Anyone Else Dislike Most Long Songs? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2012, 10:00 AM   #191 (permalink)
Born to be mild
 
Trollheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
Dio was a lousy singer, and his songs are lyrically vapid and repetitive; length magnifies all those flaws. He wasn't exalted by many until he was old.
If I had any respect for you at all, it rapidy diminished with each new confused and unfounded comment. But this, sorry to be rude, but this crap above: that's it. I'm out of here. You have nothing to say to me and you have no place in an argument like this if you think you can make a comment like that. You don't even say in my opinion (though it is only yours). Dio has been univerally hailed as one of the strongest, most talented and most influential voices in metal, and for you to put him down with a pithy comment like that with no basis whatsoever just takes your arrogance to levels I can't even deal with anymore.

I'm done with this so-called debate. You're welcome to it.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
Trollheart is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 10:16 AM   #192 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: indoors
Posts: 722
Default

Haha, sensitive fanboys. Metal isn't a genre where good singing is required, and good singers in it have names like "Rob Halford" and "Bruce Dickinson." Maybe Dio's voice was strong (not sure about the last decade) and apparently the "enunciation" was above-average, but his voice didn't sound good. Perhaps I assessed the writing harshly, but the lyrics lack emotional substance, period. Metal standards for lyrics are pretty low. Was Dio long regarded as a metal great? Maybe, maybe not. But metal fans are a small subset of music fans. [move to a Dio thread?]

Last edited by sopsych; 08-22-2012 at 10:23 AM.
sopsych is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 10:56 AM   #193 (permalink)
The Aerosol in your Soul
 
Rjinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New South Wales, Australia
Posts: 1,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
If I had any respect for you at all, it rapidy diminished with each new confused and unfounded comment. But this, sorry to be rude, but this crap above: that's it. I'm out of here. You have nothing to say to me and you have no place in an argument like this if you think you can make a comment like that. You don't even say in my opinion (though it is only yours). Dio has been univerally hailed as one of the strongest, most talented and most influential voices in metal, and for you to put him down with a pithy comment like that with no basis whatsoever just takes your arrogance to levels I can't even deal with anymore.

I'm done with this so-called debate. You're welcome to it.
Told ya.
__________________
last.fm
Rjinn is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 12:32 PM   #194 (permalink)
Key
.
 
Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 13,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
Haha, sensitive fanboys. Metal isn't a genre where good singing is required, and good singers in it have names like "Rob Halford" and "Bruce Dickinson." Maybe Dio's voice was strong (not sure about the last decade) and apparently the "enunciation" was above-average, but his voice didn't sound good. Perhaps I assessed the writing harshly, but the lyrics lack emotional substance, period. Metal standards for lyrics are pretty low. Was Dio long regarded as a metal great? Maybe, maybe not. But metal fans are a small subset of music fans. [move to a Dio thread?]
The fact that you can't see that Dio was a great singer proves to everybody in this thread that you have no idea what you're talking about. And good singing is pretty normal in the metal genre. Take a look at power metal, progressive metal, and heavy metal. Bands like Theocracy, Symphony X, Myrath, and the like all have fantastic singers.

Stop while you're behind, otherwise you're going to get eaten alive.
Key is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 12:55 PM   #195 (permalink)
Born to be mild
 
Trollheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
Haha, sensitive fanboys. Metal isn't a genre where good singing is required, and good singers in it have names like "Rob Halford" and "Bruce Dickinson." Maybe Dio's voice was strong (not sure about the last decade) and apparently the "enunciation" was above-average, but his voice didn't sound good. Perhaps I assessed the writing harshly, but the lyrics lack emotional substance, period. Metal standards for lyrics are pretty low. Was Dio long regarded as a metal great? Maybe, maybe not. But metal fans are a small subset of music fans. [move to a Dio thread?]
I'm really coming close to telling you where to go. You're so full of it it's just sickening and you can't see anyone's view other than your own. I've never known such obstinate arrogance in my life, particularly from someone who plainly hasn't a clue about the genre, making (another) stupid and ill-informed comment like the one bolded above.

But just so you can see you're wrong and it's not just my opinion, read the third sentence. Unless you're afraid to see how many people disagree with you.

Ronnie James Dio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now I'm off before I get into trouble with the mods. Have a nice life.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
Trollheart is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 12:58 PM   #196 (permalink)
Born to be mild
 
Trollheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki View Post
The fact that you can't see that Dio was a great singer proves to everybody in this thread that you have no idea what you're talking about. And good singing is pretty normal in the metal genre. Take a look at power metal, progressive metal, and heavy metal. Bands like Theocracy, Symphony X, Myrath, and the like all have fantastic singers.

Stop while you're behind, otherwise you're going to get eaten alive.
Ki man, don't even bother. This is plainly someone who is only interested in their own view and not prepared to listen to arguments in a mature way. Let the thread die and be forgotten, which is what it deserves. I'd waste no more time on it if I were you. Better things to do.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
Trollheart is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:15 PM   #197 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
Dio was a lousy singer, and his songs are lyrically vapid and repetitive; length magnifies all those flaws.
[/I]
Now you're just coming across as the forum brat, the above statement alone shows that you really don't know that much about music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
Haha, sensitive fanboys. Metal isn't a genre where good singing is required, and good singers in it have names like "Rob Halford" and "Bruce Dickinson." Maybe Dio's voice was strong (not sure about the last decade) and apparently the "enunciation" was above-average, but his voice didn't sound good. Perhaps I assessed the writing harshly, but the lyrics lack emotional substance, period. Metal standards for lyrics are pretty low. Was Dio long regarded as a metal great? Maybe, maybe not. But metal fans are a small subset of music fans. [move to a Dio thread?]
Most metal fanboys are not really that sensitive on this forum and by singling out two of the most famous vocalists in metal, it really shows just how liimited your knowledge of the genre really is.

I saw the start of this thread where you were whining on about disliking songs over 6 mins, then you didn't like very short songs either, I don't know what you were bleating on about in the middle section as I haven't read that and now you're getting your knickers in a twist over metal. There really is a time and place for everything and all you're doing now is just making yourself look dopey, just be a good boy and sit the rest of the thread out.

As for metal not really requiring great singers, I'll have to cut and paste that one, for when I need a good laugh in the future.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by eraser.time206 View Post
If you can't deal with the fact that there are 6+ billion people in the world and none of them think exactly the same that's not my problem. Just deal with it yourself or make actual conversation. This isn't a court and I'm not some poet or prophet that needs everything I say to be analytically critiqued.
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History
Unknown Soldier is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:29 PM   #198 (permalink)
Facilitator
 
VEGANGELICA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 2,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
I'd like to take issue (now that the sun has gone down and I can stalk the night!) with your implication that I'm making a personal attack, because I do not do those sort of things. The comment was a tongue-in-cheek one, but because of all the, really, negative feedback the OP was giving, it did occur to me that taking the name "wisdom" when you're only prepared to see your own point of view was a little rich. However, it was a joke and if you or the OP took offence at it I do apologise.
Anyway.... gaze into my eyes ... you cannot look away ... you did NOT hear me make a personal attack... you did NOT hear....
Oh wait, while I'm at it: You will LISTEN to long songs... You will listen... damn! Must be losing my touch!

But to your other points: I'm really not sure why you find it impossible to believe, but the length of a song has ZERO impact on whether I enjoy it or not. [...]

I truly don't understand why you would believe that I, and others like Ki, would not care a bit about the length of the song. We don't. I don't.
Thanks for addressing your comments about wisdom's wisdom. From my perspective, it has appeared that people in this thread are taunting him for his preferences and opinions. When I see a peckfest, I err on the side of caution and jump in to take a stand.

I can understand that you, in your experience, have never heard a song that you disliked because of its length.

I am, however, skeptical that you or Ki or others who like songs "regardless of length" would not get just a little bit bored by an extremely long song such that you started disliking the experience of listening to it. You may not have heard such a long song yet, but one could be out there.

Can you imagine getting bored while listening to an extremely long song simply because of its length? If so, then our only difference would be in how long a song has to be before we start feeling some negative feelings about it because of its length.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
Oh, and one more thing, because this really annoyed me: you can't just qualify a mistake or misquote by saying "I put IF in front of it" and think that makes it a reality. I did NOT say anything about songs 100 years long, and to say I did, and then go back and say "Oh I just said IF you said it" and think that is ok is like me saying well if you said you hated Spanish people for instance. No, you didn't say it, but does that give me any right to suggest you may think this way? No it does not, because there is nothing at all to base such a supposition on, just as there is no evidence I ever spoke of songs lasting in terms of years.
I can understand your feeling annoyed if it were true that I had misquoted you when I wrote the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
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.
However, I was not quoting you, Trollheart, but instead was creating a conditional sentence, which is a sentence discussing a hypothetical situation and its consequences. Conditional sentences contain two clauses, such as in this example: "If it rains [condition], (then) the picnic will be cancelled [consequence]." Conditional sentence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wrote the above conditional sentence because I wished to test your limits to see if a song could ever get so long that it might feel excessive to you and reduce your appreciation of it.

I suspect I would get bored if I had to listen to a song that lasts 100 years, and its length would reduce my pleasure while listening. The reason I make this prediction is that I have discovered, through experience, that the longer a song lasts after around the five minute mark, the more likely I am to experience one of the following:

(1) Boredom or irritated, even if I like the long song's sound;
(2) A sense that the long song is disjointed and meandering, with its various parts no longer relating very much to each other because there are so many parts; or
(3) A sense that the long song is too repetitive, if the artist chose to use repetition to make the song so long.

A long song either has to include a lot of variety OR become repetitive (repeating sections or stretching them out for many minutes)...or both!...to create its long length, and I find too much variety and too much repetition in a song to be unappealing. How I define "too much" is subjective and reflects my preferences.

* * * * * * *

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki View Post
I suppose it's just a matter of patience. You and I are different in that sense. You want to hear what you are supposed to hear from the song right away, whereas I am not worried about waiting a couple extra minutes. Also keep in mind that I listen to music that would be deemed as very repetitive, but over the last year or two, i've realized that it's 95% worth the wait. Even if the song is 10 minutes long, and the climax is within the last 2 minutes.

Length never comes into play when I listen to music. In the time that I have been exposed to music, (and I would wager that's been the last 16 years of my life) i've never once thought to look at the length that it would take for the song to be over, I listen to the song to enjoy the music.
I feel you have summarized our differences in listening styles very well, Ki.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki View Post
What is so unrealistic about liking music? Isn't that what you're supposed to do? I still have not been convinced that the length of the song has anything to do with how much you like the music.
It isn't unrealistic to like music; it is, in my opinion, unrealistic to claim that the length of a song can have no effect on your enjoyment of the song.

As with my analogy that I offered to Trollheart, if you had to listen to one artist's 100-year-long song (or if that seems too excessive to you, imagine a song that takes 1 day to listen to), can you imagine getting bored by doing the same activity for so long such that your pleasure in the song is reduced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki View Post
I'm still waiting to be convinced that the length of the song is a deciding factor, because regardless of the debate i'm in with wisdom and vegangelica, I have still been given no proof to believe that it has anything to do with how one listens to music. If it's just personal preference, I can understand that. But i'm not seeing any proof.
Yes, whether someone finds a song to be "too long" or "good" or "bad" is just personal preference and is subjective. No "proof" can be provided for an aesthetic opinion. (That's my opinion! )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki View Post
Really? So you've listened to all long songs and concluded that they don't start off nicely? I think you're missing quite a bit of good music but you're refusing to listen to them. Oh well.
This observation cuts both ways.

You will have a finite amount of time in your lives that you will spend listening to music. If you spend more of that time listening to longer songs, then you will miss out on hearing a larger number of shorter songs. If you spend less of that time listening to longer songs, then you will miss hearing the ends of longer songs, but you will have spent more time listening to shorter songs. With either music listening style, you will miss quite a bit of music that you might have liked.

* * * * * * *

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
Time alone isn't the deciding factor. That's a strange conclusion from some readers. It is a cheat I use based on experience, that's all, and again the standard length of popular songs suggests there's something almost universal about it.

I think my "no boredom in 2 minutes" claim is pretty hard to argue. To become mind-numbingly dull takes time. That could make for interesting research beyond the world of music.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
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.
Formulas distinguish music from random noise made without intention, and so I feel you make a valid point by noting that music follows at least some formulas or conventions (even if it it is just the convention of trying to break conventions! ).

I prefer a musical form that has a certain mixture of pattern (repetition) and variety. I have found that, in my experience, long songs tend to have either too much repetition or too much variety for my tastes (and sometimes both!), and their length exacerbates those problems.

I don't view songs as inherently "good" or "bad," but I definitely prefer certain songs to others, and I tend (as you know) to dislike longer songs.

I think biological reasons exist for people's responses to songs based on their length:

(1) Our brains tend to "tune out" repetitive or constant stimuli, such as an unchanging sound or smell so that we are no longer aware of them. If a song becomes too repetitive, which can be the case with long songs since they have a longer time than short songs to *become* repetitive, my brain starts to tune it out, and I find the song less interesting:

"The brain is interested in changes that it needs to react or respond to, and so brain cells are charged with looking for any of these differences, no matter how minute. This makes it a waste of time registering things that are not changing."

BBC - Future - Science & Environment - Adaptation: Why your brain loves to tune out

(2) Our brains search for pattern in the noise of stimuli.

If a long song has so much variety that it is hard for me to detect a relationship among its parts, then I tend to dislike the song because I miss finding a pattern or rationale for the song's structure. A long song that aims to provide a lot of variety can pack in much more variety than a short song and so is more likely to feel meandering and disjointed to me than a shorter song.

(3) People get bored, and so it makes sense (to me and you) that the length of songs can relate to listeners' sense of boredom:

"Scientists have found that our perception of boredom can be affected by our sense of passing time, which is managed by the frontal cortex in the brain." What happens to our brains when we're bored? - Curiosity
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"

Last edited by VEGANGELICA; 08-22-2012 at 01:53 PM.
VEGANGELICA is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:30 PM   #199 (permalink)
Key
.
 
Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 13,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
Ki man, don't even bother. This is plainly someone who is only interested in their own view and not prepared to listen to arguments in a mature way. Let the thread die and be forgotten, which is what it deserves. I'd waste no more time on it if I were you. Better things to do.
I figured i'd protect my side if anything. But you're right. Debating with somebody who isn't willing to debate isn't much fun.
Key is offline  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:36 PM   #200 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
As for metal not really requiring great singers, I'll have to cut and paste that one, for when I need a good laugh in the future.
On this point, I think I actually have to agree with wisdom. Most of my favorite metal has very little emphasis on the vocalist or has no vocalist at all, so at least for me, the genre really doesn't require good singers.
Janszoon is offline  
Closed Thread


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.