Anyone Else Dislike Most Long Songs?

Burning Down · 08-15-2012, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

Correct, I don't like classical. I also don't like jazz (though "Lily Was Here" is good). I'd blamed that on the usual lack of vocals, but now I realize length likely is a factor.

I like probably thousands of songs between 3 and 5 minutes in length. Those between 3:30 and 4:30 tend to be best.

I did listen to a little of that melody "Belfast Child" comes from. Meh. I then went back and listened to the Buckethead song. Mostly because I'd seen him praised on this site but had never bothered with his music before, as I doubted someone called "Buckethead" could be a great. I was wrong - very good guitar work there, and the other instruments on the track are good, too, and the thing flows and experiments nicely, so that it felt a few minutes shorter than its 8 minutes. Still, I'm not interested in seeking out lengthy pieces like that, because I'm almost always busy and have trouble concentrating on other things when listening to music (though that's one benefit of instrumentals, no distracting vocaals).

This thread was never about me convincing anyone or daring people to try to change my mind. To each his own, as long as people don't claim Rebecca Black or other cr*p is actually good. But I am surprised that I'm not finding supporters - radio and music television wouldn't be so full of 3-5 minute songs if that weren't the public's preference.

Of course two great genres of music should be generalized and dismissed based on that fact

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.

Turrattack · 08-15-2012, 06:38 AM

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

Howard the Duck · 08-15-2012, 07:01 AM

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

sopsych · 08-15-2012, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Well, surely the point about creating a thread that asks a question is that people will have differing opinions, and some will try to sway you to their point of view? A thread titled, for instance, "Who loves Gary Moore" or "Aren't the Darkness great", or whatever, will attract positive and negative replies. If your title had been, say, "Do you prefer shorter or longer songs" then maybe there wouldn't have been so much overtly negative reaction, but the fact that you are so entrenched in your opinion and discount so much good music for what is, patently, a crazy reason, is irking a lot of people.

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.

Quote:

Though again, as Janszoon says, we're all music aficionados, who aren't too bothered about chart music, the typical 3/4 minute hit single. Were you to have posted this in the pop section, chances are you'd have a lot more people agreeing with you, as people who are into pop/chart music generally prefer shorter songs, though of course that doesn't mean they would refuse to listen to a longer one: look at all those twelve-inch remixes and special extended plays that go on in clubs. Nearly everyone has a liking for longer tracks, even if only sometimes. After all, if you enjoy a song wouldn't you prefer it to be longer than 3 or 4 minutes?

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.

VEGANGELICA · 08-15-2012, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

I dislike most songs that exceed 6 minutes. Usually they're boring and repetitive or rambling. Anyone else agree?

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.

Key · 08-15-2012, 01:15 PM

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

VEGANGELICA · 08-15-2012, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki

^ 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.

Key · 08-15-2012, 01:33 PM

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 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.

Spoiler for youtube videos:

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

**Janszoon** · 08-15-2012, 01:39 PM

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

Trollheart · 08-15-2012, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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...

08-15-2012, 06:38 AM	#42 (permalink)
Turrattack Groupie Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 2	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 __________________ [self-promotion removed]

08-15-2012, 01:15 PM	#46 (permalink)
Key . Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 13,153	^ so you're saying if a band exceeds 3 or 4 minutes, they're talentless? That's really flawed logic