Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA
No, I'm not saying they are talentless, since we aren't talking about talent but rather listener preferences.
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.
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.
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.
|
I very much agree with this and thank her for making the points so well. (It figures that the first two bands on her profile's list are two I like a lot.)
Also, to reply to someone else...
Quote:
|
I'm not necessarily talking about extended plays. But if you hear, for instance, the "radio" or "single" or "edit" version of a song you like, and it clocks in at, say 4 minutes, and you discover there's a seven-minute version on the album, you wouldn't want to listen to it? Or a longer instrumental perhaps?
|
Yes, in that case, I would. Edited versions often are inferior to the original. If only most of the extremely long songs were editable....
By the way, I have a similar attitude toward movie length - except there it's a rule more than guideline (very long means no, won't even start).
-----------------------------------------
Psst, there probably isn't any 6-minute Richard Marx song
It would be hard for me to excuse a solo artist making such a long tune.