I was brought up in the era of the high-tech vinyl LP, where much effort often seemed to go into producing as long an LP as possible. Soon, of course, came the CD where one selling point was being able to cram much more music in than the LP ever could.
Those are a few of the reasons I have to fight a definite (though irrational) sense of embarrassment producing something like Trek, which is not very remarkable length-wise. But you should of course be aware that your formative years are never more significant than anyone else's!
The point is that while mega-albums may have been the order of the day during my teenage years, things were very different in the sixties and early seventies. Many famous bands you feel were around forever and must have a humongous output really, er, didn't. If you'd like a different perspective on the concept of "impressive body of work", let's have a look at Simon and Garfunkel, for instance.
Total number of "proper" studio albums produced: 5. Album lengths:
Wednesday Morning 3 am - 31:31
Sounds of Silence - 29:13
Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme - 27:54
Bookends - 29:41
Bridge over Troubled Water - 36:46
(forgetting for the moment sound tracks and solo albums...)
So, a total output of about two and a half hours there... and only one album substantially over half an hour long.
Now, if one of the top ten LPs of all time didn't need more, then why should mine? In fact, "Trek" is now also exactly 36:46 until the music stops - the four extra seconds on the final song is just letting all levels drop to zero from the final note!
All in all, I feel much better now!