Anyone Else Dislike Most Long Songs?

Key · 08-16-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

Thanks, Ki, for the 6+ minute songs you offered to try to show that they aren't necessarily boring or repetitive.

I definitely preferred the first two (post-rock?) shorter songs, "Spirits Stampede" by Pg.lost and "Worlds in Collision" by God is an Astronaut, to the last longer one, "Zenith," by A Swarm in the Sun.

I felt the best part of "Spirits Stampede" is at 4:30 when the music becomes more energetic. I feel they could have edited out some of the earlier part of the song to reach that latter section sooner, thereby shortening the song and not losing much of its content.

Similarly, I felt "Worlds in Collision" (my favorite of the three) could have been edited down without much loss of the song's feeling or content. I like its pleasant beat and a soothing sound, but it is fairly repetitive. My favorite part was at 6' when a quiet piano section starts.

Such atmospheric music is perhaps intended for those who want to be carried away by the music's tranquility, and so I can understand why many listeners wouldn't mind the songs lasting longer than 6'. I did like both songs; I just thought they could have been made shorter, which I would have preferred.

However, I didn't like the longer song "Zenith" by "A Swarm of the Sun" at all. The song had a louder, more intense instrumental section at 2:49, which was nice, except that it went on with almost no variation in its sound for over a minute (!) until 4:40. Then the song dwindled down at 5:40 and became very quiet. I became hopeful that they would let the song die a natural death at that point...but no, they kept the song on life support, barely alive, before finally revitalizing it with lyrics and a louder volume until pulling the plug five long minutes later.

I think "Zenith" would have been much more effective if it were shorter.

Not if I fall asleep listening to it!

Please excuse my language but I really don't ****ing get it. What is the point in limiting yourself to the minutes or even hours of a song. You set yourself up for being completely biased against anything somebody throws at you that isn't within the time frame that you prefer. You know what the first thing I look at when I get introduced to a song or a band? Absolutely nothing. I listen to it. Whether they have a 15 minute song on their album, or a 1 minute song. I really don't care because the length of the song isn't the point, it's what the band wanted to create, and if I want to respect the band's work, I have to respect their choice to make long tracks or short tracks. And don't get me wrong, but I completely disagree with you on Zenith. That track is by far one of the best songs I have heard from that band, and I won't even bother showing you other songs from them because you'll come back with the biased attitude that you are conveying right now.

FRED HALE SR. · 08-16-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki

Please excuse my language but I really don't ****ing get it. What is the point in limiting yourself to the minutes or even hours of a song. You set yourself up for being completely biased against anything somebody throws at you that isn't within the time frame that you prefer. You know what the first thing I look at when I get introduced to a song or a band? Absolutely nothing. I listen to it. Whether they have a 15 minute song on their album, or a 1 minute song. I really don't care because the length of the song isn't the point, it's what the band wanted to create, and if I want to respect the band's work, I have to respect their choice to make long tracks or short tracks. And don't get me wrong, but I completely disagree with you on Zenith. That track is by far one of the best songs I have heard from that band, and I won't even bother showing you other songs from them because you'll come back with the biased attitude that you are conveying right now.

I think you should at the very least respect the fact she listened to the tunes you posted. I think she took a good approach to explaining why she prefers shorter tunes and even explained in detail how each song registered with her and how she would have liked them to change for the better.

Key · 08-16-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

I think you should at the very least respect the fact she listened to the tunes you posted. I think she took a good approach to explaining why she prefers shorter tunes and even explained in detail how each song registered with her and how she would have liked them to change for the better.

Never said I didn't respect her for that, I only stated that I don't understand her reasoning, etc.

Forward To Death · 08-16-2012, 04:04 PM

It has nothing to do with length. There are boring songs that are 2 minutes, there are boring songs that are 10 minutes. Metallica's last two good albums (MOP and AJFA) consist almost entirely of songs in excess of 6 minutes, and are two of my favorite heavy metal albums.

sopsych · 08-16-2012, 10:43 PM

It's almost impossible for a 2-minute song to be boring (but easy to be unfulfilling).

Quote:

I've probably played 40 concertos in my life, and they are great fun to play, but I find most of them boring just to *listen* to.

You're now picking on her instead of me since she's more eager to talk about her aversion to length, but I also agree on that point. I'd go further and say that is a big reason artists make long songs. Unfortunately, if they're trying to sell music, then they should know their audience and restrain themselves if the target audience is people like me, such as fans of music television or hits radio. To me, if a song is long, it needs to be lively, or else I won't want to wait it out.

Howard the Duck · 08-16-2012, 11:35 PM

these days for me, the longer the better

as regarding prog, classical and jazz anyway

mervi · 08-17-2012, 09:37 AM

There's nothing more annoying than a good song that ends too soon... Well, except perhaps a crappy song that never ends. Anyway, I often end up listening to some songs I like on repeat for, let's say, an hour. It's not the same though, for I wouldn't want these songs to last for an hour. But yeah, agreeing with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle11

The better the better. Regardless of length.

rostasi · 08-17-2012, 09:46 AM

"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all." -- John Cage

Howard the Duck · 08-17-2012, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rostasi

"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all." -- John Cage

except when it's 30 minutes of 4' 33"

rostasi · 08-17-2012, 10:40 AM

Is that like 40 minutes of "One Minute"
or 25 minutes of "Two Minutes" or
are you just saying that life is boring?

08-16-2012, 04:04 PM	#74 (permalink)
Forward To Death Trolier Than Thou Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,336	It has nothing to do with length. There are boring songs that are 2 minutes, there are boring songs that are 10 minutes. Metallica's last two good albums (MOP and AJFA) consist almost entirely of songs in excess of 6 minutes, and are two of my favorite heavy metal albums.

08-17-2012, 09:46 AM	#78 (permalink)
rostasi . Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 4,007	"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all." -- John Cage

08-17-2012, 10:40 AM	#80 (permalink)
rostasi . Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 4,007	Is that like 40 minutes of "One Minute" or 25 minutes of "Two Minutes" or are you just saying that life is boring?