Of course two great genres of music should be generalized and dismissed based on that fact :rolleyes: I'm curious, have you ever actually sat through an entire piece of classical music (for example), taking it all in before coming to the conclusion that it's 100% not enjoyable because it lacks vocals and is longer than 6 minutes?

I've got an idea - go listen to John Cage's 4' 33". It's perfect for you. Just the right length and there's no sound at all, complete silence except for ambient background noise.

You're not finding supporters because most people don't give two flying ****s about the length of a song.

That depends on the genre and especially what function it's used for. I would expect most dance tracks( non-mainstream) to last over 6 for instance :)

i've been getting more and more patient with extremely long songs

such as Miles Davis' live albums from the 70s

it's a breeze sitting through a 45 minute song

Yes, the title could have been different - and now I'm curious what the length preference here is - but that's not what I had in mind.

I didn't think of putting it in the Pop section. Yeah, there it would have gotten friendlier, though much fewer, replies. But I probably wouldn't have had any insights in the process - the section is like Pop itself, often shallow. Plus, I like rock, not just pop.

To answer the question, no, I wouldn't prefer a song I like to be longer. As a rule, I can't stand 12"ers and extended plays (which probably explains some of my hate for club music) - I have never deliberately played one from my collection, and if it's in there, the album wasn't bought for it. If I like a song, I listen to it and then am ready to move on to something else. Variety is my style.

A couple of other points....
I listened to the Sonic Youth song. I don't like Sonic Youth, and that changed nothing. At least it's fast-paced and mellow enough for me to mentally tune much of it out.

Yes, I have been exposed to lengthy stretches of jazz or classical. I remembered that my father used to listen to mellow classical or jazz in a den at night. To me, it was a strange, boring habit. Another relative liked to have classical music playing in her home - zzzzz. I'm not saying I could never like some types of jazz or classical, but it's like with long songs in the pop or rock format, I am not going to seek it out when I know the odds of enjoyment are low.

I agree with you completely.

I tend to dislike any song, any genre, that goes over 6 minutes. My ideal song would last no more than 4 minutes.

My feeling is that if musicians can't say what they want to say with their music in under 6 minutes, then they are unlikely to offer anything better in the minutes that follow.

I can handle a longer classical song that has short movements, but if any movement goes over 6 minutes I start to get bored and will often stop listening.

^ so you're saying if a band exceeds 3 or 4 minutes, they're talentless? That's really flawed logic

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 agree with you that a ten minute metal song can get a little repetitive and boring. But if I may, i'd like to post a few songs from one of my favorite genres that I find to often exceed 6 minutes and generally get up to 10 to 12 minutes.



I don't expect any of the videos I posted to change your mind, but I wanted to make my point a bit stronger.

I would think a long song would be better for multitasking, more time to get things done.

As I think 99% of us have made clear, there IS no length preference. Unlike you (and, it seems, one other), the length of the song has no bearing whatever on whether or not we enjoy it. I can quite happily listen to a 25-minute prog epic, if it's good and keeps my interest with changing melodies, themes and time signatures, as a 1 or 2 minute song. As long as it's done well, and I enjoy it, I care not one bit about how long it is, with the sole exception that if I really enjoy a song or piece of music and it's only a few minutes I would LOVE to hear a longer version.

Using the length of the song to decide whether or not it has merit is something unique which I have never until now come across.





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?


How in God's name do you "know the odds of enjoyment are low" if you haven't even listened to it? That's like saying oh I won't go and see that film because it's too long, I probably wouldn't like it! You're really just justifying your own criteria without putting them to the test.

You do say some odd things... :confused:

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.
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?
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.

You can bring a horse to water but ye can't make him drink.

Trollheart and I are on the same page point by point.

These comments are all as referred to OP, not you Vegangelica (WB!); I understand where you're coming from more than OP because my friend is the same way. But like I said earlier, there's always a time and a place for this sort of thing, where it's appropriate. Like car rides or doing chores around the house.

I don't feel like quoting it but the fact that OP said he tries to tune out the music that he is trying to listen to... it's a /facepalm "I give up before I really begin trying to help" moment.

I'm sure that this will turn out to be a phase later on. Maybe not, but there's a chance that something will break the barriers, but it's up to the listener.


Maybe the "Right Long Song" has not appeared...yet.

To be fair if the only long songs I had heard were by Richard Marx, Guns n Roses & The Eagles I'd probably hate all long songs too.

Yeah but that's what I don't understand: it doesn't happen that way.
If you hear a bad metal song (in your opinion) do you decide that's it, no more metal for me? It's as mad as saying that song was too long, so I won't listen to any more long songs. I just cannot wrap my head around it at all. What difference does it matter if the song lasts 2 minutes, 20 minutes or 2 hours? If I hate it, then it doesn't matter how long/short it is, I won't listen to it, but it won't stop me listening to others of the same length, and vice versa.

The only two reasons I look at length with songs is 1) when reviewing, as I like to see what's the shortest and longest songs, and if they deserve to be and 2) when an album has few tracks, I expect at least one of them to be over 10 minutes to make it worth while buying. Also, if I'm enjoying a song for the first time and haven't noted its length, I will probably look to see how much longer there is to go.

Other than that, I couldn't give a
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/im...FDDZwixTwFOodw

Now if we could just get you to apply this same line of thinking to all the "street music" you refuse to give a chance we'd be getting somewhere. :)

Like what, Jansz? I'm open-minded enough musically, but I do know certain styles of music I don't like: punk, hip-hop, gangsta rap, death metal and so on, so there's probably little point in trying any of those. I have, let's see, about close to a terabyte of a music collection on the PC, with perhaps half of that music I have yet to listen to, so I'm careful about what I try out.

Knowing my tastes, if you have anything you think I'd like and want to shoot my way, feel free, but remember I hate death vocals and I'm just not able to get into rap, does nothing for me at all.

Incidentally, I'm looking for guest reviewers for the journal: interested? ;)

I don't know, I'm just paraphrasing a comment I saw you make about why you've never listened to trip-hop I believe.

Heh. You're dismissing absolutely massive swaths of the music out there in these remarks. You don't see the parallels to what the OP is saying? How is "I'm just not able to get into rap" any different from "I'm just not able to get into long songs"?

Sure thing. Send me something and I'd be happy to do a little write up. :)

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...
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.

^You responded to the only person who agreed with you and refused to respond to anybody who is against your opinion. Yeah, i'm done with this thread.

I don't think I said that, as I've never been clear on what trip-hop is, and always lump it with hip-hop, which I'm sure is incorrect. Can you set me straight on that?
I'm aware of the irony, however I don't think it's the same thing at all. I know, from my own musical preferences, that I don't like those genres. There may be something in there that would surprise me, but it's not like I haven't heard them. OP is dismissing ANY music based on PURELY the length of the song, which I think is something totally different. Many people are not into certain genres or sub-genres, and I can of course accept and respect that, but someone dismissing ALL music purely because it's too long is something else again. Hey, look, I'm not Jackhammer, never will be. Keep that Grindcore away from me! :D


What would you like, or shall I surprise you? ;)

It was actually in the long-form bio you have linked to in profile. You were listing everything you consider "street music" and saying you didn't like any of it.

Anyway, to answer your question: "hip hop" technically, traditionally, refers to the culture which encompasses DJ-ing, rapping, breakdancing and graffiti, but more commonly is used as essentially a synonym for "rap music". Trip hop, while certainly influenced to some extent by hip hop, really doesn't have much in common with it. It's a type of downtempo electronica that has a kind of late night, noir-ish vibe and rarely involves rapping. There's actually a lot of it that's instrumental (though the following videos aren't). Here's an example of one of the most well-known trip hop songs, which you've probably heard before, "Teardrop" by Massive Attack:



And another fairly well-known example, "Overcome" by Tricky:




If you say so. I think it's pretty much the same thing though.


Surprise me with something I've never heard of. :)

Okay, now you've got me interested. I DO like that "Teardrop", and if that's what's seen as trip-hop then I may indeed have misjudged that genre. I'll give the other one a listen once these guys stop hammering, sawing, drilling and grinding downstairs: can't hear myself think.

Oh wait. Here we go.

I want a doughnut.

Thanks, brain. :)

Thanks, Ki, for the 6+ minute songs you offered to try to show that they aren't necessarily boring or repetitive.

I definitely preferred the first two (post-rock?) shorter songs, "Spirits Stampede" by Pg.lost and "Worlds in Collision" by God is an Astronaut, to the last longer one, "Zenith," by A Swarm in the Sun.

I felt the best part of "Spirits Stampede" is at 4:30 when the music becomes more energetic. I feel they could have edited out some of the earlier part of the song to reach that latter section sooner, thereby shortening the song and not losing much of its content.

Similarly, I felt "Worlds in Collision" (my favorite of the three) could have been edited down without much loss of the song's feeling or content. I like its pleasant beat and a soothing sound, but it is fairly repetitive. My favorite part was at 6' when a quiet piano section starts.

Such atmospheric music is perhaps intended for those who want to be carried away by the music's tranquility, and so I can understand why many listeners wouldn't mind the songs lasting longer than 6'. I did like both songs; I just thought they could have been made shorter, which I would have preferred.

However, I didn't like the longer song "Zenith" by "A Swarm of the Sun" at all. The song had a louder, more intense instrumental section at 2:49, which was nice, except that it went on with almost no variation in its sound for over a minute (!) until 4:40. Then the song dwindled down at 5:40 and became very quiet. I became hopeful that they would let the song die a natural death at that point...but no, they kept the song on life support, barely alive, before finally revitalizing it with lyrics and a louder volume until pulling the plug five long minutes later.

I think "Zenith" would have been much more effective if it were shorter.

Not if I fall asleep listening to it! :)

I mean more generally the concept that I perceive behind the song. I'm not just referring to the meaning of the lyrics, but to the main purpose of the pattern of sound.

For example, in my view many songs want to establish a mood as a main goal. If I sense the mood in the first four minutes, then I don't need six more minutes of that mood. Other songs seem to emphasize the cleverness of the composer and so I feel the song serves primarily to showcase intellect (I'm thinking of some emotionless but complex music by Bach). Some songs strive to follow rules, others to break them, and still others to do both.

Figuring out what I feel the song is about underneath all the sound we hear is what I mean by figuring out the point of the song.

You're right that a long song (over 10 minutes long) can offer something new at the end that I would miss if I stop listening after 6 minutes, but my feeling is that if the new part is so important, then the artist should have introduced it earlier rather than make me sit through so many minutes before getting to it.

If the first 6 minutes are mesmerizing enough and I lose all sense of time, then I may make it to the last 4 minutes of the song without any reluctance. Yet even with classical music, where it can be complex enough to keep my attention, I tend to lose interest after 6 minutes. I've probably played 40 concertos in my life, and they are great fun to play, but I find most of them boring just to *listen* to.

Now I have (unfortunately)! :D I did feel it was much too long musically. I'm wondering if perhaps Iron Maiden were inspired by concertos to create their song with three movements (fast-slow-fast) tacked together by the long lyrics that tell the tale of the ancient mariner who learns (through punishment) to value and love the lives of other beings.

Perhaps, but I don't feel there is one "right" way to listen to music. I just may not be a "soaker."

Thanks, Mrd00d! :)

the longer the better.

You like them long and uncut, eh?

Well... Let's find out..


Avantasia - The Scarecrow - YouTube


Damnation Angels - Pride (The Warrior's Way) - YouTube


Celtic Legacy - Resurrection - YouTube

Nope, after listening to all 3, they sound pretty good to me.. :)

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 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.



No, still don't get it. I listen to music for enjoyment, and also to hear well-thought-out lyrics. I like it to move me, but I don't ever feel that someone is constructing a pattern I have to recognise. Maybe Geekoid would be more in tune with what you're talking about, more on your wavelength.

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.






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. I guess I'll just leave it at that, and let others have their say, if anyone wants to continue pursuing the topic with you.
:soapbox: (Climbing down...)

Ok, now I've had a chance to hear that Tricky song. Yeah, it's okay (definitely not hip-hop: what a fool I am!) but didn't do a lot for me. I didn't hate it though, so maybe I'll look into more of this trip hop of which you speak. Or maybe not. Either way, thanks for sharing and for clarification of what the genre is. I had been wondering. :) :thumb:

yeah, and the more flute the better.

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.

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.

Never said I didn't respect her for that, I only stated that I don't understand her reasoning, etc.

It has nothing to do with length. There are boring songs that are 2 minutes, there are boring songs that are 10 minutes. Metallica's last two good albums (MOP and AJFA) consist almost entirely of songs in excess of 6 minutes, and are two of my favorite heavy metal albums.

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.

these days for me, the longer the better

as regarding prog, classical and jazz anyway

There's nothing more annoying than a good song that ends too soon... Well, except perhaps a crappy song that never ends. Anyway, I often end up listening to some songs I like on repeat for, let's say, an hour. It's not the same though, for I wouldn't want these songs to last for an hour. But yeah, agreeing with this:

except when it's 30 minutes of 4' 33"