Long Songs vs. Short Songs

[Draehl]

I've always wanted to have a discussion on this subject. Obviously there's going to be a slight bias on an Opeth message board but a good chat can still occur.

So what do you think are the pros/cons of both? Which do you prefer? Etc.

I think the main attractions of long songs are that A) The artist can fit however much of something they want without feeling rushed, B) You can get into the groove of a song and not have it end a minute later, and C) Artists with longer songs generally seem more artistically inclined than they are to produce sales...so the average 10 minute song will probably have more merit than than the average 3 minute song.

Discuss!

 

[BurningSky]

You obviously don't write music.

 

[NFU]

Well, i think its fairly simple...

Some things can be summed up in 3:00

some need 3-30 minutes.

Some artists choose to explore different things in music, which might make them longer and/or more complex. Some artists are only worried about lyrics, therefore songs only last as long as it takes to have said what they want said.

I like a lot of artists that write short songs, and a lot of artists which write long songs.

i dont necessarily have a preference for either...just as long as it fufills what i require in music in that given amount of time. i dont waste my time listening to crap or filler.

Simon & Garfunkel...Joni Mitchell...and Scott Walker....write short songs...and theyre brilliant...whether it be emotion, lyrics, vocals or the music itself.

Opeth, Yes, King Crimson, Older genesis and many others write long songs, often with themes and complexity...and theyre brilliant too.

Some people cant stand long songs...they get bored quick, and need instant gratification. Some people dont like predictable pop formulas, and like to get lost in long songs...which is also very meritable in its own right.

i can relate to both sides.

 

[insidethefall]

Both can be done great or really bad
the majority of pop music is bad, it's 3 1/2 minute songs verse-chorus-verse formula but on the other hand some of the greatest bands/songwriters have produced brilliant works in this same manner

Long songs are usually left to progressive groups or bands who like to produce epic albums...in my opinion a lot of it gets very pretentious and boring but on the other hand there are great albums like Opeth's 'Morningrise' and My Dying Bride's 'Turn Loose the swans' that have 10+ minute songs that are absolutely breathtaking

it all depends on what you like

 

[Birkenau]

i'm a fan of bands with longer songs...

if a song is longer, it generally will have a climax of the song then a resolution at the end...

not very easy to explain, but with songs like demon of the fall, the first 5 minutes build up to the ending 2 minutes...

 

[Nico]

I like epic songs. These are usualy long, by definition.

But if you try to lengthen thrash, you end up making a great song boring.

It depends entirely on what you're trying to acheive.

 

[RavenousDaemon]

DotF is only about 6 minutes long, where did that additional 47 seconds come from?

Anyway, it really depends on what I feel like each day for which style I like. Today is a long song day!

 

[Ermz]

Decadent summed it up the best. 'It depends entirely on what you're trying to achieve'.

And it really does. It all depends on what the artist is intending to create. Most here would preffer the longer, epic tracks that have many twists and turn and ideas incorporated into the one body. I personally think longer tracks 'feel' alot more complete and have alot more time to express an idea. I'm a big fan of layers and orchestration and I really love it when artists get patient and really build up and around the musical themes in their songs.

Obviously that approach doesn't work for everybody. I'm quite happy with the average death metal track being an odd 3-5 mins. That is fine and adequate for most death metal musicians. That music thrives on the blastbeats and whatever hooky ideas they can incorporate. They aren't recknowned for orchestrating their music, and nor do they need to be for what they try to achieve.

Whilst short songs may be indicative of somebody who isn't as well versed in expressing musical ideas, it doesn't necessarily make a song bad. There are many long songs which drone on and are made long needlessly (some Deliverance tracks come to mind). It is only a true master of composition that can make a 10+ minute track worth your while.

 

[[KOTNO]Narrot]

I also like both short and long songs but my heart belongs to longer ones. when i think about my favorite tracks only 8min+ songs come to my mind...i am not sure tho if it's not just coincidence

 

[Nico]

I'm quite happy with the average death metal track being an odd 3-5 mins... They aren't recknowned for orchestrating their music, and nor do they need to be for what they try to achieve.

Not always. Case in question being Psycroptic.

Most here would preffer the longer, epic tracks that have many twists and turn and ideas incorporated into the one body.

I think this deserves a thread of its own.

 

[Hondo]

I don't make a huge distinction anymore, usually. It's just a stream of music whether it's a 20 minute song or several short songs. I don't really prefer either.

However, a long song has room for buildups and counterbalances and things like a theme coming back way at the end. You can't really have a "way at the end" in 3 minutes. There's also something that just feels much different when a song goes quiet for a bit and then starts again, compared to one song ending and another beginning.

Of course, none of that makes a song better or more enjoyable, just potentially more interesting. So my opinion on long vs short is "whatever". Although a well-crafted long song really tickles the musical elitist in me.

 

[NFU]

its cool when everyone just rehashes what you said.

 

[err]

yea, it really brings life to a thread

 

[NFU]

thank you...its now all so clear.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

beethoven wrote symphones and few dispute his genius.
hendrix wrote mostly 3-minute pop songs and few dispute his genius.
i certainly wouldn't dispute either.



that about sums it up.

 

[mot-]

Bert Jansch's Running from Home is about 2:30 and ive listened to it the whole goddamn day.

 

[Demilich]

I tend to like anything that I like. I don't know what criteria I follow in deciding what songs I like, it's just a feeling. Or it could be a particular section or idea that grabs me. I like a lot of short, simple, poppy song as well as some long ones. As far as long songs being inherently more artistic, this is a load of shit and doesn't make any sense. I'd probably respect an artist more for getting the same amount of emotional connection out of me in 3 minutes that others would take 10 minutes to achieve.

 

[Draehl]

I tend to like anything that I like. I don't know what criteria I follow in deciding what songs I like, it's just a feeling. Or it could be a particular section or idea that grabs me. I like a lot of short, simple, poppy song as well as some long ones. As far as long songs being inherently more artistic, this is a load of shit and doesn't make any sense. I'd probably respect an artist more for getting the same amount of emotional connection out of me in 3 minutes that others would take 10 minutes to achieve.

I'm not saying long songs are inherently more artistic than short songs.

I mean that the musicians who put out longer songs are most likely more artistically inclined than the average artist that puts out a 3 minute song. There's plenty of short songs that are just as artistic as the long ones, but if you compare the average 3 minute song(which comes across fairly often in most commercial music) and the average 10 minute song I'd put my money on the longer song being better.

 

[Demilich]

I dunno about that. Also, not all music that's "artistic" is good. Or better than music that isn't.

 

[mot-]

Music is art, how can't music be artistic then ?