Of course two great genres of music should be generalized and dismissed based on that fact :rolleyes: I'm curious, have you ever actually sat through an entire piece of classical music (for example), taking it all in before coming to the conclusion that it's 100% not enjoyable because it lacks vocals and is longer than 6 minutes?

I've got an idea - go listen to John Cage's 4' 33". It's perfect for you. Just the right length and there's no sound at all, complete silence except for ambient background noise.

You're not finding supporters because most people don't give two flying ****s about the length of a song.

That depends on the genre and especially what function it's used for. I would expect most dance tracks( non-mainstream) to last over 6 for instance :)

i've been getting more and more patient with extremely long songs

such as Miles Davis' live albums from the 70s

it's a breeze sitting through a 45 minute song

Yes, the title could have been different - and now I'm curious what the length preference here is - but that's not what I had in mind.

I didn't think of putting it in the Pop section. Yeah, there it would have gotten friendlier, though much fewer, replies. But I probably wouldn't have had any insights in the process - the section is like Pop itself, often shallow. Plus, I like rock, not just pop.

To answer the question, no, I wouldn't prefer a song I like to be longer. As a rule, I can't stand 12"ers and extended plays (which probably explains some of my hate for club music) - I have never deliberately played one from my collection, and if it's in there, the album wasn't bought for it. If I like a song, I listen to it and then am ready to move on to something else. Variety is my style.

A couple of other points....
I listened to the Sonic Youth song. I don't like Sonic Youth, and that changed nothing. At least it's fast-paced and mellow enough for me to mentally tune much of it out.

Yes, I have been exposed to lengthy stretches of jazz or classical. I remembered that my father used to listen to mellow classical or jazz in a den at night. To me, it was a strange, boring habit. Another relative liked to have classical music playing in her home - zzzzz. I'm not saying I could never like some types of jazz or classical, but it's like with long songs in the pop or rock format, I am not going to seek it out when I know the odds of enjoyment are low.

I agree with you completely.

I tend to dislike any song, any genre, that goes over 6 minutes. My ideal song would last no more than 4 minutes.

My feeling is that if musicians can't say what they want to say with their music in under 6 minutes, then they are unlikely to offer anything better in the minutes that follow.

I can handle a longer classical song that has short movements, but if any movement goes over 6 minutes I start to get bored and will often stop listening.

^ so you're saying if a band exceeds 3 or 4 minutes, they're talentless? That's really flawed logic

No, I'm not saying they are talentless, since we aren't talking about talent but rather listener preferences.

My point is that if bands or composers haven't been able to make their musical point in the first six minutes, then I don't expect them to do so after that time, and I don't have the patience to wait around and find out if I'm wrong.

Recently I've been trying to listen to some 10 minute long metal songs, but when the last 4 minutes of the song are exactly like the first 6 minutes (which often seems the case), I don't want to listen to those final 4 minutes, since they offer nothing new.

I think my opinion on song length is a direct result of my personality: I tend to like to *do* things actively rather than sit still and absorb (music) passively. I almost never listen to music without multi-tasking, for example.

I agree with you that a ten minute metal song can get a little repetitive and boring. But if I may, i'd like to post a few songs from one of my favorite genres that I find to often exceed 6 minutes and generally get up to 10 to 12 minutes.



I don't expect any of the videos I posted to change your mind, but I wanted to make my point a bit stronger.

I would think a long song would be better for multitasking, more time to get things done.

As I think 99% of us have made clear, there IS no length preference. Unlike you (and, it seems, one other), the length of the song has no bearing whatever on whether or not we enjoy it. I can quite happily listen to a 25-minute prog epic, if it's good and keeps my interest with changing melodies, themes and time signatures, as a 1 or 2 minute song. As long as it's done well, and I enjoy it, I care not one bit about how long it is, with the sole exception that if I really enjoy a song or piece of music and it's only a few minutes I would LOVE to hear a longer version.

Using the length of the song to decide whether or not it has merit is something unique which I have never until now come across.





I'm not necessarily talking about extended plays. But if you hear, for instance, the "radio" or "single" or "edit" version of a song you like, and it clocks in at, say 4 minutes, and you discover there's a seven-minute version on the album, you wouldn't want to listen to it? Or a longer instrumental perhaps?


How in God's name do you "know the odds of enjoyment are low" if you haven't even listened to it? That's like saying oh I won't go and see that film because it's too long, I probably wouldn't like it! You're really just justifying your own criteria without putting them to the test.

You do say some odd things... :confused: