Sumonchy

I think length doesn't matter, it depends on the songs lyric. Nobody concentrate on length of a music but they must concentrate of its moral thing.

Trollheart

You've made it abundantly clear that that is exactly what it is. You've said it (or alluded to it strongly) in almost every post you make. Your essential premise is not "I don't listen to long songs because I don't like them", it's "I don't listen to long songs because I don't like long songs". Therefore, you are certainly using the length of the song as, if not the only, certainly the prevailing and deciding factor.

If someone hands you a CD, link, ipod whatever and recommends a, say, eight minute song they say is fantastic, do you try it, either out of curiousity or interest, or do you look at the time and say, no thanks? Because the latter is what most of us have gleaned would be your response, from the attitude and preferences you've stated here. This whole thread hangs, as someone just recently said, on your contention that no long song is considered worth your effort, expressly because of its length, and you prejudge it without hearing it, on that basis alone. This is paraphrasing what you have already said.

As for long songs not starting off nicely, well how do you define "nicely"? That's a hugely subjective term. "Bohemian rhapsody" starts with gentle piano. "Bat out of Hell" opens with powerful guitar, drums and a frantic piano solo. "Hotel California" begins with an nice acoustic guitar intro. Which, if any of these, is nice, or not? How could you make such a determination at all? In my opinion, that comment is one of the most ill-informed you've ever made, and a total generalisation/oversimplification of how people perceive music. How do you know what's nice, and how can you decide that for people? I might like a huge banging guitar riff to open a song, or I might prefer a gentle piano melody. Or an acapella vocal. Is any of these "nicer" than the others?

Honestly, I try, but my respect for your debating prowess takes a dive with every new post you make. It's becoming like arguing with a brick wall...

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Rjinn

The only way I see where time is relevant would be listening to a whole song before you can appreciate it fully as a piece.

If you need patience to listen to a song then obviously it's just endurance to the ear. Why waste time listening to song you find unpleasant or unenjoyable to begin with? In that regard it's the grip of the song rather than the length of the song that's the issue.

Usually when listening to a song I enjoy the whole way through, I'm not even aware of the time it takes.

Tbh this subject is the most trivial reason to like or dislike a song.

__________________
last.fm

Trollheart

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.

It's not a big thing, but it annoys me that you think you can qualify a mistake or misquote by adding the word "if". As Scotty once said in Star Trek, if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon!

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Rjinn

^ Usually it's just space to manoeuvre around when it's convenient. I agree.

__________________
last.fm

Janszoon

I take it the reference is lost on you.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

rostasi

Not at all Mr. Schulz.

Howard the Duck

with prog and jazz fusion, it's the longer the better, for me, actually

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

sopsych

"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.

Key

This is laughable. I'd love to see an example of a long song disregarding a formula, because with every one song you show me, I could show you ten that follow a formula, and do it well.