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