Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki
Please excuse my language but I really don't ****ing get it. What is the point in limiting yourself to the minutes or even hours of a song. You set yourself up for being completely biased against anything somebody throws at you that isn't within the time frame that you prefer. You know what the first thing I look at when I get introduced to a song or a band? Absolutely nothing. I listen to it. Whether they have a 15 minute song on their album, or a 1 minute song. I really don't care because the length of the song isn't the point, it's what the band wanted to create, and if I want to respect the band's work, I have to respect their choice to make long tracks or short tracks. And don't get me wrong, but I completely disagree with you on Zenith. That track is by far one of the best songs I have heard from that band, and I won't even bother showing you other songs from them because you'll come back with the biased attitude that you are conveying right now.
|
The point in limiting yourself to the minutes or even hours of a song is to limit the time you spend listening to music while maximizing your pleasure.
I'll try to explain my viewpoint in other terms so that you might understand it better:
I view songs as being like assorted chocolates in a box. I remember that when I was a child, I used trial and error to learn which chocolates I liked. This led to a lot of discarded, half-eaten chocolates. Later, I made my selection after reading about the characteristics of the chocolates. I found I tended not to like cherry liquor fillings. (Similarly, when I read that a song is 15 minutes long, I tend not to want to listen to it.)
I don't feel I have to eat the whole box of chocolates or even a whole chocolate candy out of some sense of obligation to the chocolate-maker. If I do try a piece of chocolate that has cherry liquor (a long song), and I find that I don't like the first taste (the first 5 minutes), then I don't force myself to eat the whole thing. And even if I like the chocolate at first, I usually find that I start to get sick of it if the chocolate bar is too big (just like I can start to get tired of a long song).
My point, contrary to yours, is that
we can respect a band's choice to make a song short or long, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to the whole song or even listen to the song at all.
My tendency to avoid or dislike longs songs has nothing to do with respect or lack thereof for the musicians. A song isn't the ruler of a single-party dictatorship where we are forced to give only adoration. Music is a democracy where we can express appreciation and criticism, and elect a different song when we want.
In fact, the musicians I know
like constructive criticism (when solicited). Giving them my honest opinion, such as by telling them if I feel a song is too long, actually shows my respect for them.
More about this issue of respect: do you feel you have to listen to all of
Robert Rich's two-and-a-half-hour song "Somnium" to show your respect for him? And, if so, given that he intended the song for people to listen to while dreaming/sleeping
or while awake, do you feel have to listen to it with your full attention to show respect?
If you choose not to listen to this song in its entirety, I won't feel your choice means you lack disrespect for Robert Rich's creative process. Perhaps your choice simply means that you have other ways you want to spend your time:
Robert Rich -- Somnium (Part 1 of 4)
This song lasts over two hours. Are you going to listen to it all?
Robert Rich - Somnium Part I - 1 Of 4 (Somnium) - YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
I have to say, I find it weird, unsettling and clinical/cynical (take your pick) that you break down a song into minutes and seconds that way. ALmost like reducing it to its components, uncomfortably like dissection really. Do you really feel you can't just let go and enjoy a song, regardless of length, without analysing it to death?
I know I have done this in reviews, but that's towards a purpose, and never specific minutes and seconds. I write things like "In the third minute there's a nice piano solo that lasts about thirty seconds, then the mood changes and for the next two minutes it's harpsichordal music until minute six, where the vocals come back in" and so on. [...]
I don't mean all this to sound confrontational or rude: I guess I just will never be able to see this from your side. It's totally alien to me to deconstruct a song (apart from for review purposes, as I mentioned) in order to be able to enjoy it, and length has no bearing on how I enjoy a song.
|
In answer to your question, yes, I can enjoy a song without analyzing it, but I find that analyzing *why* I like or dislike a song adds to my appreciation of it.
And yes, the song's length always has some impact on my feelings about the song. If you say it makes no difference to you whether a song lasts 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, or 100 years, I will think you are exaggerating your indifference.
By analyzing a song, I don't view myself as analyzing it to
death, but rather analyzing it to
life. After all, the musicians had to think about exact moments for entrances, exits, and other changes in the song, so my thinking about them, too, probably mirrors more closely the creative process of the song rather than just thinking about the song's emotional impact on me. Considering the nuances of the song is a way of REconstructing the song rather than DEconstructing it, in my view.
You find minutes and seconds to be cold and overly analytical? It is true that when discussing the length of a song and its sections, I prefer to be precise *and* accurate by giving the exact minute and second rather than use time approximations like you do.
My reason is that precision allows the description to be shorter while giving more information to a fellow listener so that she can, if she wants, go to the song and find exactly the portion to which I am referring.
Compare "After a nice piano solo from 3:15 - 3:43, the mood changes with harpsicordal music until 6:00, when the vocals reenter," to your longer, less precise description: "In the third minute there's a nice piano solo that lasts about thirty seconds, then the mood changes and for the next two minutes it's harpsichordal music until minute six, where the vocals come back in." I prefer my description. It's shorter
and has more content.
If it makes you feel better about my apparent aversion to length, notice that I don't mind reading or writing long posts *about* music. I just don't tend to like to listen to long
songs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
I also find your quote above, about essentially "couldn't they get to the point sooner instead of making me wait all this time" or whatever to be really insulting to the band and very very arrogant. Do you think they wrote that song just for you? It's been proven here that there are few people who get so hung up on song lengths, so it's reasonable to assume that any band writing a song would not take into account that someone is counting down the time, analysing the music and shaking their head while looking at their stopwatch! Surely it's up to them as to where they choose to place the various parts of their songs, and not you or I? And surely also, to GET to the "good part", a mood, theme, pattern has to be established? I find part of the fun is getting to that mood, not tapping my fingers, waiting for the good bit.
|
Please see my comments above to Ki about the issue of music criticism and respect for the musicians. We can respect a band's choice to make a song short or long, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to the whole song or even listen to the song at all, or avoid suggesting changes that we'd make if we had created the song.
Just like you have the right to criticize my method of critiquing music, I have the right to criticize music. Sharing opinions isn't inherently disrespectful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
I assume you're aware it's based on the classic poem? Well, yes, a lot of metal music is loosely based on classical, that's always been the case.
|
Yes, I'm aware. I don't care for Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" poem, either.
If it helps, you may like learning that song length is only one of many song qualities that impact the degree to which I like or dislike the a song. I have songs that I hate for a variety of reasons, not just length.
http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...-you-hate.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.
I think you should at the very least respect the fact she listened to the tunes you posted. I think she took a good approach to explaining why she prefers shorter tunes and even explained in detail how each song registered with her and how she would have liked them to change for the better.
|
Thanks for your support, Mr. Hale.
I actually listened to some of the songs twice, the first time to get a feel for the song, and the second time to note more carefully the sections that felt especially long to me. I was generous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom
It's almost impossible for a 2-minute song to be boring (but easy to be unfulfilling).
You're now picking on her instead of me since she's more eager to talk about her aversion to length, but I also agree on that point. I'd go further and say that is a big reason artists make long songs. Unfortunately, if they're trying to sell music, then they should know their audience and restrain themselves if the target audience is people like me, such as fans of music television or hits radio. To me, if a song is long, it needs to be lively, or else I won't want to wait it out.
|
We agree yet again, wisdom.
Following up on a comment you made earlier, I also feel that lengthening a short song I like will not make me like the song more, and in fact would probably decrease my appreciation of it.
Below is an example of a very short song that I love (in a genre I think you perhaps hate) that I feel would be less appealing if longer.
I love Behemoth's cover of Morbid Angel's "Day of Suffering" because this 2'10" song sounds to me like rage and defiance
feel. I would like the song much less if it were stretched out to ten minutes, because when I feel rage it is a short burst of emotion, rather than a long, drawn-out one. Hearing ten minutes of rage would get very old and tiring to me and wouldn't feel like rage as I experience it, since rage to me is a burst of seething malevolence that rushes quickly through me and then dies down quickly (as reason prevails...usually
). But for those two minutes that it lasts...it's quite a rush.
Behemoth -- "Day of Suffering" (Morbid Angel cover)
An example of a short song that I feel would lose its impact if it were longer
Behemoth-Day Of Suffering (Morbid Angel Cover) - YouTube
EDIT:
Another benefit of short songs compared to long ones is that it is easier to listen to a short song again and again to get the full impact and experience of the whole song, and this allows you more easily to tailor your listening experience to your mood.
For example, I've listened to "Day of Suffering" around 30 times while typing this post!