Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA
My point is that if bands or composers haven't been able to make their musical point in the first six minutes, then I don't expect them to do so after that time, and I don't have the patience to wait around and find out if I'm wrong.
|
What "musical point"? I don't listen to music to hear what point the artiste is trying to make: that's often clear from the title, if needed, or else from the first verse. It's seldom any song would go over six minutes before the artiste "made their point". Don't understand what you mean there.
Quote:
|
Recently I've been trying to listen to some 10 minute long metal songs, but when the last 4 minutes of the song are exactly like the first 6 minutes (which often seems the case), I don't want to listen to those final 4 minutes, since they offer nothing new.
|
Yeah, but then you apply that logic to ALL longer songs? If they go over your stated maximum length then they MUST all be songs that sound the same all the way through, so no point listening? Have you heard Iron Maiden's "Rime of the ancient mariner"? All thirteen minutes of it?
Quote:
|
I think my opinion on song length is a direct result of my personality: I tend to like to *do* things actively rather than sit still and absorb (music) passively. I almost never listen to music without multi-tasking, for example.
|
It's fine to multitask when listening to music, if that's your thing, though I prefer to listen as closely as I can. That's not to say I just sit there and do nothing else (I'm usually typing) but unless it's the album I'm reviewing or part of the piece I'm writing I usually find music can distract from my flow of thought, and thereby from the writing. But sometimes music just should be "soaked in", and for that the longer pieces do come into their own.