Says John Cage, maker of boring music.

Who DO you like out of curiosity?

so sorry for you if you don't know what is 4' 33"

Pop-rock, pop, rock, alternative. From Ozzy to Depeche Mode. Of the artists I like, only a few have a reputation for length - Genesis, Peter Gabriel, Yes, Pink Floyd- and I dislike most of their long stuff and barely own any of it.

Which is pretty much 85% to 90% of their entire catalog.

Hardly. Boring if you're not into more avant-garde music, but Cage had a lot of interesting, sometimes innovating concepts in his compositions.

The thing that surprises me is that you'd think his bite-sized prepared piano Sonatas and Interludes would be perfect for someone who hates long songs.

I think I confused John Cage with some gravelly-voiced singer-songwriter. Although I doubt I'd like Cage.

I like much of Pink Floyd's material from The Wall to the end (although The Final Cut is mediocre). Some of those songs run slightly long and to me drag a bit, but.... I don't think Gilmour-era material was intentionally long like a psychedelic jam.

The point in limiting yourself to the minutes or even hours of a song is to limit the time you spend listening to music while maximizing your pleasure.

I'll try to explain my viewpoint in other terms so that you might understand it better:

I view songs as being like assorted chocolates in a box. I remember that when I was a child, I used trial and error to learn which chocolates I liked. This led to a lot of discarded, half-eaten chocolates. Later, I made my selection after reading about the characteristics of the chocolates. I found I tended not to like cherry liquor fillings. (Similarly, when I read that a song is 15 minutes long, I tend not to want to listen to it.)

I don't feel I have to eat the whole box of chocolates or even a whole chocolate candy out of some sense of obligation to the chocolate-maker. If I do try a piece of chocolate that has cherry liquor (a long song), and I find that I don't like the first taste (the first 5 minutes), then I don't force myself to eat the whole thing. And even if I like the chocolate at first, I usually find that I start to get sick of it if the chocolate bar is too big (just like I can start to get tired of a long song).

My point, contrary to yours, is that we can respect a band's choice to make a song short or long, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to the whole song or even listen to the song at all.

My tendency to avoid or dislike longs songs has nothing to do with respect or lack thereof for the musicians. A song isn't the ruler of a single-party dictatorship where we are forced to give only adoration. Music is a democracy where we can express appreciation and criticism, and elect a different song when we want.

In fact, the musicians I know like constructive criticism (when solicited). Giving them my honest opinion, such as by telling them if I feel a song is too long, actually shows my respect for them.

More about this issue of respect: do you feel you have to listen to all of Robert Rich's two-and-a-half-hour song "Somnium" to show your respect for him? And, if so, given that he intended the song for people to listen to while dreaming/sleeping or while awake, do you feel have to listen to it with your full attention to show respect?

If you choose not to listen to this song in its entirety, I won't feel your choice means you lack disrespect for Robert Rich's creative process. Perhaps your choice simply means that you have other ways you want to spend your time:

Robert Rich -- Somnium (Part 1 of 4)
This song lasts over two hours. Are you going to listen to it all?


Robert Rich - Somnium Part I - 1 Of 4 (Somnium) - YouTube

In answer to your question, yes, I can enjoy a song without analyzing it, but I find that analyzing *why* I like or dislike a song adds to my appreciation of it.

And yes, the song's length always has some impact on my feelings about the song. 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.

By analyzing a song, I don't view myself as analyzing it to death, but rather analyzing it to life. After all, the musicians had to think about exact moments for entrances, exits, and other changes in the song, so my thinking about them, too, probably mirrors more closely the creative process of the song rather than just thinking about the song's emotional impact on me. Considering the nuances of the song is a way of REconstructing the song rather than DEconstructing it, in my view.

You find minutes and seconds to be cold and overly analytical? It is true that when discussing the length of a song and its sections, I prefer to be precise *and* accurate by giving the exact minute and second rather than use time approximations like you do.

My reason is that precision allows the description to be shorter while giving more information to a fellow listener so that she can, if she wants, go to the song and find exactly the portion to which I am referring.

Compare "After a nice piano solo from 3:15 - 3:43, the mood changes with harpsicordal music until 6:00, when the vocals reenter," to your longer, less precise description: "In the third minute there's a nice piano solo that lasts about thirty seconds, then the mood changes and for the next two minutes it's harpsichordal music until minute six, where the vocals come back in." I prefer my description. It's shorter and has more content.

If it makes you feel better about my apparent aversion to length, notice that I don't mind reading or writing long posts *about* music. I just don't tend to like to listen to long songs. :p:

Please see my comments above to Ki about the issue of music criticism and respect for the musicians. We can respect a band's choice to make a song short or long, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to the whole song or even listen to the song at all, or avoid suggesting changes that we'd make if we had created the song.

Just like you have the right to criticize my method of critiquing music, I have the right to criticize music. Sharing opinions isn't inherently disrespectful.

Yes, I'm aware. I don't care for Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" poem, either. :)

If it helps, you may like learning that song length is only one of many song qualities that impact the degree to which I like or dislike the a song. I have songs that I hate for a variety of reasons, not just length. :D http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...-you-hate.html

Thanks for your support, Mr. Hale. :)

I actually listened to some of the songs twice, the first time to get a feel for the song, and the second time to note more carefully the sections that felt especially long to me. I was generous.

We agree yet again, wisdom.

Following up on a comment you made earlier, I also feel that lengthening a short song I like will not make me like the song more, and in fact would probably decrease my appreciation of it.

Below is an example of a very short song that I love (in a genre I think you perhaps hate) that I feel would be less appealing if longer.

I love Behemoth's cover of Morbid Angel's "Day of Suffering" because this 2'10" song sounds to me like rage and defiance feel. I would like the song much less if it were stretched out to ten minutes, because when I feel rage it is a short burst of emotion, rather than a long, drawn-out one. Hearing ten minutes of rage would get very old and tiring to me and wouldn't feel like rage as I experience it, since rage to me is a burst of seething malevolence that rushes quickly through me and then dies down quickly (as reason prevails...usually ;) ). But for those two minutes that it lasts...it's quite a rush.

Behemoth -- "Day of Suffering" (Morbid Angel cover)
An example of a short song that I feel would lose its impact if it were longer


Behemoth-Day Of Suffering (Morbid Angel Cover) - YouTube

EDIT: Another benefit of short songs compared to long ones is that it is easier to listen to a short song again and again to get the full impact and experience of the whole song, and this allows you more easily to tailor your listening experience to your mood.

For example, I've listened to "Day of Suffering" around 30 times while typing this 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..

i think you have to take into account the sub-genre

obviously, prog wouldn't be prog if it's less than 20 minutes

and i can't really take a hair metal song over 10 minutes

When I sit down to listen to music, I will always choose to listen to it in the album format. Whether it's an album of 55 minutes and 12 tracks, or 55 minutes and two tracks is ultimately irrelevant.

Interestingly, I do find that there is a psychological effect on me when the same amount of music is broken down into more recognizable chunks. A lengthy track seems to suggest a certain amount of repetition or dullness (which is nonsense, but I always find myself expecting an intense or droning experience when I see a 45 minute track.)

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.

Nick Cave perhaps?

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 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.

Not really. Prog is usually 15 to 20 minutes long, and I wouldn't call this:



easy listening.

However, this could be considered easy listening.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd say the majority of really long songs I listen to are loud, heavy music, not "relaxing" music.

Really the only thing I can say is if
it's executed well, that's what matters, regardless of time.

The end.

End thread.

It depends on how good it is, really. Sometimes I am bored with six-minute songs, and sometimes I go listen to Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas To Heaven.

I'd say the majority of long songs I listen to are both, because being long they can change and evolve as the song progresses. Take my favourite, Genesis's "Supper's ready". Yes it's over twenty minutes long, but it opens on a gentle acoustic guitar and flute melody, over time morphing into everything from heavy rock to sort of African tribal to near-20s style and back again. It couldn't really be considered easy listening, but neither could it be considered loud, heavy music. Ditto with "Grendel" by Marillion, "The last human gateway" by IQ, "Fool's overture" by Supertramp and hundreds, nay thousands more.

This is what I think legitimises (if they need to be) longer songs; that the artiste can more fully explore different rhythms, tempos, time signatures, even genres within the timeframe of the one song.

Better people than you and I have tried, but it's almost ironic how the OP hates long songs, but the thread just keeps going and going like a ... long song... :laughing:

Also have to remember that the OP has refused to comment on anything other than Vegangelica because she's the only person who has agreed with him. I'm having a pretty good debate with her in this thread which is why I keep coming back, but as far as the OP is concerned, there's really nothing anybody can say to get a rise out of him unless we decide to agree with him. Which we won't.

Dislike? Depends on if I like the damn thing. Now Pink Floyd? No.

I've heard both of those songs before and would rather not hear them again. I seriously wonder if the popularity of prog in the 70's is largely due to the popularity of getting stoned then. Those songs do not convey emotion-laden realistic stories, so I cannot tolerate their length.

FYI, I probably was thinking of John Cale or John Prine when I read the John Cage quote.

I think the only prog rock song I ever liked was ELP's Karn Evil 9. My old band used to take the stage to it.

You're putting King Crimson under your "never listen to again" list? They're hardly that difficult to listen to. If you're expecting prog of all genres to convey realistic stories, good luck finding something. Yes are pretty much known for their bizarre lyrics. Hell, give Jon Anderson's solo records a listen and you'll see what I mean.

Only thing I can say about some of that is John Wetton is a good bassist. Otherwise. Not much.

This thread seems really messy and hard to respond to tbh. I don't really know what's considered a long song. Over 4, 6, 8, 10 etc. minutes? Definitely consider it the least important thing about a song.

Based on a limited sample, I don't have a clue what King Crimson songs are about. Even the 'classic' Yes songs convey something, despite the obtuse lyrics. The Yes I prefer is the material with, and largely written by, Trevor Rabin. I've heard a tiny bit of Jon Anderson solo (or Vangelis) material and found it too outside the mainstream.

The first post defines "long" as over 6 minutes.

Which is exactly why I like it so much. It's different and works well, especially for him.

I think someone mentioned that earlier in the thread, but yes, that is quite ironic.

"Music Addict" is just the default label that comes after you make enough posts to get past "Groupie", it's not like wisdom chose it.

:laughing: