Mrd00d

Wanted to add that sometimes I'll get some new songs that I expect to be long and are long and I really want to hear them, but I've just gotten off work, I'm having a beer and/or bowl, and it's just not the right time... I'd better just put on favorite songs on random. And usually I will stick with 1-6 minute songs... But there is a time and a place for long songs. You just might be too busy. But car rides are great for them. Showers are great for them. I took a shower today with a new album filled with 15 minute songs and I ended up taking a 30 minute shower and getting all pruney because it was just right. Lastly, depending on your friends, they're great to put on when you have company and you're socializing and drinking. You can go over there every 3-6 minutes to make sure the next song is what you want to hear, or you can put on long songs and it buys you 10+ minutes where you're not worrying about djing... Lots of reasons. OP, sounds like at this time in your life, you're too busy for long music. Just know that you may want to get to it some day, because some songs are long because there's too much awesome in it to be short. Just like I said towards the beginning, when I'm not in the mood, I'm not in the mood, but when I eventually get to them, I'm thinking "dang, what took me so long, this is great!" but the answer is simply that that was as soon as I could get to them and enjoy them. Just have to be patient and capitalize on opportunities that otherwise could be boring, etc.

__________________
Mrd00d's Last.fm

Trollheart

Well, surely the point about creating a thread that asks a question is that people will have differing opinions, and some will try to sway you to their point of view? A thread titled, for instance, "Who loves Gary Moore" or "Aren't the Darkness great", or whatever, will attract positive and negative replies. If your title had been, say, "Do you prefer shorter or longer songs" then maybe there wouldn't have been so much overtly negative reaction, but the fact that you are so entrenched in your opinion and discount so much good music for what is, patently, a crazy reason, is irking a lot of people.

If I know a band, am IN a band, or know OF a band, who play great music but most of it is over your stated time limit, then I know you're never going to listen to their music, and that makes you come across as somewhat ignorant, I have to say, not to mention intractable. I've truly never heard such an unsupportable reason for not listening to music, and that's why so many people here are gobsmacked and can't believe this is the criterion you use. That's why there are no really positive replies, why no-one is agreeing with you.

Though again, as Janszoon says, we're all music aficionados, who aren't too bothered about chart music, the typical 3/4 minute hit single. Were you to have posted this in the pop section, chances are you'd have a lot more people agreeing with you, as people who are into pop/chart music generally prefer shorter songs, though of course that doesn't mean they would refuse to listen to a longer one: look at all those twelve-inch remixes and special extended plays that go on in clubs. Nearly everyone has a liking for longer tracks, even if only sometimes. After all, if you enjoy a song wouldn't you prefer it to be longer than 3 or 4 minutes?

But to return to your original assertation: this is a discussion forum, so people will discuss, and whereas many arguments will have pros and cons and people for and against, there seem to be few who would point blank refuse to listen to a song over six minutes, the way you claim.

So yeah, looks like you're on your own. But hopefully as Mrd00d says, you will change at some point, because you truly are only getting about 1 percent of the greatest music out there due to your stubborn refusal to allow longer songs into your listening habits.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

sopsych

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.

Trollheart

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...

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Burning Down

Of course two great genres of music should be generalized and dismissed based on that fact 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.

Turrattack

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

__________________
[self-promotion removed]

Howard the Duck

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

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

VEGANGELICA

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.

__________________

Key

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

VEGANGELICA

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.

__________________