Longer than usual songs. Why do some people find them so objectionable?

Karl Hungus · 09-08-2006 10:03PM #1

Here's an interesting thread that doesn't relate to any specific genre that's an excellent example of what can be discussed here.

Anyway, this is something I've been pondering. Your average song, it's generally about 4 minutes long, give or take, right? Well have you ever wondered why that is? Music is art, so shouldn't a song's length be whatever is needed? Why so constrictive a timeframe to work with?

Now, most of the music I listen to, reguardless of genre, doesn't adhere to the notion of songs predominantly being 4 minutes long. Opeth is easily one of my favourite bands, and most of the time their songs will vary from 8 to 10 minutes, sometimes short, sometimes even longer, up to 20 minutes. Dream Theater's A Change Of Seasons lasted 23 minutes. Even bands like Green Carnation and Sleep have created songs that last a whopping one hour long! :eek:

So, from King Crimson to The Mahavishnu Orchestra to My Dying Bride to Arcturus, they pretty much all create songs that are basically whatever lenth they need to be.

But sometimes, I get bewildering reactions from people, both online and off. I've often mentioned Green Carnation's masterpiece Light Of Day, Day Of Darkness to people, and while some are enthralled by the prospects and be quite enthusiastic to hear it, some basically shrug and say "An hour long? Sure who'd listen to that!?"

It's puzzling. So much more can happen in a song when it doesn't adhere to a strict timeframe and structure, yet some people actually think it's outright ridiculous.

Thoughts?

honru · 09-08-2006 11:07PM

I love long songs but I can't say I listen to many songs that go past the 15 minute mark... classical pieces mainly.

An hour long song is quite ambitious I must say, I can understand why people would react confused to the prospect of a track that length. Typically songs from interweaving albums are at least broken up into pieces or "themes".

But the notion that people shrug off songs around the 8-10 minute mark is new to me.

The Free Man · 09-08-2006 11:17PM

i love long songs, but ones that would go over 20 mins get a bit mad.
The Mars Volta have a 30 min long song on their second album, and you need to prepare yourself when about to listen to it.

When i listen to bands that have a lot of long songs like TMV or Mahavishnu, i usually listen to whole albums, the songs dont feel as long that way.

Creamy Goodness · 09-08-2006 11:23PM

yeh i love long songs too, don't have many that go passed the 15 minute mark though.

long songs generally don't follow the monotous structure of intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/outro which make them fresh to me anyway.

certain parts in long songs are more memorable to me and i don't think they would be as memorable in say a normal structured song.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI · 09-08-2006 11:46PM

Never had a problem with long songs...among my favourite bands would be Tangerine Dream and Klaus Schulze, the former who would generally have 2 side long tracks on an album ( before they got all crap in the 80's) and Klaus Schulze has consistently had mostly 15minute - 30minute longs songs for almost of the releases in his 30 year+ career.

I think the sweet spot for electronic songs is about 8-10 minutes, while for most kind of rock/guitarish songs is slightly shorter at around 6-8 minutes, dunno maybe I'm unusual in that regard. I like my music long, and very repetetive

pbsuxok1znja4r · 10-08-2006 12:17AM

Hmm, I've no particular aversion to lengthy songs per se, but I do find myself on average less attracted to the longer ones. Most of my absolutely-adored, favourite songs are two and a half minutes long. I'm not sure why, though.

The Dream Theatre long 'uns really do bore me at times. I find myself listening to the intro and verse and then I'll fast forward about 8 minutes in for some interlude or breakdown-ish part.
The stoner metal / experimental hardcore / hydrahead label-ish stuff like Isis & Pelican I don't mind for length, though. But I'll generally listen to that while doing something else at the same time. Too many lyrics distract me...
Some of the old Iron Maiden 10-ish minute stuff I had no problem with. Definitely enjoyed those. Then there's those few longer Metallica songs. You've gotta listen to all of The Outlaw Torn, for that amazing slow build-up and climax. Incredible stuff.

Fantómas' Delirium Cordia album is just one seventy-five minute 'song'. A lot of it's made up of just strange noises, though. I've never gone the whole 75 mins with that one, though. Too freaky *shudders*...

Basically, I don't think I have any general attraction to or aversion to very long songs. Seems vary greatly with song/band. Maybe ADD is a factor $:\$

[Edit]: Oh, and Jimmy Eat World's Goodbye Sky Harbor which is 18 minutes long. Great song; just has this soft, repeating outro melody for about 6 mins with bells and whatnot.

Closing Doors · 10-08-2006 10:01AM

I find a lot of the "longer" songs often lack direction... though I've nothing against them in principle.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2006 02:55PM

I think people have a hard time with it because its difficult to sustain listening to lyrics for that amount of time and Im not a song writer but I imagine that its difficult to write for vocals which can sustain a listeners attention.

While I listen and enjoy many pieces which are lengthy, I dont think Ive ever heard a song which is longer than 10 minutes.

Tchocky · 10-08-2006 03:01PM

Some of my favourite songs are 8minutes+.

Pink FLoyd - Sheep, Echoes, Interstellar Overdrive........et al
British Sea Power - Lately

the length doesnt hurt them at all

damonjewel · 10-08-2006 03:12PM

I think people who hate long songs probably subscribe to the 3 minutes is enough to make your point, as in "punk rock kind of thing" and long songs are for hippies. Jello Biafra of the dead kennedys cries at the start of 'I love short songs' rick wakeman eat your heart out.

Although this is not necessarily the truth for must punks, Johnny Rotten requested German rock group Can's 18 minute long opus 'Hallelujah', which is a percussive tour de force and doesnt seem like 18 mins.

Some long songs are elongated with stacks of unnecessary noodling on keyboards and guitars ala Emerson Lake and Palmer which can get tedious.

However for ambient and esoteric pieces (I see Klaus schulze and Tangerine already mentioned) by bands and artists such as Eno, Cluster, Neu! time helps create a soundscape to develop. Or even wild jammed out sounding songs (Funhouse by The stooges, sister ray by the velvets) just wouldn't be the same if edited down

cornbb · 10-08-2006 03:19PM

Long songs are fantastic. One of my favorite (contemporary) pieces of classical music is Music for 18 Musicians by Steve Reich. Its 70 mins long and I never get sick of it (whoever mentioned that they like long repetetive pieces would love this too). Godspeed You! Black Emperor are another example. Some of Tool's stuff is nice and long. And Autobahn, by Kraftwerk, what a classic!

Songs/pieces that last the typical 4 mins are usually like that because the listener loses interest fairly rapidly when the usual verse/chorus/verse paradigm is in place. Longer pieces can be really interesting when the composer/musician does something to make it that way, eg by using linear transformations between sections of music instead of verses/choruses, by using drones, etc.

The worlds longest piece of music, by the late John Cage, is currently being performed in Germany - 639 years :eek: - but thats a bit ridiculously extreme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/arts/highlights/010911_cage.shtml

Lust4Life · 10-08-2006 03:30PM

Yes, an hour long song would remind me too much of a coffeehouse band that although they play different songs they begin to meld together and take on a whiney effect with a single voice continually blahering on and on.

But if it were the blues, or jazz, I could probably handle it. The Allman Brothers were notorious for long songs as were the Grateful Dead. (Prob because the lead singer was too blasted to remember the words, but cool nonetheless.)

However, as I have been combining and condensing my music library on to 70 minute CD's, I find many of my favourite LP's are 20 to 30 minutes long so I need to put 2 LP's on one disk. Hmmm. Economical?

L4L

metrovelvet · 10-08-2006 03:40PM

Is everyone on the same page? Im not familiar with a lot of what is being mentioned... but people do know that for it to be classified as a a "song" it needs to have words in it?

The Long Fellow · 10-08-2006 03:49PM

Shine on you crazy diamond is great

but my favourite long one, ooo er missus, is
Alice's Restaurant. a brilliant song i think

Karl Hungus · 10-08-2006 05:57PM

Closing Doors wrote:

I find a lot of the "longer" songs often lack direction... though I've nothing against them in principle.

How do you mean? What do you consider 'Direction'? Can you give an example of a song without direction?

I don't mean to grill you on this, but that seems like an extremely vague criticism.

metrovelvet wrote:

Is everyone on the same page? Im not familiar with a lot of what is being mentioned... but people do know that for it to be classified as a a "song" it needs to have words in it?

I suppose it depends on your definition though, doesn't it? Or perhaps it's more a thing of convenience, just using 'Song' in place of 'A piece of music'?

metrovelvet · 10-08-2006 06:08PM

Oh ok, Its just that "song" has a specific reference point, one which includes words. I listen to plenty of wordless pieces of music that last for ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song

A song is a relatively short musical composition for the human voice (commonly accompanied by other musical instruments), which features words (lyrics).

By its very definition it is short and has words. So maybe what you mean to say are "compositions."

Karl Hungus · 10-08-2006 06:17PM

metrovelvet wrote:

So maybe what you mean to say are "compositions."

No, it's not that at all. I suppose when I started this thread, I didn't think to include "Compositions" in it. Even Light Of Day, Day Of Darkness, the 60 minute song by Green Carnation has got lyrics and vocals.

Perhaps it's best we not get caught up on definition and just say that this thread also includes compositions.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2006 06:22PM

Ok. I dont think people do object to compositions that are long. Plenty of classical, jazz, and operas are lengthy and they have plenty of fans. I think its just pop listeners who have the problem with it.

mike65 · 10-08-2006 10:53PM

A huge portion of my music collection is of songs over 6 mins with some stuff locking in at 30-ish (live Deep Purple - sometimes they just won't wind a number up!). Quite why anyone would object on principle is beyond me unless they have been brought up on 2 fm and own no albums

A-ha! Mystery solved.

Mike.

Dudess · 10-08-2006 11:03PM

Would only have a problem with a really long song if it was the same bunch of notes over and over. Once there's variety in there, it's cool by me. New Order's Blue Monday, Zep's Stairway to Heaven, stuff by Lush (English band that you may have read me ranting about on more than one occasion), a number of Pink Floyd tunes, Land by Patti Smith, Uncertain Smile by The The - happy for these longer-than-usual toons to just keep on going!

mike65 · 10-08-2006 11:23PM

Sometimes a tune built around a few note variations works best - ask Miles Davis (well dig him up first) or Brian Eno.

Mike.

Xavi6 · 10-08-2006 11:38PM

Everyone seems to be fascinated by these long songs but it's not for me I'm afraid. I get seriously bored everytime I hear another epic Zepplin or Floyd song. Just does absolutely nothing for me.

I'd probably stop at around the 7 minute mark. 70 mins? A serious waste of time. I just don't think a song could capture my attention for that long without getting repetitive.

Closing Doors · 10-08-2006 11:42PM

Karl Hungus wrote:

How do you mean? What do you consider 'Direction'? Can you give an example of a song without direction?

I don't mean to grill you on this, but that seems like an extremely vague criticism.

No worries... I meant direction in the sense of there being a purpose or vision behind the music rather than aimless noodling. For me personally music has always being about bringing the listener on a "journey" of sorts, which requires an idea how you're going to make the listener feel what you want them to feel etc.

I think it's easier with longer songs to lose that sense of what you want to say.

It's not an attention span thing (some of my favourite songs are 10+ minutes long...which granted may be a bit tame compared to others :rolleyes: ).

I'm not sure I explained that very well in my sleep deprived condition. An example off the top of my head would be Moby Dick by Zeppelin. Utterly pointless imo.

mike65 · 10-08-2006 11:46PM

Moby Dick is a poor example, tis a drum solo indulgance., Twas carved in stone that ye olde worlde rock drummer must have a track to show off on.

Mike.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2006 11:50PM

Yes Miles Davis.

There's a polyphonic spree song that is 32 minutes of what borders on white noise, I love it -especially when Im pissed off - I can just zone out and get lost in it and forget about my bad mood. Longer pieces can transport you away, thats whats good about them.

Lust4Life · 11-08-2006 12:05AM

Well, yes, if you are including classical into this thread, then there would be no objection to them being long. The great composers had a true understanding of movement to keep the interest.

And yet again, there is Sweaty Uncle Teddy's "Strangle Hold" that simply hypnotizes you with the rhythm. Joe Walsh - same thing. I LOVE his longer compositions.

L4L

iFight · 11-08-2006 12:17AM

Most of my music collection is at that 4 minute mark, some above and some below. I have no problem with long songs, aslong as the time is used well.

Songs like Eskimo, Damien Rice(15 mins) and UBoat, Kasabian (10 mins), I find annoying, due to gaps of a few minutes. Some of the older stuff I listen though, is around the same length, which I dont mind because it uses all the time it is given. I know you can argue things like dramatic pause, but I just find them to be unecessary.

A Primal Nut · 11-08-2006 12:26AM

Cool thread. I love a good rock epic. Unfortunately, music critics don't. Some critics look at the length of the song and critisize it without listening to it. Critics think rock should be four minutes a couple of riffs, no solos or a short solo and that's it. Nirvana were a critics dream. Critics hate experimentation.

Two of my favourite albums are GnR's UYI albums. Critics don't agree. Having gained success writing short rock n' roll songs they put six songs over the seven-minute mark on the UYI albums. This is one the critics' most common complaint about the albums. One even said that all six follow the same structure, which is obviously completely wrong. Basically they looked at the length of the songs and didn't bother listening to them objectively.

Anyway all six of the epic tracks on those albums are amazing in their own way and four (Civil War, Estranged, November Rain and Coma) are some of my favourite songs of all time. Coma is over ten minutes long, the longest they put on record. There's no chorus, all the verses are different, and Axl gives one of the finest vocal performances ever recorded towards the end. Possibly my favourite ever song. It's just amazing.

Metallica have some classic epics, obviously Master of Puppets and One, but also the multiple-riff Four Horsemen, Disposable Heroes and the instrumental Orion. Fade To Black and Sanitarium aren't as long but are still classic epics.

Led Zeppelin have possibly the most famous epic of all time but also Kashmir and the brilliant Achilles' Last Stand. Their live version of Dazed And Confused, lasting all of 26 minutes, possibly does drag on a bit though!

I've always been curious about Death Metal because of the length of their songs but unfortunately, I can't take to their vocals although the music can be good at times.

I wish more rock bands would do some epics like the classic rock bands of old. Anyone recommend any other good long rock songs.

Closing Doors · 11-08-2006 10:02AM

iFight wrote:

Songs like Eskimo, Damien Rice(15 mins)

You do know there's 3 seperate songs on that track? (Eskimo, Prague and Silent Night)

Some of the live versions of his songs can go on upwards of 10/15 minutes though. Brilliant :cool:

Karl Hungus · 11-08-2006 10:24AM

Closing Doors wrote:

No worries... I meant direction in the sense of there being a purpose or vision behind the music rather than aimless noodling. For me personally music has always being about bringing the listener on a "journey" of sorts, which requires an idea how you're going to make the listener feel what you want them to feel etc.

I think it's easier with longer songs to lose that sense of what you want to say.

I agree wholeheartedly about bringing the listener on a journey, but I think that is far more easily accomplished with a longer song. I mean, how much of a journey do you get to have in 4 minutes or so?

+1 on what Mike65 said, that is just indulgence. Moby Dick is completely incomparable to Green Carnation's Light Of Day, Day Of Darkness, which is anything but aimless or noodling, but could probably be the musical definition of a journey.

A Primal Nut wrote:

I've always been curious about Death Metal because of the length of their songs but unfortunately, I can't take to their vocals although the music can be good at times.

If you're interested in some Death Metal, sans the typical vocals, then I'd say you should check out the band Nevermore. Musically they're very Death Metal, as heavy as Morbid Angel at times, but with melodic vocals. I really recommend them, they're one of the best bands currently going

A Primal Nut wrote:

I wish more rock bands would do some epics like the classic rock bands of old. Anyone recommend any other good long rock songs.

Can't recommend Green Carnation's masterpiece Light Of Day, Day Of Darkness enough.

Closing Doors · 11-08-2006 10:32AM

Karl Hungus wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly about bringing the listener on a journey, but I think that is far more easily accomplished with a longer song. I mean, how much of a journey do you get to have in 4 minutes or so?

Well I guess it's the difference between being led somewhere gently by the hand or being grabbed by the balls and dragged along

I don't think the "journey" is neccessarily dependent on song length at all.

Karl Hungus wrote:

+1 on what Mike65 said, that is just indulgence. Moby Dick is completely incomparable to Green Carnation's Light Of Day, Day Of Darkness, which is anything but aimless or noodling, but could probably be the musical definition of a journey.

Well I'm not familiar with Green Carnation so I'll reserve judgement. The indulgence you are talking about is what I find is more prevalent in the longer songs, so I think it's an at least semi-relevant example

Longer than usual songs. Why do some people find them so objectionable?

Comments