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

[Deluge Of Sound]

Longer songs = more patient musicians.

 

[JimK]

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.

Great example is John Zorn & Naked City.
Check out their tune "Asylum"...they hit upon about every genre out there in this approx. 2 minute piece.

 

[Rudreax]

As much as I love Zorn, he is clearly in the minority when it comes to the kind of music he creates (high technique in short time) so he doesn't really help change this.

 

[Sizlack]

Type-o-negative does long songs very well, the majority of their stuff is 5+ minutes long...also one of the reasons I picked up bass. Peter Steele is awesome

 

[stratovani]

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

Well, I guess someone's got to answer this:


NO.

 

[fenderthrupeave]

no I dont agree, but when gigging my band has a song we all love to play but most crowds are not to into it so we have stopd playing it live, which sucks cause its a really fun song to play.

 

[Risen]

Personally I can't stand 3 minute songs. I always listen to anything over 5min

 

[Korladis]

I disagree completely. Wolves in the Throne Room has much longer songs than say, Cryptopsy, but the latter's songs require far more technical skill. I'd prefer to listen to Wolves in the Throne Room, though.