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 08-19-2012, 02:22 PM   #121 (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 rostasi View Post
Does anyone else here see the irony behind calling oneself "wisdom" with the description, "music addict" while really being quite limited when it comes to listening?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki View Post
I think someone mentioned that earlier in the thread, but yes, that is quite ironic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
And sorry, but I have to say this: based on your judgement shown in this thread, your username doesn't seem very appropriate...
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.

* * *

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki View Post
To respond to the first bolded part in your response, I find pleasure in any sort of music whether it be short or long. In my experience, i've seen that if a song reaches to 10 to 12 minutes, it starts off a bit slow, but gradually gets better reaching an incredible climax. Again, just in my experience. So I disagree with you on finding pleasure in music by limiting my listening time.

Onto the second bolded point, we do agree partly on something. I get that you don't have to listen to the entire song to make a good opinion on it, but I find it beneficial to give the whole song at least a trial run just to see how it sounds the first time, regardless of the length. I don't know if you mentioned in your post but I feel like you did, do you limit yourself before listening to a song? Or do you look at the time of the song after giving the music a trial listen? I'm hoping you lean more towards the second question because any song by any artists at least (and i'm sure you can agree) deserves a fair listen. Even if you don't want to listen to the whole album, that's fine. However, not listening to a whole song strictly based on the time without even knowing what the rest of the song sounds like is a case of bad listening in my honest opinion.

If I may add, I don't find your listening style or your style of discarding music any worse than I would find my own. I don't want you to think i'm attacking your points either, it's a bit of debate if anything regardless of how it comes by. Even with your post though, I still don't get why one must limit themselves with music. As you say, it is strictly democratic and you have the free will to listen to whatever you like. However, there has to be a trial session somewhere, though I feel like you probably already know that just by the looks on how you listen to music today.
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.

* * *

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrd00d View Post
Great analogy, but, just my two cents:

(to the bolded): At least once, right? I mean, at some point in your life you should be able to set aside the time to hear it. Maybe a road trip, maybe laying on the beach or in the park with headphones while sunbathing. Am I right? Am I wrong? If you feel the song deserves merit/attention but is too long to ever hear regularly, you know there's odd times where you could be multitasking that tune in. Perhaps.

Like a movie... did you walk out of the theater when you watched Titanic or Lord of the Rings because it was far over 2 hours? Do you skip chapters of good, long books to get to the better parts or the end? Music, movies, and books take time to consume. Just which tome is the question... that's where multitasking comes in..
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.

* * *

Quote:
Originally Posted by rostasi View Post
Actually, Somnium is 10 seconds short of 7 hours in length, but carry on...
Oops...I should have said that *Part 1* of Somnium lasts 2:35. You are right that the whole album lasts almost 7 hours.

* * *

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
Who's exaggerating now? And please stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything further than a song of 2 hours, which, to be fair, if I enjoyed it and had the time, I would listen to. 100 years? Well, unless I'm a vampire and can live forever... er... never mind. You didn't hear that from me. What? Is that the sun on the horizon I see? Excuse me....
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 ):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
Unlike you (and, it seems, one other), the length of the song has no bearing whatever on whether or not we enjoy it.
* * *

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
I hate that song (for the scream-singing).

But VEGANGELICA's point is one of the best I've ever seen on this forum: linking song length to natural/preferred expression of emotion. Like why rageful songs often are short bursts, while most sad songs last from maybe 3 to 6 minutes and build more slowly. Maybe happy people feel that way for long periods, but I don't (unless I just 'won' something) and extended club mixes do not reflect my emotional state and therefore feel forced and irritating (though there are things about the style that bug me). I like music for getting me safely into moods that feel real and then go away so that I can focus elsewhere. I usually don't want 'easy listening' that relaxes me, which I suppose is what some people want from long songs.
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
__________________
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; 08-19-2012 at 02:58 PM.
VEGANGELICA is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 02:49 PM   #122 (permalink)
Let it drip
 
Sneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,430
Default

The thing with 'long music' is you have to be patient. If you're not willing to be, then you won't enjoy it.
Sneer is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 05:58 PM   #123 (permalink)
Key
.
 
Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 13,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
I like our debate, Ki, and I appreciate your pointing out commonalities in our listening even as there are differences in our listening philosophy.
It's definitely one of the better ones i've had in a long time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
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 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
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.
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.

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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
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.
Well if you're not willing to give a thorough listen of an album, than you aren't giving the band's release a fair listen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
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.*
If it's not bad for them, fine. But it's still a pretty flawed way to go about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA View Post
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.
Whatever floats your boat.
Key is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 07:44 PM   #124 (permalink)
Groupie
 
cozypowellsdrumkit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 94
Default

I listen to more than you'd think
__________________
You don't have to be crazy to do this, but it helps-Bob Ross.
cozypowellsdrumkit is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 08:03 PM   #125 (permalink)
Born to be mild
 
Trollheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,992
Default

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. I've been the subject of personal attacks (much worse, and more graphic than that) myself, and know it's not nice. But it was meant as a cheeky little joke. I thought that would certainly be understood by the video I posted just today.

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. Check my journals if you don't believe me. Never once do I mention "this song is too long/short" unless it actually is a bad song. I of course know of songs that are inherently of disinterest to me, but that is not because of their length. They could be 2 minutes or 10 minutes, but if they're bad they're bad. I have, admittedly, mentioned on occasion that a particular song "seems overstretched", when they are, but again that does not mean I wouldn't listen to it again, unless I actually don't like it, regardless of its length.

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. It's interesting, informative to know, but in no way influences why I listen to music. It's really weird that you can't accept that, because it seems as I already said, yourself and wisdom are very much in the minority when it comes to this subject.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
Trollheart is online now  
Old 08-19-2012, 10:58 PM   #126 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: indoors
Posts: 722
Default

Interestingly, in my experience, most long songs don't even start off nicely (whether I'm aware of their length or not). It is like the artist assumes the listener is patiently going to wait for a pay-off.

I've heard the Pulp song before. It's okay - interesting lyrically, musically okay, but it doesn't resonate with me emotionally. I wasn't aware of a longer version of it, but there's no reason for me to seek it out.

Also, VEGANGELICA, thanks for mentioning the attacks on my name aren't okay. Guys, maybe I chose the name because 1) I use it elsewhere and 2) in general I'm a smart person? I actually think my taste in music is good and that people ought to share my opinions, though in my opinion music isn't important enough to try to convert the resistant. Also, I am very knowledgeable about popular 80's music - but I don't claim "wisdom" about all genres, the technical side of music, etc.
sopsych is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:00 PM   #127 (permalink)
Key
.
 
Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 13,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom View Post
Interestingly, in my experience, most long songs don't even start off nicely (whether I'm aware of their length or not). It is like the artist assumes the listener is patiently going to wait for a pay-off.
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.
Key is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:03 PM   #128 (permalink)
.
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,007
Default

Instead of responding to an overwrought second-hand emotional charge, I think I'd rather hear from the OP whether it was thought of as a character assassination rather than just plain bewilderment. It comes from a pretty humorous connect between the name "wisdom" and ideas that are more like folly-fueled statements such as: assuming that "most of us know" exploratory long-form structures "become self-indulgent...", that it's "almost impossible for a 2-minute song to be boring", that, even tho the OP doesn't know a particular style or person's work, "...I doubt I'd like [it]..."[not "having a clue" about an artist's work means never listening again to it] and so on. This thread is hinging on the idea that time alone is the deciding factor as to the worth of a recording. It's a strange and utter absurdity when you realize that in the area of sound - of all musics from every era and every country and every genre - it is time that is the only underlying constant - not melody, rhythm or timbre and to relegate the enjoyment of music to a small segment of time as the main redeeming factor is like saying that great paintings only have a certain quantity of paint - not too much or too little - or disliking great architectural wonders because they have more than, let's say, 4 stories or less than three. I think this is what the majority of us are scratching our heads over (unless some of us are members of the Oumupo - then it would be considered an artistic challenge!). It's one thing to hone your desires for short or long form into specific areas of music whether it's power pop, polka, wandelweiser, mento, onkyo, EAI, purple sound, or a huge number of others, it's quite another thing to find redemption solely in narrow zones of time.

Last edited by rostasi; 08-19-2012 at 11:10 PM.
rostasi is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 11:20 PM   #129 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: indoors
Posts: 722
Default

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.
sopsych is offline  
Old 08-20-2012, 12:14 AM   #130 (permalink)
The Music Guru.
 
Burning Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,858
Default

One thing I concluded from this thread is that you would never survive as a music major!
Burning Down is offline  
Closed Thread


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.