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.

* * *

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! :p:

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.

* * *

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.

* * *

Oops...I should have said that *Part 1* of Somnium lasts 2:35. You are right that the whole album lasts almost 7 hours.

* * *

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 ;)):

* * *

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. :D

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

The thing with 'long music' is you have to be patient. If you're not willing to be, then you won't enjoy it.

It's definitely one of the better ones i've had in a long time.

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.

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.

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.

If it's not bad for them, fine. But it's still a pretty flawed way to go about it.

Whatever floats your boat.

I listen to more than you'd think

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.

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.

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.

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.

One thing I concluded from this thread is that you would never survive as a music major!

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.

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... :banghead:

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.

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!

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

I take it the reference is lost on you.

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

"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.

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.

Then maybe there is a prog formula (that doesn't appeal to most people). There probably is a format for classical, but classical is sort of out of the context of this thread.

Why's that? Classical is as good of a genre as any. You're talking about music and all genres are involved.

Why? Classical and all of its many sub genres are not out of context in any music discussion, in my opinion.

To perhaps quote Janszoon: good grief! So your new criterion is that if the song was a hit it's exempt from your logic? Oh, most long songs start off badly (I'm aware I'm not quoting you verbatim, but the spirit is the same) unless they're hits? Because, of course, if they're hits then it's far harder for you to prove your premise. That's just ridiculous. If you have a conviction then it should stand, or fall, regardless of the popularity of a song, or its lack of same.

But you asked for them, so here they are: four long song which were not hits, which you probably don't know (and in all likelihood won't listen to all the way through) which start off well.

First is Rainbow's "A light in the black", a classic metal tune from 1976 with the late, great Ronnie James Dio on vocals. Total time: 8:13.


You can't call that not interesting. Powerful, heavy drumming and guitars from the very start, and it more or less continues the same all the way through, with a superb guitar solo from Ritchie Blackmore at 2:40 which goes on to 6:09, that's almost 4 minutes --- wasted? On a guitar solo? Are you seriously telling me that were that solo taken out, the song reduced to 4 minutes and change, that the song would benefit from it?

Then there's Mostly Autumn, prog rock band who have so far as I know never had anything close to a hit single. This is called "The gap is too wide". Total time 11:39.

Opens with a gentle aoustic guitar then swelling strings, into a gorgeous violin piece with no vocals coming in until almost a minute and a half in. A slow start, but uninteresting? Really? You would not feel an urge to hear how the song develops?


This is prog metal band Threshold, with a song called "Narcissus", total time 11:17.


After a powerful guitar opening it settles into a great little groove which changes halfway through, a nuance you would completely miss if you decided it was too long and stopped listening, as it seems you would.

Finally, this is No-Man, whose song "Truenorth" is gentle piano mostly throughout, but does change as it goes along. Total running time 12:52.


None of these songs are well-known outside their fanbase, and outside of people who enjoy this sort of music, but I think they adequately illustrate the point that your claim that "most long songs start badly" (again, not a direct quote, don't sue me) is just totally unresearched, unsupported and, well, just wrong.

If you want to find examples of songs that DO start badly (again, subjective so how would you prove it?) feel free, however in this as in everything to do with music there are exceptions, so for every song you could find that starts "badly" I can find two that start "well". Doesn't prove I'm right if I say most long songs start well, but then, I didn't say that, so really, over to you, wisdom. The burden of proof, as they say, is on you.

Oh for the love of the great good God! How can you seriously make a claim like that? Do you know how many fans the genre has? How popular it is? How dare you assume you know what "most people" like, or don't! How arrogant!

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.

A song should only be as long as it needs to be.

Never thought listening to music would be a maths exam.

Music that is good is formulaic? That is possibly the most narrow minded and disappointing post I have read in this forum within the last year.

Seconded. Surely most bands who consider themselves true musicians strive to break out of formulaic music, and those who stick to the formulas are generally regarded boring or static? To my mind, formulaic is probably one of the worst accusations you can level at any artiste.

Not to mention unenlightened, and "you can't suck the fun out of anything more".

The Rainbow starts out strongly. The Threshold song starts out well (I like a mix of powerful guitar and keyboards). The other two songs begin boring and that's the end for me. I think non-prog rock should be exempt from my claim about long songs not starting "nicely," since electric guitar played by a professional almost always is decent (to anyone who likes electric guitar) and that's how most rock songs start. But a long song needs much more than respectable guitar to be good, and too much guitar can be grating. A long song probably needs better playing and often more instruments to be as enjoyable a listen as a shorter song.

As for "formulaic," I didn't say I like songs that are particularly formulaic. Of the songs I love, 4:30 probably is about their average length - it seems to allow for experimentation without getting too far from the formula of what's pleasing to the human ear.

:soccer:

I honestly don't understand you.

Have you listened to every rock song and gotten enough information to make a claim about the entire genre? Have you listened to all the sub genres and noticed that not all rock sounds the same? You're also starting to take genres out of your argument and still trying to claim that you know what you're talking about.

Can we all just agree to disagree here?

I disagree.

I agree with Ki.

You know what I hate? Short songs.

Admittedly, the song has to be good. I mean, ten minutes of THIS? No thanks! :D