What differentiates an EP from an Album, and should we treat them any different?

Please excuse the pedantic nature of this post. It's my nature to overthink things. That said, I have a feeling I'm not the only one here that does, so here goes...

This question has been on my mind this week. In this day and age when so many releases come out in digital format only, it's often not clear what is an EP vs an album. The original division was pretty clear, with albums being released on 12 inch vinyls, while EPs were mostly on 10 inch or 7 inch. Then we moved to CDs, and while the occasional band would put something out on 5 inch or even 3 inch CDs, the vast majority would be released on a full CD, regardless of the runtime.

With the original clear delineation gone, it came down to bands deciding themselves which of their releases should be considered a full length vs those that are EPs (let's not bring singles into this conversation). And here's where it gets quite sketchy. There are lots of releases under 25 minutes in length that are considered albums, and there are also lots of apparent EPs that have a running time of 40 mins plus.

So my main question is, what valid reason is there for an "album-length" release to be considered an EP? The obvious answer might be that a release that only has 2 or 3 new tracks, with the rest being made up of live material, remixes, covers or previously released tracks, shouldn't really be considered an album. You could easily argue that these sorts of releases should actually be considered compilations rather than EPs, but  regardless, I do think calling these albums would be disingenuous. An example of this is Vader's Reign Forever World. It has a running time of 32 minutes (which is longer than some of their albums), but is made up a 5 new tracks, 3 covers and 2 live tracks.

Let's go the other direction. Why is Deathspell Omega's Kenose release considered an EP when it has a runtime of 36 minutes while one of their albums (The Synarchy of Molten Bones) has a runtime of 29 minutes? Why is Jesu's Heartache release considered an EP, when it has a running time of just under 40 minutes? Want a more extreme example? Why is Reverend Bizarre's Harbinger of Metal release considered an EP, despite having a whopping runtime of 74 minutes. It's all fresh studio recorded material, and the two albums released just prior and after it have an almost identical runtime. Should we care what a band thinks their releases are? Saying something is the case doesn't necessarily make it so.

This all brings me to my real question, which is; should we take into account the label (EP or Album) or runtime of a release when judging it? If I judge a release purely on the quality of the tracks contained, is it fair to compare a short 15 minute release containing 3 or 4 tracks against a longer 50 minute release with 10 tracks? If an EP has four 5 star rating tracks, how do you compare that to an album with nine 5 star tracks and one 3 star track? Is the EP better because it contains nothing but 5 star tracks? Or should it be punished for containing so little material and therefore lowering the risk of an imperfect result? Perhaps a criteria could be applied, such as an automatic half mark deduction for releases under 20 minutes, but then certain styles of music would likely suffer more than others (grindcore vs funeral doom for example).

Has anyone else overthought this topic?

There are a couple albums in which I question their status as studio albums, the first two Daughters albums (and only ones metal enough to be in this site), Canada Songs and Hell Songs. Canada Songs follows the grindcore aspect of having 10 songs each with an average one minute in length. The 11-minute release is far too short to be a full-length album in my opinion. Hell Songs is only twice as long as Canada Songs, with a slightly more acceptable length to be a full-length album. Still I think of those two releases as one 34-minute studio album split into two sides, with each side recorded in a different time and style.

As for long "EPs", one example I can think of is Bring Me the Horizon's Music to Listen To... If it's over 75 minutes in length, why is it being marketed as an EP? Personally I think of it as more of a remix album sampling some songs from Amo. There are even a few long experimental tracks including "Underground Big {HEADFULOFHYENA}" which goes on for 24 minutes (only a minute longer than the entire Daughters album Hell Songs), with the last 3 quarters being a hypnotic loop caused by a computer crash and Sykes recording a monologue over it. Well, seeing how The Gathering's album Afterwords is considered a remix album and even an EP, I'll let it slide. Same with Post Human: Survival Horror for its short 32-minute length. But if Post Human: Nex Gen ends up in the same length as each of BTMH's first 6 albums or longer, I hope it will be considered a studio album way more than an EP...

Rightly or wrongly, albums are given much more weight in the rock and metal world and bands are generally judged on the quality of their studio album output. I am not saying that everyone views it this way, but the majority and certainly the "industry" do. As this is undoubtedly the case, I think the artist's view should have primary consideration as it is their work and vision which is being judged. If they feel that, for whatever reason, a release does not completely represent what they wish to convey, then I think they should have the right to designate it as a "minor" release, which is what the term EP has now come to imply. Even the case of Harbinger of Metal, it could be that these were old tracks that the band had been kicking around for years that they wanted the fans to have access to, yet didn't feel that they adequately expressed where the band were artistically at the time. True, to me, it doesn't sound out of place in their discography, but it is their vision, not mine.

Thus accepting that EP is merely a hangover term for a minor release from the heyday of vinyl distribution, it becomes obvious that length is irrelevant and it is all about artistic integrity. If a band wish to say, "this 15 minute release completely represents us as a band, where we are artistically, is important to us and is something upon which we wish to hang our legacy, so is an album", then so be it, who am I to argue.

Sonny nails it in the last paragraph and with "...the artist's view should have primary consideration as it is their work and vision". 

This makes it awkward for people who catalogue things because what if the artist releases something but never claims it to be a full release or not? I don't know if there's a good way to go about it. 

As for how to think about EP's versus LP's, it's something I definitely struggle with. I tend to like longer songs and more drawn out ideas, so when a Grindcore, Hardcore, or even a Thrash song comes in for a minute and a half and just ends, there's an unending, nagging feeling of 'what, that's it?' that I always get. That goes for albums too. I find myself having to shove my expectations away and looking at 10-20 minute projects for what they present rather than what I think they lack. Riff, chorus, riff, done and leaving the stage in 45 seconds? Not really my thing but I've been trying to get better about looking at it objectively. 

EP's are kind of the same way where I always seem to have a hesitation of giving full marks to 2 or 3 songs and saying it's a perfect project. It's the same reason why I don't like rating individual songs; I enjoy looking at things more holistically. This is where certain EP's definitely feel like EP's and others definitely feel like albums. I gave Hordanes Land by Enslaved a 4.5 and it feels like a full experience from start to finish in its 30 minute runtime. I wouldn't want to tack on anything else. Meanwhile, Worm released an EP called Bluenothing, which I gave a 4, but walked away from it more excited for the coming full-length than the actual EP. It's such a weird case-by-case basis.

I have never even given this a thought to be honest.  I just listen to what is in front of me at the time.  Doesn’t matter what legacy format terminology folks want to use to me, just consider them all “releases” and have done with it.

I think it depends on how much art they're willing to put in the release as opposed to how much effort.  I noticed on a usual basis that an EP will be shorter than an album even if the band is one of those speedy ten-second-song extreme hardcore acts that likes 15 minute albums, in which case their ep's will usually be five minutes.  Length is one optional representative part of it.  But in the long run, it really amounts to how much time an artist is willing to put into a single project as opposed to how much effort.  Thus, something shorter can possibly be better than something longer.  If you're willing to give someone a larger taste than a single, but don't have the time for a full album, I guess you should call it an EP.  Ore maybe the designation of the term "EP" really refers to the fact that this is a shorter album than whatever "epic new release" they're willing to put out?  But when it comes to a band overcoming their usual studio album length, then there's much less sense in it.  In other words, it's either an artistic choice or marketing gimmick at this point.

By definition, the term "LP" refers to "Long Play" & "EP" is short for "Extra Play" so it's pretty clear that an EP is essentially intended to be an extended single with an LP being a more significant release. These guidelines seem to have been completely ignored in more recent times since the limitations of the vinyl medium have been cast by the wayside but I can't say that I care too much if I'm being honest. I never concern myself with what an artist's intention was when I'm rating &/or reviewing their music. I simply put the headphones on & keep an open mind. I don't think the length of a release should have any impact on it's perceived quality either. The impact of three five-star bangers is the same whether it's in isolation on an EP or a run of the three tracks through the middle of a double album. Yes, it's harder to create a 50-minute five-star record than it is a 20-minute one but I strongly feel that my ratings should be about the average quality of the material included so it really doesn't matter whether it's an album or an EP in my opinion. Each release should be rated for what it IS rather than what it ISN'T & was never intended to be.

I completely agree that as far as rating a release goes, then the qualiity of what is in front of you is all that should be of concern. What I was trying to say in my post was merely that whether a release is considered an EP or album is a matter for the band, but this shouldn't influence it's rating as that is subjective and the artist's intention isn't really relevant. If I was rating a 7" single and both sides were brilliant, Bowie's Life on Mars? / The Man Who Sold the World for example, then I have no problem doling out a 5 star rating, so why should an EP with 3 or 4 brilliant tracks (or even one longer one) not also have a similar rating. Never mind the length, feel the quality!

The way I see it, a shorter album runs less risk of drying up.  This is often the case for bands that beat their own style to death.  This isn't always the case, though, because many eps will be a "taste" of wuat the band's about.  But it can happen.  The best example is how I consider the best Suffocation release to be Human Waste, because it's likely their heaviest and doesn't begin to run dry by the end.  This also marks the difference between No More Color abd Mental Vortex.

Having said that, it's not like I specifically need these albums to be short.  Take a look at my number 4 album of all time: Abbatoir Blues and the Lyre of Orpheus.  It's Nick Cave's longest album, but it covers the whole of Cave's genre-hopping while both remaining consistent and differentiating the two albums in waysthat compliment each other.  It all depends on how you use thr length.  Another example of perfection with great length is Soundtracks for the Blind.

Of course, thisis all subjective perfection.

The best example is how I consider the best Suffocation release to be Human Waste, because it's likely their heaviest

I would argue that Suffocation have several heavier releases than "Human Waste". It still included quite a bit of thrash influence in comparison to the pure savagery of "Effigy of the Forgotten" where the new tracks all upped the brutality on those taken from “Human Waste”.

I feel like Human Waste's potential thrash influence made it sound more evil than brutal, and thus the brutality of Human Waste felt more effective.  I mean, I love both, but as far as blasting pure evil out at you, Human Waste was louder and still left plenty of room for brutality and some technicality.

Thanks for all the responses. I think I'm going to have to face the fact that there's really no right or wrong way to assess these things. I'm one of those people that likes to apply a consistent criteria when rating. That's become particularly important while I'm attempting to rank all my favourite releases to finally be able to come up with a Top 50 or Top 100 style list.

I actually feel quite strongly that traditional EPs should be "taxed" for containing so much less content than regular full lengths. It simply doesn't feel right to me that an EP containing two or three tracks and a total run time of under 15 minutes could ever appear in my top 10 or 20 releases, just because all of the tracks contained are outstanding. Obviously not everyone feels that way, and that's just fine. What I am having to accept is that I can't treat all EPs or all albums in the same way. While Haunting the Chapel shouldn't be given the same weight as Hell Awaits, I have to admit that Deathspell Omega's Kenose probably should be given the same weight as any other Deathspell Omega album. I'm going to have to break out of my need for a consistent methodology and treat each release independently. It will hurt, but I reckon I can do it.

The change itself can be awkward, but look at it as a whole new form of enjoyment.

I pondered on this topic again while out for a walk today & surmised that you must down-rate a full-length album when comparing it with a double or triple album Ben. I mean, by your assessment above, it makes sense that it's much easier to create a single five-star album than it is a four-&-a-half hour epic. Or do you down-rate those for being too long?

Given you recently informed me that albums should never be over 50 minutes in length, I think we agree that there’s a sweet spot. Your sarcasm is noted though, and banked away until you’re least expecting it.

Personally, I'll downrate anything that feels too monotone.  Length itself is only a common factor in this, but even a 20 minute album can feel samey and unimaginative.  This is part of why I consider Reign in Blood inferior to South of Heaven, and more appropriately, Pleasure to Kill under several Kreator albums.  Of course, length itself is an element that can be used properly, if the musician is good enough, like on many slower metal genres such as doom.  My favorite example of this would be The Dreadful Hours.  Or course, the absolute best I can think of is William Basinski's Disintegration Loops.