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

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

:laughing:

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

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the support man, appreciate it. However as far as this thread is concerned this is now my position... :thumb:
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/im...HNuax9EvebUUEQ :)

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

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 :)

(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:

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...

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! :p:

* * * * * *

Yes it does, doesn't it. :)

* * * * * *

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 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.

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

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.

Wisdom doesn't need to listen to anymore new music, what he needs is to open his mind to music, regardless of song length and appreciate different styles within what he already knows. I mean how can he be taken seriously when he limits himself to so much music just based on song length or dominant vocalists, next up he'll be complaining about girly sounding keyboards in songs.:D

I think he needs to do both, it certainly won't hurt anyway. :)

At what point does a song become a long one anyway?

I can happily listen to something like Halleluhwah by Can which is 18 and a half minutes long without even thinking about it's length.

Yet a 3 minute Coldplay song feels like it's going on forever.

6 minutes apparently, according to Norman Wisdom. When Dio starts singing, it must seem like 60 minutes.

:laughing:

What if it's 6.01 or 6.02?

Does the brief moment of silence at the beginning & end of the song count as the actual song or is it counted as an interlude between songs?

I'm sure Norm will give you the answer.

Well I say Urban, you really are in need! :laughing:

I don't think Norm will oblige you, if it lasts more than 6 mins.

Why do I suspect Vanilla has been editing my posts.

I'm pretty sure it was Burning Down.

*whistles*

We both know that isn't true, don't we Jessica.

Hehe I don't kiss and tell. ;)

Dio vocals do make songs feel longer to me. I think anyone would have that perception when the singing voice is unpleasant to the listener's ear. (I would also argue that many Dio songs are lyrically and musically repetitive.)

For what it's worth, I like keyboards. In fact, the few Dio songs I don't mind have keyboards :)

A long song can be a masterpiece. Too often it's self-indulgence instead.

Also, I've been listening to music for a few decades. I'm not some loudmouth teenager.

Than quit debating like one.

:laughing:

Touche!

I was wrong about Richard Marx! :) He does have at least one long song, "Keep Coming Back." I'm very used to the radio version and unfortunately I lost my copy of the CD, so I forgot all about that. Even the radio version is too long. The full version's intro drags a bit, and its end goes on and on like a jazz medley. Radio programmers knew how to handle that.

Also, I just noticed that "Wherever I May Roam," by Metallica, is over 6 minutes, and I've always slightly liked it. Would like more if shorter and less repetitive, yes :)

That depends on a song, Tortoise - Djed - 20 min long, feels like breeze.

There is an easy way for you to enjoy long songs and that is after 6 mins to just press stop and move onto the next song, end of problem.

Metallica's "Wherever I May Roam" is a great example of a song that overuses repetition, in my opinion. The song has a lot going for it musically, but I would also like it more if it were shorter...and not just by stopping it early but by cutting parts from the middle.

First, what I like about "Wherever I May Roam": the song's Middle Eastern touches at the beginning; the somber, desolate feel of the song; the way the beginning picks up energy, becoming more forceful and frenzied as it progresses through the first minute.

Yet after the first minute, the sound of the music is very consistent with little musical progression, and the pattern of the repeated verses and chorus remains approximately the same to the end, with a total of four repetitions of a stanza that uses almost the same words in each repetition. What's worse is that three of those repetitions occur one right after the other! Metallica's tendency to overuse repetition in this song also shows up at the end, where they repeat "wherever I may roam" six times as the music fades.

I feel Metallica should have cut two of the three nearly identical repetitions of the chorus to shave a minute off the song without losing any content musically or lyrically. METALLICA]METALLICA - WHEREVER I MAY ROAM LYRICS - WHEREVER I MAY ROAM LYRICS

The song as is just doesn't have enough musical or lyrical variety and contrast to engage me right to the end. Repeating any section of a song more than three times makes it likely to become boring to me.

Your example of Richard Marx's song "Keep Coming Back" reminds me of one of the first long songs I disliked and feel would have benefited from editing: Iron Butterfly's 17-minute "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida."

Iron Butterfly's full length "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" begins and ends with short singing sections but wanders off after 2 minutes through long and, to my mind, boring guitar, drum, and organ instrumental solos that together last over ten minutes. The solos feel very self-indulgent to me. Probably fun to play, they go on far too long. I think this song would have been much more powerful had the solos been edited down to 30 seconds each (rather than approximately 3 minutes each).

I learned today that an edited version of Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" was created for radio and lasts only 2:56. I like this shorter version better than the original, although I feel it is missing some of the power that comes from the drum solo. I think they would have made a more dramatic edited version if they had kept short versions of the three instrumental solos to retain more of the flavor of the original...just not so much of its unnecessary, rambling length. They edited out all of the instrumental solos, draining the song of some of its energy and uniqueness, so this version is too short. But I still like it more than the 17 minute original, which was too long! :p:

Now below is a version of the song that I feel is just right.

Slayer's cover of the song has the perfect time length, instrumentation, and style for me:

Slayer - "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" (Cover)
This cover has power and energy and never drags or gets lost in itself, unlike the 17-minute original.


Slayer - In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida - YouTube

* * * * *

Unfortunately, just pressing stop after 6 mins doesn't necessarily solve the problem of a song's feeling too long to a listener. (I don't think you meant this as a serious suggestion, but I will pretend.)

Because the whole musical form of a song usually differs depending on its length (Musical form - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), the beginning of any song is typically affected by the song length that the musicians plan.

So, as wisdom explained, a long song may not appeal to some people during its first 6 minutes because they don't care for the form that is followed:

Simply stopping a long song at minute 6, therefore, won't necessarily make the experience of the song a pleasant one.

A perfect example is Iron Butterfly's original 17-minute version of "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida." If you stop after 6 minutes, you will end right in a guitar solo, such that you have only heard the main guitar riff, a bit of singing, a guitar solo and then...nothing. This listener-truncated version of the song lacks coherance.

I've listened to the full 17-minute original several times in my life (because a friend liked it). I find that stopping at 6 minutes is preferable to going all the way to the end...but stopping still doesn't make me like those first 6 minutes! :p:

No lol

One way to establish how good or bleh a longer song can be is to ask yourself "if it was X minutes shorter, would the song suffer or benefit from it?".

Songs with a certain sense of narrative flow, such as Yes's 'Gates Of Delirium' or Frost*'s 'Milliontown', usually fall into the former category for me. After all, if they were shorter than they were, they wouldn't feel as complete from a compositional point of view.

Ah, VEGANGELICA again making an epic post.

First of all, I didn't realize Anthrax covered "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" or that the original has a 17-minute version. Yikes, don't like the former and won't even try the latter.

Form is an important issue. I didn't even know the term "musical form," but I figured that my two super-long favorites ("November Rain" and "Estranged") are structured differently from normal songs. Cyclical form?

By the way, another good long song, also with strings - "All I Want is You," by U2.

They didn't Slayer did.
It's only mentioned about 6 times in her post.

:P Yeah, I guess I would have liked it better by Anthrax. I don't like Slayer and long Slayer songs....

"November Rain" - long but likable?
 

Your question about whether your two super-long favorites, "November Rain" and "Estranged," are structured differently from many long songs you don't like has made me curious myself. :) So I looked more closely at the musical form of "November Rain" to see how it might relate to your affection for the song.

Now that I've watched the video, studied the lyrics, and read a little about the song online, I have summarized below the reasons I think you may like the song even though it is much longer than the majority of the songs you prefer. This might be my most epic post of all! :p:

* * *

(1) Yes, I'd say "November Rain" *does* appear to be part of a song cycle (Song cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), a group of songs that are connected in some way thematically and/or musically.

I read that "Don't Cry," "November Rain," and "Estranged" are part of a song or video trio based on Del James' short story "Without You." Yet I observe that one can understand each song individually without needing to listen to the others because they are free-standing songs, each complete in itself.

I remember you commented about not liking groups of songs that require you to listen to all of them to get the whole story. I think I also recall that you like lyrics that leave something to the imagination. So, perhaps "November Rain" is especially interesting to you because it may relate loosely to the subject matter of other songs by Guns n' Roses, yet also makes you wonder what is happening within the "November Rain" story itself.

I also read that the same drum fill is used in all three songs, suggesting some musical overlap that makes them part of a cycle of songs:

* * *

(2) I diagrammed "November Rain" to learn about its form and was surprised to realize that it seems to lack a single, clear chorus, and sometimes places instrumental solos where I might expect a chorus to be. Instead, the song seemed to have several pre-choruses, which make the song seem to be leading up to some resolution always ahead of me in the song. These "pre-choruses" kept making me think the song is about to tip over to a definite chorus, which would provide a strong feeling of resolution. I think this expectation of something to come (that doesn't) helps make the song feel as if it moves forward quickly.

Here is my diagram of the musical form of "November Rain":

Intro - piano shifts to strings that play a melody foreshadowing the vocals.

Verse 1/Chorus 1 - ends with the hook, "Cold November rain," which gives a local resolution of tension in the song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_(music)). Notice that they only use this memorable "hook" three times in the song. This supports my idea that doing something more than three times in a song risks boring people! I think the last two lines of the verse, "Nothin' lasts forever and we both know hearts can change / And it's hard to hold a candle in the cold November rain," are probably the chorus, although the words (except for "cold November rain") are different in the three repetitions of this melody that one hears in the song. What's important is that musically it wasn't clear to me whether the hook is part of a verse or a chorus. This made the song more interesting than it might have been if it had an obvious chorus...such as a chorus where the lyrics are exactly the same every time you hear it.

Verse 2/Chorus 2 - also ends with the hook, "Cold November rain." This verse contains more words than Verse 1, and they are sung more quickly such that the energy increases from Verse 1 to Verse 2. This helps move the song forward.

Pre-chorus 1A - begins with "Do you need some time on your own?" I went back and forth trying to decide if I felt *this* was the chorus or not, since it is repeated with a slight variation two times, and then shows up later at the end of the song in modified lyrics. I decided to call it a "pre-chorus" because of the sound of the music, which doesn't feel fully settled and self-contained. The lines feel like they are leading to something else. For example, listen to the strings in the background, playing rising scales that get higher and higher ending in a tremolo. The strings are building tension that is not resolved.

Pre-chorus 2 - begins with "I know it's hard to keep an open heart" and ends with "Wouldn't time be out to charm you?" This didn't feel like simply a verse, and it isn't a chorus, so I call it a second, unique pre-chorus.

Instrumental solo 1 - a guitar solo. Notice that it is short, yet it serves to break up the song, giving variety. I feel that this instrumental solo occurs where I might have expected a chorus to be (based on the building tension of the phrases that came before).

Pre-chorus 1B - begins with "Sometimes I need some time on my own," and so it is a variation of the previous Pre-chorus 1, yet it ends with the same words, "Don't you know you need some time all alone," so that gives a feeling of repetition and helps the song hang together. Listen carefully and again you can hear the strings in the background, leading upward and forward, increasing tension until it is resolved in the following solo:

Instrumental solo 2 - another short guitar solo (which I didn't expect), breaking up the song yet again, which prevents it from feeling monotonous.

Verse 3/Chorus 3 - begins with "and when your fears subside and shadows still remain" and ends with the third repeat of the hook, "Cold November rain." (I especially like the strings being plucked during the last two lines of this section.)

Now the song makes a major shift around the 7:00 minute mark and ends with 2 minutes of music that sound similar to, but also distinct from, the more mournful music up to that point:

Long instrumental Solo 3 and Outro - begins with piano and develops into a wailing, strong guitar solo while overlapping lyrics reminiscent of Pre-chorus 1 are sung in a low chant (beginning "Don't ya think that you need somebody?) in a verse that is repeated 3 1/2 times.

Finished! :)

^ After considering the song carefully, what struck me as unique about it (compared to many pop songs I hear) is that it seemed to lack a clear vocal high point or chorus, and instead had instrumental guitar solos where I would have expected a chorus based on build-ups in the lyrics. Some songs are very easy and obvious to diagram, but this one made me debate with myself quite a lot. The song's form reminds me a little of waves on a beach where they start coming in faster and faster as the tide is coming in...building up to a giant wash of water at the end.

* * *

(3) "November Rain" has some memorable musical passages and details that are unpredictable and therefore make the song more interesting.

For example, look at when and how often the melancholy singing of "ahh ahh ahh ahh" occurs in Verse 1 compared to Verse 2:

"When I look into your eyes, I can see a love restrained (ahh ahh ahh ahh)
But darlin' when I hold you, don't you know I feel the same? (ahh ahh ahh ahh)
Nothin' lasts forever and we both know hearts can change (no singing)
And it's hard to hold a candle in the cold November rain (no singing)"

Yet in Verse 2, "ahh ahh ahh ahh" is sung after the first three lines rather than just the first two. This relieves a sense of monotony that can be caused by predictability. It is a subtle difference, but with enough subtle differences like that, a song can feel refreshing rather than stagnant.

The strings, as I mentioned, are also up to some fancy work in the background that helps add variety throughout the song such as during the "pre-choruses."

* * *

(4) The lyrics include almost no identical lines up through around minute 7 in the song when the part that I call the "outro" begins. The only repeated lines during the main body of the song are these..."Everybody needs some time on their own/ Don't you know you need some time all alone?"...which occur twice within the song.

* * *

(5) I've just been considering the form of the song until now, but I suspect for you a big reason the song is appealing is you may like its meaning and the song's overall melancholy yet not hopeless feeling.

I see this love ballad as being about the struggle to risk investing oneself in loving someone when there is no guarantee of permanence. The song says that one can find true happiness if one does the daring thing: love each other whole-heartedly, without restraint.

The song ends with a hopeful encouragement: that this couple might find a way to love each other without letting the fear of loss tomorrow dampen the love of today. My favorite line is, "So if you want to love me then darlin' don't refrain." The song suggests this might be a possibility.

The song often sounds sad to me, especially due to the descending "ahh ahh ahh ahh" vocal motif, reminding the listener constantly of the sorrow of loss. I feel the song as a whole reflects a sad truth about love: the greater the love and the more freely it is given to someone, the greater the sorrow when the relationship ends (such as through the beloved's death or suicide, as in the song).

I must confess that I've never gravitated toward "November Rain" because of its slow ballad sound, but like with most things, the more I learn about and understand it, the more I like it. Learning about the story upon which the song is based (a woman hurt by her partner's infidelity kills herself, leaving him in grief and guilt) was interesting.

I listened to "November Rain" around 5 times, trying to figure out its form. I found that I didn't get bored listening to it, either. I don't much like the melodramatic video, though, partly because I detest that wedding dress! :p:

Now I'm interested in "Estranged," which I listened to once and didn't find as compelling as "November Rain," but I just read on Wikipedia that "it has many verses, no set chorus, and several distinguished guitar and piano solos,"...which suggests its musical form might be similar to "November Rain's."

Here's the Guns N' Roses "November Rain" video I listened to (in case there are many versions of the song):


Guns N' Roses - November Rain - YouTube

Honestly it's starting to get ridiculous. Who cares if you can't stand "long songs". That's your tolerance. This continual over analysis is getting dreary.

It's my thread, and I like analysis. It helps me learn.

The precise meaning of the song was not something I wanted to learn and I can't relate to that scenario, but I think I'll get past that. The lines will still resonate with me, basically my views on love. Yes, the song is sad but with some hope, not totally gloomy like how I perceive Jeff Buckley music to be. I wouldn't want many minutes of misery.

"Estranged" isn't as good lyrically, but I like how it involves a third emotion, anger. It basically has my moods covered =/ It delves into the singer's psychology much more than most mainstream songs do. Also, it has the unusual features of lyrical intro and whispering, and I think it's without strings, which can sound overwrought with frequent listens. Plus, I have attachments to it that are based in nostalgia and the relative obscurity factor. Geez, I loved that song and video from the first time I saw it.

The most valuable part of the analysis is noting that neither GNR song has a true chorus. As suggested with "Wherever I May Roam," that can get annoying as the minutes add up. That indeed is a reason "Keep Coming Back" gets on my nerves. Same with "Sowing the Seeds of Love," by Tears for Fears.

For a few days, I'd been thinking of posting an analysis of that interesting song. I'd even had the "builds" observation. Obviously a lot of effort musically and lyrically went into it. Part of the problem is the chorus, with the line "Sowing the Seeds of Love" being rather annoying to me and also showing me that I don't like Roland's voice as more than an occasional few lines.

By the way, another one of my favorite long songs hereby pops up, "Woman in Chains," by Tears for Fears. Adding in some good backing vocals (why are backing vocals by extra vocalists almost always female?) is a way to help a long song avoid being irritating.

Well you don't seem to have learnt very much.