|
Post by lltoastll on Jun 14, 2007 23:06:48 GMT
yea he died peacefully and not in the midst of battle.
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 14, 2007 23:13:25 GMT
Pft all that obscure post-rock, quasi classical crap, SAYS NOTHING TO ME ABOUT MY LIFE.
|
|
|
Post by lltoastll on Jun 14, 2007 23:14:16 GMT
maybe you just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 14, 2007 23:27:56 GMT
maybe you just don't get it. Nope. I hope that argument is ironic. I have very little time for the concept of the "avant-garde" I won't go into detail as I may cause offense.
|
|
|
Post by lltoastll on Jun 14, 2007 23:30:58 GMT
stop putting music in to a box! it doesn't want to go in to the box! it can't fit in to the box!
|
|
|
Post by fabbit on Jun 14, 2007 23:35:06 GMT
*puts iPod into a box* dunno, melba, seems to fit pretty well to me. :/
|
|
|
Post by lltoastll on Jun 14, 2007 23:37:43 GMT
sarcasm noted, Gretchen
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Jun 15, 2007 1:34:17 GMT
I love The Decemberists' "The Tain" which is 18:35. It never gets boring, either, as it has different movements in it.
I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a "piece" however, as it was its own EP.
I don't feel that a song length really makes or breaks a song... a song exists for a certain amount of time and one is involved (for lack of a better word) with the song while it exists. If the song fails to hold one's attention for however long it exists then it's just a shit song, no matter the length.
|
|
|
Post by hark on Jun 15, 2007 5:51:03 GMT
hmm, I do agree. I think if you're writing a song it should go on as long as you feel it needs to until it reaches its end. Whether that's 20 seconds from now or 20 minutes.
The longest track I have is over an hour long (A version of Terry Riley's "In C", fact fans). Although that's more of a piece, isn't it? The shortest (proper) song I have is 6 seconds. WHAT'S YOURS?
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 15, 2007 6:05:19 GMT
hmm, I do agree. I think if you're writing a song it should go on as long as you feel it needs to until it reaches its end. Whether that's 20 seconds from now or 20 minutes. I think you have to very talented to pull off a 20 minute plus song.. I mean I'm all for artists who do whatever the hell they like. But if someone "feels" a song should be 20 minutes long and the song and musical content doesn't justify it being that long or hold my attention then I'm not going to listen to it. I think to be a really great artist you have to have a bit of a self-editing facility. I wouldn't advise everyone to do a Newsom..
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 15, 2007 8:17:31 GMT
How about those avant-garde 10 minutes of silence pieces? Now that's a little much.
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 15, 2007 8:22:22 GMT
Well the only reason people wouldn't want a 20 minute song is because everyone is used to 3 minute pop songs. Aside from that there's no real reason not to write a longer song. And I agree with Melba on the "pieces" part. But what about the GY!BE way of having a track on an album but splitting it into several sections (such as East Hastings is split into "Nothing's alrite in our life/dead flag blues reprise" "the sad mafioso" "drugs in tokyo" and "black helicopter"). Any optinions on that? It's a very good idea. Providence for example is 23 minutes long, i think, and it's hard to talk about it when you just say "providence"
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 15, 2007 8:51:40 GMT
Well the only reason people wouldn't want a 20 minute song is because everyone is used to 3 minute pop songs. Aside from that there's no real reason not to write a longer song Yeah we've all been reprogrammed by the corporate machine to be "used" to 3 minute pop songs.. erm. It's not that I "don't get" or "aren't use to" longer pieces of music, it's just not really the natural length for a pop song, some amazingly talented people can pull it off and kudos to them. But the fact remains that some people have explored all the musical options open to them and just succinct and interesting 3 minute pop songs, to meandering muso avant garde pieces. When I hear something like that my first thoughts are usually yeah.. go away and come back when you've wrote a bridge and a few decent hooks right? Thats what gripes me about avant-gardeists they just assumed anyone who doesn't like there kind of music must be ignorant to it. Obscurity and unorthodoxy doesn't uniformly equal more "worthy" "deep" or valid.
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 15, 2007 9:02:53 GMT
What the fuck are you talking about "reprogrammed". Why did that even come up?
I don't see why it has to be a pop song, though. Some of the longest stuff I have is non-stop exciting, thrilling and genuinely clever music. Acid Mothers Temple get through so many ideas in one of their tracks, you could probably try and edit it down to a few minutes, but it'd lose quality and to be honest, the ammount they get through in 13minutes shocks me a bit.
When talking about longer songs it's inevitable that some post-rock is going to be mentioned, and I can see why people are intollerant of it; and it doesn't bother me. But to say that a song is a "meandering muso avant garde piece" just because the number of minutes is in double figures is fucking absurd.
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 15, 2007 9:15:31 GMT
When talking about longer songs it's inevitable that some post-rock is going to be mentioned, and I can see why people are intollerant of it; and it doesn't bother me. But to say that a song is a "meandering muso avant garde piece" just because the number of minutes is in double figures is fucking absurd. I'm not "intolerant" to post rock, just in my own highly subjective opinion that genre is load of irrelevant muso shite (though of course you get flashes of quality in any genre) It's basically the prog-rock of the 90's/00's in my view.. But thats not the point I'm making really, when I expressed my dislike for the type of music you and Melba where talking about. Melba said "oh your probably don't get it" and then you followed up with a theory that people aren't "used to" that sort of music. I mean you've said you think Belle and Sebastian are shit on here before. It would probably be a bit daft of me to say that you don't get or aren't use to Belle and Sebastian, I would just rightly assume you think they're shite and think no more of it. But when music like this is discussed theres this air of arrogance that anyone who doesn't like it just can not grasp the out there complexity of it all. You said the ONLY reason anyone wouldn't want a 20 minute song is that there use to 3 minute songs as the norm and personally I think with emphasis on the word ONLY, thats crap.
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 15, 2007 9:30:30 GMT
Yeah, when I said I doesn't bother me what people think of post-rock. That's what I meant. Can't you just accept that I don't mind you not liking it?
And I think to say I'm in any way arrogant about the music I listen to takes the piss a bit. How fucking dare you!
And when melba said that "maybe you don't get it", I think that's just as tactful as the post it was in reply to. And anyway, when did I say anyone didn't get the music? That's absolutely nothing to do with me. And if people aren't used to 3 minute songs, then what exactly is the difference? There are a load of longer songs that, when it comes down to it, are basically pop songs but just go on for longer. They're just as listenable and have "hooks", as you say. And what exactly is the difference between those two songs? From what I can tell you'd sooner listen to a 3minute one.
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 15, 2007 9:38:35 GMT
And I think to say I'm in any way arrogant about the music I listen to takes the piss a bit. How fucking dare you! erm calm down.. It was a debate, a heated debate perhaps. But no need to get personal. Which I assure you was not my aim.
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 15, 2007 9:40:56 GMT
You're the one who chose to imply that I was arrogant about the stuff i listen to, don't blame me.
|
|
|
Post by birdwhistle on Jun 15, 2007 9:40:57 GMT
"I think this."
"I don't appreciate the terminology with which you stated your thoughts."
"Oh yeah? Well I don't appreciate the terminology with which you stated YOUR fucking thoughts."
"Don't you swear at me, mister. I was only saying my opinion in a calm way. You know, sometimes I think you have it in for me."
"I don't have it in for you! You're just talking a load of bollocks!"
"I don't know about that. It seems you are always jumping to conclusions, taking things I say the wrong way..."
"What do you mean, 'jumping to conclusions'? What do you mean, 'things'? What do you mean, 'the'?!"
"Maybe we should just make a truce for the benefit of the board. Just stop it here, because we're never going to agree with each other. This feud has gone on too long."
"THERE IS NO FUCKING FEUD! STOP GETTING FUCKING UPSET AT MY RATIONAL, NEUTRAL, POLITELY-PHRASED ARGUMENT, YOU BIG WANKER!"
"Fine. Fine. I'm in too much agony. I'm leaving the board."
"Good riddance. I think I'll mock you and then attempt the same thing a few months later. Not that I like the internet or anything, or it'll be in any way difficult for me, or that I like any of you."
"I'm back."
"Me too."
"I think this."
"You think THAT?!"
... and on it goes.
|
|
|
Post by tesla on Jun 15, 2007 9:42:48 GMT
exalt
|
|