Never heard double album that would not be better as a single album. Heard plenty of single albums that have been ruined by extending to being a double.
Agree their are deffo examples of that, but I think when a band has 3 or 4 writers in it, they can easily come up with sufficient material for a more than credible double album. You're basically talking a side each if you break it down.
Using Fleetwood Mac as an example, with 3 prolific writers, all in great contrast to each other Tusk could easily accommodate all that material into a double. However, years later when Christine McVie left, Nicks and Buckingham (the 2 remaining writers) argued over whether 'Say You Will' should be a double release,
They settled on a lengthy single album, even that over stays its welcome at times, without the important contribution of a 3rd writer, a double album was never a good idea for the band at that stage.
Obviously for a solo artiste, or a band with just one song writer, a decent double album is a far greater task, and it's a great credit to those who have achieved that.
