Anyone Else Dislike Most Long Songs?

Unknown Soldier · 08-23-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

And it wasn't just rock with longer songs in the 70s, disco and funk had no shortage of 6+ minute songs as well.

Exactly my son, even though I don't know too much about these genres.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 08-23-2012, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

Why can't a metal singer be expected to sing well? Plenty of people can sing powerfully and still tunefully. People here telling me to like things that humans aren't naturally inclined to like....

FYI, I like almost every popular genre from the 80's, rock and pop the most. Since then, some music in the pop and rock realms has appealed to me, but little else.

"Banter" has a connotation of friendly.

Wow pop and rock, how original and obscure of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Why does that remotely seem strange? Metal is built around power, so its hardly surprising then, that most of its revered singers are going to be those with powerful voices.

You keep on dragging out Dio, as some kind of example for your weak debate. You don't like Dio, that's fine as not everybody is going to like the same vocalists, but there's no need to keep up this confused ruse of yours, about why Dio is so revered in metal circles, it just makes you look like a troll.

You don't seem to know too much about 70's music either, the longer song was usually the norm rather than the exception. Dio was from that era, 6 minute songs would've have been something he was well used to.

Quite right, which reinforces what I was saying about wisdom's debating skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Yo Vanilla. You're right, and I tried to stay out, but my inner buttinski won in the end. Some comments were made, particularly about metal and Dio, that I just couldn't let slide. Also, wisdom started crying about "why did we make this a thread about Dio" when it was him (him? Is it him?) who had done that, completely alone. I was just carrying on that part, but I would have been happy to have left it if he had.

And sorry, I think I am keeping it clean, considering what I could be calling him. Arrogant is the only word that fits when you say "Dio is (was) a lousy singer", not to mention the way wisdom has gone on here like his opinion is the only one that can possibly be right. Also not to mention that the attacks go both ways: just to defend one of the greatest heavy metal singers in the genre should not earn you a title of "sensitive fanboy". I'm not prepared to sit here and let him pi$$ all over my music, when he plainly knows little about it. And don't even get me started on prog rock! All I'm doing is defending my music's integrity: if you see that as an attack I'm sorry, but please remember it's not a one-sided one. And I'm being as restrained as I can.

Yeah, it may be immature in some ways, but damn it, if the cap fits...

My underlying point was that personal attacks are against Music Banter's rules so please refrain from doing so and learn to argue intelligently. Oh and your feeding the troll.

sopsych · 08-23-2012, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

The early to mid 1970s was the era of prog and it also dominated the charts as well, most avid music listeners of the time knew most of these bands as well. Music listeners were therefore fully exposed to long songs and most rock groups including metal bands usually experiemnted with them. It was only in the late 1970s and the arrival of punk etc that song length really brought short songs back into fashion.

I always thought MTV had a lot to do with the shortening of songs. But I wasn't listening to music 35+ years ago, so your explanation probably is closer to the truth. I'm not 'debating' with a bunch of geezers, am I?

People tend to like what they grew up with.

**Janszoon** · 08-23-2012, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

I always thought MTV had a lot to do with the shortening of songs. But I wasn't listening to music 35+ years ago, so your explanation probably is closer to the truth. I'm not 'debating' with a bunch of geezers, am I?

People tend to like what they grew up with.

I grew up with MTV.

Rjinn · 08-24-2012, 03:01 AM

The thing is, there is such thing as opinionated statements. Something that is this or that is subjective. But there should always be a reason behind it. I always thought those statements being an opinion is a given, so I don't see where the necessity is to state it. Example: "Dio is a lousy singer." A clear questionable response would be "Why do you think so?". Indicating a
belief or idea coming from thought. I really don't see the problem here.

Trollheart · 08-24-2012, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrd00d

Yes. I can see why you carry on Trollheart. I understand. I'm living vicariously through your posts because I agree on all points still. Just wanted to remind you that you're not alone, but maybe it is time to never come back to this thread, despite what nonsense is spewed. Can't feed the troll, Trollheart.

Thanks for the support man, appreciate it. However as far as this thread is concerned this is now my position...

bob. · 08-24-2012, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

I always thought MTV had a lot to do with the shortening of songs. But I wasn't listening to music 35+ years ago, so your explanation probably is closer to the truth. I'm not 'debating' with a bunch of geezers, am I?

People tend to like what they grew up with.

i don't know man....i grew up with Bee Gees, Anne Murray and fucking Roger Whittaker and i can honestly say i hate....and i mean real hate...them all

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I grew up with MTV.

aye....i remember when that **** first went on the air and being glued to it for days on end....kids this is back when the TV had to be on 3 to get cable....and the cable box had a giant dial on it

VEGANGELICA · 08-24-2012, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Vengangelica
The rest of us are not saying that there is or has never been a long song with which we became bored. As I mentioned in my last post, it has happened to me, infrequently. Sorry for bolding the next part but it is important and neither of you seem to be understanding when I say it so:

The difference is that listening to a long song, which becomes boring or which I don't like, does not make me think, or put me in a frame of mind where I think that ALL long songs are therefore boring.

THIS is the point you're both missing. Of course things can become boring if overstretched. An overlong film can meander ("The matrix revolutions" sagged for me in the middle) as can a book that's too long or not enjoyable enough, and the other one you mentioned, well that's just silly. Eating twenty scoops of ice cream would make you feel sick, not bored. But yeah, the principle remains. I wouldn't have another 20 scoops of ice cream again after that, but only because I wouldn't want to be sick, not because I was bored.

Your point and examples there start to get a little muddy, but the important thing to understand is that we, the vast majority of us, don't make a draconian judgement based on a bad experience. So if we don't like a long song, okay we dont like it. No-one's saying that they like EVERY song they listen to. [...]

Maybe it's not true to say the length doesn't matter to me: personally, I prefer longer songs, though if the song is not good then a longer version of it will (probably) not make it better, though it has happened. Look at U2's "Bad", benefited from being extended. Just one example. Another is Thin LIzzy's "Still in love with you".

Anyway, the thing none of us here can understand is not that wisdom does not like long songs --- anyone is entitled to their opinion and preference --- but that the length of the song is a direct barometer for whether they listen to the song or not. None of us here would look at a song by an artiste we have never heard from, and check the length: it's just not important, unless maybe we're in a hurry, on the way to bed, tired or whatever.

So THAT's what we can't understand: that the length of a song stops wisdom from even trying it.

(will someone please let me know if wisdom is male or female so I can stop using these alternative pronouns?)

Just tell me, really, do you support the belief that if you hear a long song you don't like, or several, that you stop listening to all long songs purely on that basis?

(I think wisdom is male based on what he has said of himself, Trollheart.

)

Until now, what I have heard people in this thread say (with the exception of wisdom and myself) is that they like and would like a song regardless of length: length is not a factor in their preferences. Thank you, Trollheart, for acknowledging that maybe it's not true to say that song length doesn't matter to you.

I don't recall wisdom's stating that he expects ALL long songs to be boring based on the fact that he has disliked many more long songs than short ones.

Wisdom's description of how he views long songs sounds identical to mine: based on my experiences of listening to music, when a new song I have never heard before is longer than 6 minutes, then I think the odds are higher that I will find the song to be boring, repetitive, or meandering such that I will be less likely to enjoy the song compared to a shorter one.

Trollheart, you asked, "Do you support the belief that if you hear a long song you don't like, or several, that you stop listening to all long songs purely on that basis?"

My answer is: Yes. A person's method of choosing music does not matter to me. If she wants to avoid all songs longer than 6 minutes due to having heard one or three long songs that she didn't like, then that's fine with me. I trust that she will be the best one to judge what listening method to use to bring herself musical enjoyment.

Note, however, that wisdom has never said he always rejects long songs outright due to having heard just several long songs.

Wisdom also explained that song length isn't the only criterion he uses to decide whether to listen to a song or predict whether he'll like it, but song length is one criterion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

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 [...].

Like wisdom, I will probably listen to the beginnings of many different songs, even long ones.

However, when I decide what music to listen to, I sometimes reject listening to an entire song simply because of its length (especially if the length combines with my dislike of the genre or the artist's other music I have heard).

Why? Wisdom explains...

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

Realistically, everyone needs limits. There is plenty of good music in this world - leaving out categories one tends not to like allows more enjoyment for the proven stuff.

And I agree. If I have nine minutes to listen to music and can either listen to one piece that lasts nine minutes, or three shorter pieces lasting three minutes each, then I will almost always choose the three shorter pieces and not listen to the long one (or will only "taste" it for a minute), especially if those pieces are in genres I prefer...

...that is, unless I've been staring into your eyes too long, have become hypnotized, and listen to the long song instead!

* * * * * *

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

"Banter" has a connotation of friendly.

Yes it does, doesn't it.

* * * * * *

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

First of all tl;dr. Second of all if that is the dismal amount of songs you have listened too then you really can't say you are that knowledgeable about music. I've also noticed your tastes are limited too power metal and you avoid reaching out to more diverse music of all genres. My advice to you is to stop repeating the same droll opinions and get some more experience.

Drawing inferences based on the songs one has heard, regardless of the number, is a reasonable way to start making sense for oneself of the vast array of songs in existence so that one can choose what to listen to next.

All conclusions about music can be refined over time through listening to more songs, but there is no set number of songs one must hear before one can say one's conclusions are "correct." Even someone who has drawn conclusions about music after listening to 100,000 unique songs might find those conclusions contradicted by the next 300,000 songs he hears.

The idea that a person should wait to offer an opinion on MusicBanter until having listened to some (undefined) number of songs sounds very elitist to me.

* * * * * *

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinnx

The thing is, there is such thing as opinionated statements. Something that is this or that is subjective. But there should always be a reason behind it. I always thought those statements being an opinion is a given, so I don't see where the necessity is to state it. Example: "Dio is a lousy singer." A clear questionable response would be "Why do you think so?". Indicating a belief or idea coming from thought. I really don't see the problem here.

I agree with you that when a person says, "Such and such is horrible," I assume this is her opinion and she is not saying her view is an objective fact that should be true for all people.

For example, if wisdom *does* believe that long songs are inherently flawed because of their length (despite evidence that some people like the songs, which contradicts the notion that the songs have inherent "flaws" preventing all people from liking them), that would be interesting to learn...but until he specifically says that, I don't assume.

Rjinn · 08-24-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

The thing is, there is such thing as opinionated statements. Something that is this or that is subjective.But there should always be a reason behind it. I always thought those statements being an opinion is a given, so I don't see where the necessity is to state it. Example: "Dio is a lousy singer." A clear questionable response would be "Why do you think so?". Indicating a
belief or idea coming from thought. I really don't see the problem here.

Sorry I should of clarified further: "Something that is this or that in a characterising manner."

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 08-24-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

Drawing inferences based on the songs one has heard, regardless of the number, is a reasonable way to start making sense for oneself of the vast array of songs in existence so that one can choose what to listen to next.

All conclusions about music can be refined over time through listening to more songs, but there is no set number of songs one must hear before one can say one's conclusions are "correct." Even someone who has drawn conclusions about music after listening to 100,000 unique songs might find those conclusions contradicted by the next 300,000 songs he hears.

The idea that a person should wait to offer an opinion on MusicBanter until having listened to some (undefined) number of songs sounds very elitist to me.

I never said there was a number he had to reach the most adequate experience levels. I'm merely saying based on his unnecessary comment of how many songs he has heard and his limited debating skills that that I have noticed throughout this thread that obviously 5000 is not enough yet. Also a small selection of genres will not give him a well rounded idea of what sounds and instrumentation make quality music.

This advice I am giving is hardly elitist.

08-24-2012, 03:01 AM	#245 (permalink)
Rjinn The Aerosol in your Soul Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: New South Wales, Australia Posts: 1,546	The thing is, there is such thing as opinionated statements. Something that is this or that is subjective. But there should always be a reason behind it. I always thought those statements being an opinion is a given, so I don't see where the necessity is to state it. Example: "Dio is a lousy singer." A clear questionable response would be "Why do you think so?". Indicating a belief or idea coming from thought. I really don't see the problem here. __________________ last.fm Last edited by Rjinn; 08-24-2012 at 03:01 PM.