No, because it's not music, just noise! 

I know this topic is a few years old but here's my two cents:

I really liked Beyond the Pale. Didn't have a problem with the amount of songs or song length, but what I did have a problem with was how half the album were released as singles. Releasing three singles is fine when a record has over ten songs, because there's still plenty of to-be-revealed stuff to keep people interested. If a record is under ten songs long I think it's pretty risky.
All the reviews seem very positive except for Pitchfork who gave it a mediocre score. That being said, each magazine has a different audience and this context is important to any review. Just looking at a general summary of Pitchfork's top tracks and albums of the year makes me think I'm far from their demographic. I've got more in common with mags like the NME, Uncut, Under the Radar and Q (RIP).

To me, 'House Music All Night Long' was the most conventionally single-ish in its structure. It has enough developments and changes in the instruments (adding, subtracting layers, and whatever) for it to sound like something you'd actually hear on the radio. Not that radio-friendliness is a way to tell if a song is truly good, but its a good judgement of whether something works as a pop single. A standalone song.
Split the song up into quarters or thirds and if the energy changes in each segment (with the climax typically in the last minute) then it'll make a palatable radio pop single. 'Must I Evolve?' has this feeling but I think 'Save the Whale' should've been saved for the album or made a b-side instead of those remixes.

I know nothing about music theory but this is just what I've noticed from listening to pop radio too much.
Also I've written in past tense to describe how I felt at the time. I still do like Beyond the Pale. The single releases don't impact the album's sound or anything but it did impact how I received/felt about the album.