I saw this and wondered if this is good. I happen to love me some epics. but how long does a song have to be to be an epic?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/streaming...175455399.html
I saw this and wondered if this is good. I happen to love me some epics. but how long does a song have to be to be an epic?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/streaming...175455399.html
I got nothin' :
...avoiding any implication that I have ever entertained a cognizant thought.
live samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwbCFGbAtFc
https://youtu.be/AEE5OZXJioE
https://soundcloud.com/yodelgoat/yod...om-a-live-show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUe3YhCjy6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VOCJokzL_s
"A 2014 study of Spotify listening habits found that 21 percent of songs get skipped over in the first five seconds"
I wonder if that has something to do with my own experience streaming Spotify: when I stream an album it sometimes plays only a nanosecond of one track before skipping to the next automatically. This reminds me of a Canadian radio station that wanted to cut songs in half by editing out 'pointless' stuff like intros, solos, etc. In the comments section it is mentioned how much shorter your average single was in the 1960s compared to today. I had a friend that every time he played The Wall he would skip "Another Brick" as soon as the guitar solo started; to him, the song was over once the vocals stopped.
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off
Whether or not we like it or not, popular music is always aimed at younger generations as the 'target audience' and Millennials and younger gens are used to the "Instant Gratification" of living with iToyz and the like. I can certainly postulate an argument that streaming services are tailored to meet their criteria over how an older person thinks.....However, when observing my own kids, I realize that its less of having a minimal attention span but, rather, "thinking in abridgements": trimming away what they deem to be excess fat from the meat of what they want to focus on....the problem with this is that they often miss important things that were in the trimmings
A perfect example just happened this year in Major League Baseball: The No-Pitch Intentional Walk, designed to expedite the game aimed at younger newer fans.... however, this rule also eliminates errant/passed balls occasionally thrown during intentional walks in which there have been game deciding plays made (just happened last year Detroit vs. Minnesota, I believe)
this is nothing new, short songs get more airplay. that's why songs were edited for singles, not to short change the buyer but because the commercial radio stations wouldn't play long songs. Queen always hated getting their songs edited for singles, that's why many of their songs were written short. when Bohemian Rhapsody was released they fought the label not to edit it. it's rare that a Queen single was edited. in the few times that they were- instead of chopping it, the song was re-arranged as a shorter piece. now of course today, many young people have a short attention span- so short songs are just what the doctor ordered.
Good to know that the lowest common denominator still determines what we hear. It's punishment for forgetting to bring a cassette out to the car.
We're trying to build a monument to show that we were here
It won't be visible through the air
And there won't be any shade to cool the monument to prove that we were here. - Gene Parsons, 1973
TBH, whilea fan of longer tracks (intro, outros and multiple solos), some songs are needlessly long... worst offender: Supertramp's From Now On, which goes about 60 to90 second with that insufferable choral ending
Nowadays, it's best to keep them short, given that they're on average nearing total crap
Fade-in-out were common, (and most likely still are), but how do you edit the middle solo?
weirdest part of this observation is that I had never heard the shortened version of Bob Seger's Night Moves (5:25 on the album version, the only version played on FM stations) before I won (at a fair, shooting clay targets) the single shortened version (3:20)... Soooo stupid too, because the last two minutes are excellent, but somewhat expandable ... but that short single version was the only time I ever heard it (only played it once too, and used it for shooting vinyl target)
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
My teenaged kids would keel over they if laid down in a dark room with headphones for an hour or so just listening to a cd or two. They look at me like I'm some kind of freak when I tell them how much I enjoyed that. If they aren't on Nintendo or something like it when they are listening to something; well I don't think they can do it. And they are musicians.
Don't get me started on the No pitch walk. You might get one or two a game. Usually none. Have the batters not step out and adjust his helmet, cup and especially his batting gloves after taking a ball.
Billy Joel was on to this years ago...as he wrote in "The Entertainer":
I am the entertainer
I come to do my show
You've heard my latest record
It's been on the radio
Ah, it took me years to write it
They were the best years of my life
It was a beautiful song
But it ran too long
If you're gonna have a hit
You gotta make it fit
So they cut it down to 3:05
I remember in 1970 that Uriah Heep's Gypsy, an over 6 minutes song on their debut album, had been edited to less than 3 minutes for the single version. For radio friendly reasons probably. The whole intro was missing and a portion of the mid-section hammond organ solo was also chopped-off.
I love the ending of Hey Jude. It's anthemic, and transforms the song into something more somehow. Wouldn't change a thing about it. And for the record, I'm not a Beatles fanboy -- I just happen to like a lot of their music, and Hey Jude is one of the few perfect pop songs IMHO.
Bookmarks