Definitely both. It really depends on the tune itself and often mistakes are made in both directions. A lot of the time bands try to stretch 3 minutes into 6 or sell a 6 minute idea short by only giving it 3 to play out. (6 and 3 because it's easy and common but if a song deserves 12 minutes (or even 25-30 for stuff like Godspeed You Black Emperor) of my time than that is awesome too).
***********
Yeah Blank Generation, great tune.
2007-10-23 09:45:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
I love short songs (5 minutes or less) that way I can listen to an entire album without skipping songs, if I've run short on time. If it's a good album, then, as a whole, it should get me into a specific mood and keep me there the whole way through. I guess I'm more of an album person than a song person actually. Most of the music I listen to though is about 2-6 minutes long, which is good for me. =]
2007-10-23 09:45:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bloody Hell 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
It all depends on the song and the style like most people have mentioned. I can sit down and listen to a song like Deep Wound's "Your Head is in Your Crotch" which runs at 28 seconds (hardcore, their average song is about a minute) but if it was 5 minutes I'd be dying. Likewise, I'm currently listening to a 34 minute track by Boris (a drone psychadelic band) on YouTube that I really can't get tired of yet at 4 minutes it would be way too short. Sometimes I can't take the short ones or the long ones but prefer the ones that settle in the middle. It's all about my mood.
2007-10-23 15:18:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Huevo 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, I like songs in the middle in length, around four to five minutes, maybe six to seven, but of the two I like short songs better. When I listen to a short song, usually a Beatles song, I never want it to end. But ironically, no matter how good a song gets, whenever I listen to a long song, I always want it to end. That's why I don't like jam bands or live albums from good live artists.
2007-10-23 11:32:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Montag 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Short for sure. The 50 best songs ever are probably all between 2 and 4 minutes. I mean come one, a long song is good every once in awhile, but how can you get sick of a short burst of energy like "Bored Teenagers" by the Adverts (1:46) or "Blitzkrieg Bop" by the Ramones (2:13) or even a slower slick song like "The Slider" by T.Rex (3:23)?
In my experience a song that is longer than 7 minutes is good background music for hanging out, but when you actually sit down and listen to it just to listen you're wishing it was over after the first 4 minutes. I mean, does "Kashmir" really have toi be 8 minutes long? The problem with long songs for me is that a repeated pattern gets boring after awhile and the only way a lot of bands can think of to diversify it is to add in long solos, which are even worse than a repetitive riff. The three songs that come to mind when I think about enjoyable long songs are the excellent "Johnny Was" as covered by Stiff Little Fingers which manages to differ enough to keep from getting redundant, "Sister Ray" by the Velvet Underground which is just too crazy and entertaining to get boring, and "Desolation Row" by Bob Dylan which is too soothing and good to suck.
But Yes, I love a song that gets its message across in 2 to 3 minutes. It really has more of an impact to me, it comes, says what it has to say, gets you going, and leaves before you're sick of it. Plus a three minute song usually sounds more inspired to me, the long songs often drag and sound like the person just wanted to show off their skills more than they actually wanted to write a good song. But I know that's just my opinion and isn't all the time, so don't misquote me on that.
Currently listening to one of THE classic 2-3 minute songs; "Blank Generation" by the Voidoids. Probably to be follwed by the 23 second classic; "Field Day For The Sundays" by Wire.
2007-10-23 10:08:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
It really depends on the band/artist.
For example, I somewhat like Green Day (not the best band, but yeah), but I totally hate how some of their songs are long, like...9 minutes or so. I kinda like songs being a regular length such as 3-4 minutes because if you're listening to a cd, you can listen to other songs as well, without it taking soo long.
2007-10-23 09:58:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by MANDS. 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Both
But I love long songs as well
Starship Trooper
And You And I
2112
La Villa Strangiato
Achilles Last Stand
Carouselambra
Dogs
Echoes
All fabulous long songs
2007-10-23 13:37:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It depends on the song, some songs can pull off 7-8 or more minutes. Some of the great oldies were about 2 minutes, adding more might make them too repetitive.
2007-10-23 11:55:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lost Poet 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I like both. The Beatles wrote some of the best, most well-loved 3 min. songs in pop history, for ex.
On the other hand, few things beat lying down at night w/ a pair of big headphones & getting lost into 20 minutes of some great prog rock! :)
2007-10-23 09:37:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Fonzie T 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
As long as it's a good song, I like both. One of my all time favorite songs is "Only In Dreams" by Weezer, which is 8 minutes long (and I love every minute of it). That is the best song they ever did. I also love "Diamond Sea" by Sonic Youth, which is like 17 minutes long.
2007-10-23 10:15:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jeremy's Jeremiad 3
·
2⤊
0⤋