A theory: longer songs = more technically skilled band. Plausible?

Rudreax · #1 08-30-2009, 03:40 PM

I saw this topic in another forum I frequent that got pretty heated. I changed the name of the topic to better articulate what the argument's supposed to be about:

"That looks like a gross generalization, but listen. Your average pop people get maybe 3, 3:30, 4 minutes a song. Sometimes 5 but the radio might even cut some of that out. Some well-known people have some longer, more epic stuff, like 6, 7 minutes (Dave Matthews, Ozzy Osbourne). Sometimes you get metal bands or whatever that may do a concept album and have some 8, 9 minute songs or more (Nightwish). And then your really progressive people can get up to 10, 12 (Ben Monder, Porcupine Tree). But you climb even higher when you get groups of people that were musically educated (Dream Theater, some jazz folks).

So it's like, the longer the tracks are, the longer the listener has to pay attention and is more likely to lose interest, therefore the band has to either be really good or not care about selling out to the type of people that need short songs to stay focused. And furthermore, a lot of people just don't know how to get past 5 minutes or so without being really repetitive or changing the material by a lot. So it might just be the case that, in general, longer songs = better musicians in the band.

Of course, I didn't even bring up symphonies. But, your thoughts?"

If anyone wants to see the original topic, here you go:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genme...topic=51077913

So, how does everyone here feel about this? I personally agree with this, but I'm curious to see how others feel about it.

thudfromafar · #2 08-30-2009, 03:56 PM

Anyone can play a long song. But for it to be actually good, I would say that yes it requires more skill, technically and musically.

WookieeForLife · #3 08-30-2009, 04:55 PM

I heard crappy long songs, but my all my band could manage was 2 and a half minutes and it was horrible. I could barley stand it.

funkmasterjay · #4 08-30-2009, 05:49 PM

No, long does not equal skillfull. Look up the song Only Ashes Remain. That is skill and it isnt long. As for long and bad look up Free Bird. Not a bad band but i cant stand the song. Length has nothing to do with skill.

Joe Gress · #5 08-30-2009, 05:56 PM

Skill is subjective as well. It would take a great deal of patience and musicality to play Sleep's Dopesmoker (63 min long) even though the basic riff may not seem that hard.

5StringBlues · #6 08-30-2009, 06:13 PM

Long Distance Runaround by YES- Short ,but takes skill.

In a god da da vita? Nuff said.

RickenBoogie · #7 08-30-2009, 07:06 PM

It is a gross generalization, but I can see some merit to it. There are plenty of examples of long-songs played by very skilled musicians, maybe moreso than the other way around. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that a long song MUST be better written and played than a short song, but it happens alot.

Earthday · #8 08-30-2009, 08:01 PM

To me the argument itself seems pointless and meaningless.

You probably won't hear many long songs that aren't good, because no radio station would play them. The only way you'll hear it is listening to the album or seeing it live. However, many people know of some popular long songs, mostly through forum recommendations. A good majority of these songs tend to be progressive rock and metal, which tends to contain very skilled musicians.

I'm sure there are plenty of long songs out there that are boring and made by unskilled musicians. But how and why would you hear them?

Nick Kay · #9 08-30-2009, 08:26 PM

Check out Protest the Hero. Everything on Fortress is 5:30 or under, and it's ridiculously technical. Kezia had some slightly longer songs, but mostly due to interludes that get track-tied.

JTE · #10 08-30-2009, 08:52 PM

Nah, it generally only means they're not very good song writers. "Lyin' Eyes" by The Egos (err.. Eagles) is a great example. It's way too long, and they used to be better song writers who could've told that story in a much shorter time.

Unless it's jamming which has NOTHING to do with a SONG...

John

Jazzdogg · #11 08-30-2009, 09:32 PM

As I was reading these posts I began to wonder whether the OP's premise holds true for the kinds of music I play.

There seems to be a correlation between song's rhythmic and harmonic complexity and the need for a written charts; the best-educated musicians I know are fully capable of playing from complex written charts, and they are capable of sustaining a high level of musicianship for an extended period of time.

Think of the cats like our own Pacman, who are fluent in several different song styles, highly motivated, and far better trained, educated, and disciplined than the average bear. Classical, jazz, funk, rock, martial: no problem. Same for groups as diverse as a chamber quartet, a symphony, a jazz big band, or Tower of Power: they are capable of playing songs that are both sophisticated and lengthy because of their musicianship.

On the other hand, most of the guitar-based pop and rock I've heard is the musical equivalent of a stock car race, in which the same 3 or four chords circle endlessly; the songs may be long, but duration alone connotes neither skill nor quality (Know how to make the typical guitarist play quieter? Put some sheet music in front of him).

Of course, these are my opinions. YMMV.

groooooove · #12 08-31-2009, 12:48 AM

when i think "long songs" i dont think of some kind of progressive madness. i think of jambands. ive seen shows with 60+ minute medleys. ive seen (and even played myself) one song/jam live that lasts over 40 minutes.

but, even though i'm reffering to a differnt type of music alltogether it still pretty much stands true to the topic.. if your a crappy musician, you wont be able to jam for that long without it being boring or repetitive.

Joey3313 · #13 08-31-2009, 12:59 AM

Skilled musicians can make a song sound good regardless of length.

Unskilled musicians can make a song sound awful regardless of length.

Length of a song in relation to skill is pretty much irrelevant.

rcarraher · #14 08-31-2009, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudreax

I saw this topic in another forum I frequent that got pretty heated. I changed the name of the topic to better articulate what the argument's supposed to be about:

"That looks like a gross generalization, but listen. Your average pop people get maybe 3, 3:30, 4 minutes a song. Sometimes 5 but the radio might even cut some of that out. Some well-known people have some longer, more epic stuff, like 6, 7 minutes (Dave Matthews, Ozzy Osbourne). Sometimes you get metal bands or whatever that may do a concept album and have some 8, 9 minute songs or more (Nightwish). And then your really progressive people can get up to 10, 12 (Ben Monder, Porcupine Tree). But you climb even higher when you get groups of people that were musically educated (Dream Theater, some jazz folks).

So it's like, the longer the tracks are, the longer the listener has to pay attention and is more likely to lose interest, therefore the band has to either be really good or not care about selling out to the type of people that need short songs to stay focused. And furthermore, a lot of people just don't know how to get past 5 minutes or so without being really repetitive or changing the material by a lot. So it might just be the case that, in general, longer songs = better musicians in the band.

Of course, I didn't even bring up symphonies. But, your thoughts?"

If anyone wants to see the original topic, here you go:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genme...topic=51077913

So, how does everyone here feel about this? I personally agree with this, but I'm curious to see how others feel about it.

For years and years in the "pop" music biz, if you wanted your tune to be played on radio (which was essential for sales) it had to be 3:00 or shorter. So, pop music became that format. Even artists that bucked that trend, like Bob Dylan, w0uld cut stuff short for a record from how they did it in concert (I'm thinking Maggies Farm). The Doors and bands from that "psychedelic" era started "not caring". I think it was the Doors that came out with a tune around 67-68 that was destined for the pop charts, but the tune ran 3:40 or more. So they put 3:00 flat on the label. It took months for the station managers to figure out why their shows were running long.

That all said, I don't think the length of a song or the band performing it says anything at all the technical ability of the band that performed it. Case in point would again be the Doors, "The End". While the Doors were very sucessful and no one had ever seem anything like Morrison before, the Doors certainly weren't virtuosos. Even the tune isn't all that creative musically. It more about that "psych" sound and Morrisons dark poetry.

**Rune Bivrin** · #15 08-31-2009, 01:41 AM

Does this mean Rush has gotten less skilled as their songs have gotten shorter?

Darkstrike · #16 08-31-2009, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey3313

Skilled musicians can make a song sound good regardless of length.

Unskilled musicians can make a song sound awful regardless of length.

Length of a song in relation to skill is pretty much irrelevant.

Just so.

RAM · #17 08-31-2009, 03:06 AM

Long songs tend to not be radio friendly which is why you don't hear as many long songs on the radio today as there were during the prog rock era. A part of the long song idea was taken from classical music which has more intricate song structures. If you study classical music structures you'd notice some similarities, such as how "Yes" would write songs. However, even in the prog rock era, a lot of their music didn't make it to the top radio play lists.

Song structure, however, really has no impact on the difficulty / skill level required to perform it. If a song is going to be long AND good, it should really try to convey some sort of message, be it a long set of lyrics, a melody that works itself through the different parts, whatever. If not, it may begin to sound like a bunch of riffs thrown together for the sake of making a song longer, perhaps even disjointed.

Godbody · #18 08-31-2009, 09:24 AM

This was famed and respected BBC DJ John Peel's favorite song of all time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGu2lu5XWE8

It's slightly under two minutes.

GregC · #19 08-31-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey3313

Skilled musicians can make a song sound good regardless of length.

Unskilled musicians can make a song sound awful regardless of length.

Length of a song in relation to skill is pretty much irrelevant.

I completely agree. I've seen a good number of highly skilled musicians who choose to do short songs, and some of them are pretty complex. And the opposite of this is true as well.

Maybe there's a correlation between longer songs and more chemically altered audiences.

(I kid, I kid!)

sonic assassin · #20 09-01-2009, 02:44 AM

in my last band, the average song length was about 5 minutes. a couple of them reaching well into 7-8 minutes long. a lot of the time it was because the songs ranged from 90-120 bpm and stayed that way. my new band's average song is about 3.5-4.5 minutes, some as short as 2.5. we're breaking a lot more ground than the last band, and we're doing it faster without harping on the point.

also not having dueling guitar solos