VEGANGELICA

Implying that one of our members lacks wisdom due to his or her listening preferences sounds like a personal attack to me.

I wish you would not turn a civil discussion about wisdom's preference for songs under 6 minutes long into a personal attack. Personal attacks violate MusicBanter policy.

* * *

I like our debate, Ki, and I appreciate your pointing out commonalities in our listening even as there are differences in our listening philosophy.

I can understand how you'd like a 10-12 minute song that builds to an incredible climax, but I prefer (with music) not to wait so long until the climax!

I think the main differences between your and my listening are that (1) you are more likely than I to listen to a new song from finish to end; (2) you are less likely than I to reject a song due only to its length.

My issue with your and Trollheart's descriptions and those of many others in this thread is that you discuss the virtues of listening to and liking music "regardless of length," and yet that seems unrealistic to me.

I also disagree with you on the idea of there being a "fair listen." I don't see listening preferences as having to do with fairness toward an artist or a song.

Finally, I don't agree with you that "bad listening" exists. When someone says she doesn't want to listen to the end of a long song, I just see that as a preference...a different type of preference than for a genre, yet still just a preference. Since people like their own preferences, then I feel their listening tendencies can't be bad because the way they listen to music isn't bad for *them.*

In answer to your question, when I confront songs I've never heard, before I listen to them I usually *do* glance at the length to see how much time I'll need, if I want to listen to all of the song. Occasionally I reject listening to a new song because it is over ten minutes long. More often I'll listen to the first two minutes and then decide if I want to hear the rest. So, no, I almost never look at the time *after* I've listened to the whole song.

I agree with you that if I don't listen to all of a long song, there may be times when I miss out on something wonderful at the end.

However, I am searching for songs that I like from beginning to end. If I already know after several minutes that I don't like the beginning, then it makes sense for me to move on to a song where I may like the whole thing. And if I like the beginning of the song but am starting to feel its length is unappealingly long, then it is reasonable to stop listening because I'm not enjoying it.

* * *

Yes, if I *really* wanted to listen to all of "Somnium," I could, although I don't think I'd listen to it in the shower like you might, getting all pruney. I have the song playing in the background as I type, and I'm on 35 minutes now, but I'm not paying much attention to the song, so I don't know if that really counts as "listening."

My point is that I don't feel like giving all songs my attention, and so I choose which I want to listen to and which to listen to in their entirety. Song length is one criterion I may use to decide if I listen to the whole song or not, because I've learned from experience that I tend to prefer songs under 6 minutes in length.

Your question about lengths of movies, books, and music is interesting, because I think the length of all three are usually chosen to fit average human preferences based on our physiology.

I love music, but I feel it offers less conceptually than a movie or a book, and so it makes complete sense to me that I will get more easily bored by long music than I would by a movie or book. (I did feel Lord of the Rings got boring, but I paid, so I stayed.)

Songs usually aren't 2 hours long. Why? I think the reason is that most people would get bored by such a long song. Some people, like wisdom and I, also tend to be put off by songs longer than 6 minutes. Perhaps we prefer more stimulation, more variety, more sense of a quick resolution than is offered in a longer song. I also find that too much of even a good thing can become unappealing. Spending three days at an amusement park can lead to fatigue, boredom, and lack of enthusiasm by day three. Long songs tend to feel to me like day three at an amusement park.

Also, what I like about music is that it offers a quick tap into emotion, which I feel is the power of music. Music stirs the emotions faster and more intensely than almost any other creative endeavor of people. This is the reason a short song works best for me: I can "absorb" an emotion from a song in a short time, and so I don't need or even want the song to be longer. My favorite songs feel like musical poems, stirring my intellect, rousing my emotions, reminding me that I and others are alive, all in a very short time.

I *do* sometimes jump ahead to find out the ends of books when I don't like them very much and just want to get it over, but rarely with books I like. I tend to avoid reading books that are longer than 400 pages, because I don't want to wait that long to get to the end and grasp the whole story.

* * *

Oops...I should have said that *Part 1* of Somnium lasts 2:35. You are right that the whole album lasts almost 7 hours.

* * *

I'm not exaggerating, potential vampire. I wrote that *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. I am not putting of words in your mouth but instead am constructing an if/then statement based on claims you had made that song length makes no difference to you.

I'm glad to hear that you understand why a person might not wish to listen to a song that lasts 1 day or 100 years, because I feel that until now you and others in this thread have been exaggerating when they say that song length makes no difference to them, or that length has no bearing on how they enjoy a song...which was written by someone whom you, upon reflection, might recognize (if you can see him in the mirror ):

* * *

Heh heh...I *thought* you would hate Behemoth's "Day of Suffering" for the scream-singing (because I read you don't like scream-singing), but since it is a short song I thought you'd actually listen to it.

I'm glad you appreciated my point about how song length may relate to natural or preferred expression of emotion, as you put it, and you even think this point is one of the best you've ever seen on this forum! Preen, preen, purr.

Just like you, I like music for getting me into moods that feel real, after which (following the catharsis of emotional experience) I can go away and focus elsewhere. I *also* dislike extended club mixes because they feel like maniacal, forced, singled-minded happiness, and that irritates me, as do other aspects of the style, such as the never-ending, pounding beat going on and on and on.

Since I thought you wouldn't like "Day of Suffering," I had a second song in the wings (one I thought you *would* like) ready to share with you to demonstrate your point that lengthening a short song you like does not automatically improve it but often makes you like the song less:

Pulp - "Common People" (4:15 minute version)
I love this 4 minute song, but I find its 7 minute extended version less compelling. The longer version feels rambling and has less punch, less pent-up frustration building up to release. A volcano that erupts violently after a short buildup or warning is more exciting than one that spits and steams for 10 years before finally exploding.


Pulp - Common People - YouTube

__________________