To perhaps quote Janszoon: good grief! So your new criterion is that if the song was a hit it's exempt from your logic? Oh, most long songs start off badly (I'm aware I'm not quoting you verbatim, but the spirit is the same) unless they're hits? Because, of course, if they're hits then it's far harder for you to prove your premise. That's just ridiculous. If you have a conviction then it should stand, or fall, regardless of the popularity of a song, or its lack of same.
But you asked for them, so here they are: four long song which were not hits, which you probably don't know (and in all likelihood won't listen to all the way through) which start off well.
First is Rainbow's "A light in the black", a classic metal tune from 1976 with the late, great Ronnie James Dio on vocals. Total time: 8:13.
You can't call that not interesting. Powerful, heavy drumming and guitars from the very start, and it more or less continues the same all the way through, with a superb guitar solo from Ritchie Blackmore at 2:40 which goes on to 6:09, that's almost 4 minutes --- wasted? On a guitar solo? Are you seriously telling me that were that solo taken out, the song reduced to 4 minutes and change, that the song would benefit from it?
Then there's Mostly Autumn, prog rock band who have so far as I know never had anything close to a hit single. This is called "The gap is too wide". Total time 11:39.
Opens with a gentle aoustic guitar then swelling strings, into a gorgeous violin piece with no vocals coming in until almost a minute and a half in. A slow start, but uninteresting? Really? You would not feel an urge to hear how the song develops?
This is prog metal band Threshold, with a song called "Narcissus", total time 11:17.
After a powerful guitar opening it settles into a great little groove which changes halfway through, a nuance you would completely miss if you decided it was too long and stopped listening, as it seems you would.
Finally, this is No-Man, whose song "Truenorth" is gentle piano mostly throughout, but does change as it goes along. Total running time 12:52.
None of these songs are well-known outside their fanbase, and outside of people who enjoy this sort of music, but I think they adequately illustrate the point that your claim that "most long songs start badly" (again, not a direct quote, don't sue me) is just totally unresearched, unsupported and, well, just wrong.
If you want to find examples of songs that DO start badly (again, subjective so how would you prove it?) feel free, however in this as in everything to do with music there are exceptions, so for every song you could find that starts "badly" I can find two that start "well". Doesn't prove I'm right if I say most long songs start well, but then, I didn't say that, so really, over to you, wisdom. The burden of proof, as they say, is on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom
"Most long songs," so your premise is wrong.
Yes, I would prejudge if given the chance to listen to a song that I know will be long. I would also prejudge on familiarity with the artist, suspected genre, song title (for example, if it's a cover).... The concession to my 'critics' is that, yeah, I'd probably listen to the beginning of almost anything (not foreign language, jazz, or classical) if I know it won't be long.
In the real world, I'm rarely exposed to music that way. I mostly hear music through music television or Music Choice, where song length is not listed.
Those songs were hits. If they didn't start off "nicely" - maybe "interestingly" is a better word - they probably would not be enough for the general public to tolerate their length or maybe for mainstream radio to give them a chance. Show me a few lengthy album tracks, and I probably will be able to point out that they get off to a lousy start.
For the most part, music that is good follows a vague formula or maybe one of a few formulas. Long songs tend to disregard that.
|