A long album might have lots of filler that isnt meant for radio, but if the filler has a different sound, it'll branch out to more listeners. But if it's just the same generic crap, it's better left out. And the case is usually the latter, so I have to go with an album that's like the traditional 10 songs length.
It's analagous to dick size. It's better to use an average dick that knows how to do its thing than it is to use a big, long dick that's totally useless and sometimes painful to go through. And really short dicks (i.e. EPs) are just dumb and worthless overall.
quality over quantity. if the album's quality is seamless, it doesn't matter whether the album itself is short or not. heartthrob is a rather short album, for example, yet its every track has been crafted beautifully; conversely, bionic is very long, but it is, holistically, lackluster. here, the shorter album wins over the longer album. it depends on the quality of work
Anyways, I like longer songs but probably fewer songs. 10-12 songs is like the perfect replay value for me (maybe even fewer if they're really great, like TFM and Paradise). It tends to be more cohesive and stronger, and then leaves you wanting more when it's over.
the more good songs the better, so if the longer albums have more good songs, without breaking flow, then its better, but most artists arent able to write that many good songs and justify the length of long albums in such a short timeframe of recording, so shorter albums are usually better
I like albums that are like 12-15 songs long. There's always gonna be at least 1-2 filler songs in there, but any shorter than that, I feel gypped, and any longer I lose interest.
But then again if its gonna be filler tracks don't even bother. Like Pink Friday Roman Reloaded was 22 tracks but about 7 were fillers. Unorthodox Jukebox is 10 and every song is flawless