sopsych

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.

Trollheart

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...

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Trollheart

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!

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

sopsych

"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.

Key

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.

Trollheart

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.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

rostasi