

I agree perfectly with Tommy here. It depends mostly on the view of the band.

Yup, I too agree with Tommy Tee. I think the band decides whether or not it's a EP or album.

mmm I strongly think there should be an objective way of determining when a release is EP and when Full-Length... a good parameter would be the barrier of the 30 minutes long, and the title of "EP" should just be a guide for people to know that is wasting hardly earned money in very short stuff...

There's absolutely no way, for example, to call Reverend Bizarre's "Hardbringer Of Metal" an EP

Some people call it an EP when it's one new song (and maybe several versions of that song) plus a remix of an old song and 2 live tracks (for example). This, in my eyes, is a single. It's fancy packaging for that one new song which will probably appear on an upcoming album.

For me an EP is a short collection of new songs, none of which are appearing on an upcoming album. Whether or not it includes some live tracks or "extras" doesn't matter to me, as long as there are several new songs that STAND ALONE it's an EP.

Some bands release very noteworthy EPs. Example: Within Temptation's "The Dance" or Forest Of Shadows' "Where Dreams Turn To Dust" are my favourite releases from each of those bands. The length doesn't matter to me as long as the song quality is there

Written by Guest on 22.08.2006 at 07:26

There's absolutely no way, for example, to call Reverend Bizarre's "Hardbringer Of Metal" an EP

this was because out of the 7 tracks, 3 are interludes and one is a cover.

It took a while before I noticed that Dark Moor's "Between Light & Darkness" was an EP. There are eight songs on it and they are all pretty long.

Written by -tom- on 22.08.2006 at 16:58

Written by Guest on 22.08.2006 at 07:26

There's absolutely no way, for example, to call Reverend Bizarre's "Hardbringer Of Metal" an EP

this was because out of the 7 tracks, 3 are interludes and one is a cover.

well, change Harbringer Of Metal for Return To The Rectory... it has a cover and a nopn.new song, but more than 50 minutes of new stuff... I love that album btw, the best of their discography... if they only had kept the original name meant for it (Reverend Bizarre Blesses You With Fire)

Yeah, EP's are generally shorter and contain tracks that you wouldn't normally hear on a full length. Abyssic Hate's most recent album has only four tracks, but goes for over 70 minutes. So number of tracks doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. EP's are a bit like singles as well.

i think that EP's are generally shorter and have covers, or live versions of previous songs on them

and yes, i think its the bands choice whether its an EP or a full length

Written by Guest on 22.08.2006 at 07:26

a good parameter would be the barrier of the 30 minutes long,

This is very arbitrary too, since that would EXCLUDE most grindcore acts' releases as full-lengths and it would also exclude THE CLASSIC THRASH ALBUM, namely Reign in Blood.
But the EP thing stems from the era BEFORE cds. EP of course stands for Extended Play and was seen as a longer version of the 7" single and a shorter version of a full-length album. Another difference between an EP and a full length album was the fact that a full length would be played at 33.33 rpm and an EP at 45 rpm.
The problem defining between an EP and a full-length emerged with the advent of the cd. A cd can hold up to 80 minutes of music no matter if it is called a cd-single, cd-EP, or cd-full-length. So nowadays it is up to the band to call their work either a cd-single, cd-EP, or cd-full-length. So, like in the case of Harbringer of Metal by Reverend Bizarre the band calls it an EP and sells it accordingly (usually at a lower price than a full-length)

Written by Warman on 22.08.2006 at 20:39

It took a while before I noticed that Dark Moor's "Between Light & Darkness" was an EP. There are eight songs on it and they are all pretty long.

I was about to mention the same album, i really think this should have been called a full-length, its all new material and long.

There are very short EP's but there are also very long EP's. A perfect example is the "Harbinger Of Metal" by Reverend Bizarre. In my opinion, that EP is better than the two released full-lenghts... Sometimes, some singles are also considered EP's because there are some versions and bonus tracks inside it...

In the past EPs were made on smaller disks, and LPs were the bigger format. Nowadays it's a matter of preference what the band wants. For example Crestfallen from Anatham is over 33 minutes. It could've been an album, too, and Reign in Blood could've been EP due its length. Rhapsody also has some 50 min EPs that I would call albums instead..
Also is a great matter of debate whether a release is EP or single. What differentiates these ones?

Singles are samples of a band's full-length releases for the promotion of a specific album centered around one particular song whereas EPs are (usually) seperate entities from an artist's LPs... and are created for various reasons: a preview of things to come, a departure of style for the artist, a brief collection of bonuses and rarities, etc.

I'd bet that there are some Singles which are longer than some EPs, so length is not an issue there as well.

But yes... it's the band who decides whether something is an EP or an LP, and the reasons for designation can vary widely, and length is usually irrelevant. While in the past it's true that the original difference between the two was length or the size of the disc, but now the definition has changed.

Written by Guest on 20.09.2006 at 19:07

...Also is a great matter of debate whether a release is EP or single. What differentiates these ones?

I've been wondering about that to...to me a single is a single song in different versions maybe with an extra track or two and an EP is an album with fewer tracks