Judging the quality of an album based on its length isn't really fair. Like, yeah, you can wish there is more, but u can't say its a bad album and won't sell because its short.

There have been plenty of Great albums lately that sold that weren't that long. hell, look at the first Gnarls album. 32 minutes, but all 32 were golden, and that is a great album. Even the second one isn't that long and its still good.

WOuld u rather they put out the same album with a bunch of terrible filler tracks (knowing the roots, they would still prolly be good tracks) just to increase the length, while taking away from the cohesivness of the album? No, i want them to release an album that illustrates their state of mind and artistic presence at that point in time, which is what this is.

Are the songs good? yes. Does having a Solid track list of good songs make it a good album? yes.

But ur prolly gonna blow off my comments because of my low post count, and thats about as fair as judging an album by its length. Yeah, i don't post much, cause i don't see much worth posting, but your post is so utterly unfair and rediculous that i felt i needed to speak up.