matrixmann (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
matrixmann) wrote2018-09-24 12:29 am
matrixmann) wrote2018-09-24 12:29 am
Entry tags:
Learning the delight in complexity of structures?
Strange thing to see through the times: While once it was enough to hear songs lasting not longer than 3 or 4 minutes, now these days it can gladly take a standard time span of 6 to 7 minutes - songs even longer than that, if they're good and well-structured, are also very much appreciated.
no subject
Except for some rock where lyrics seem to deteriorate and they just repeat the same words over and over.
no subject
I don't know... I think it's the "taking time to build things up" that I find better about this, compared to the always short-kept songs intended to be catchy enough for a bigger audience (even in sub-genres).
It's like this 3-4 minutes thing is something for people with a reduced ability to pay attention. More complex structures, also longer-lasting ones, those challenge your mind a little bit to listen, to pay attention to what happens. Also, you may have to endure growing intensity (some people find repetitions boring, like in dance music, but it depends on how they're used - they can also create an effect of intensifying something they want to transmit).
Er, the Mudvayne stuff from the Nu Metal era from the beginning of the millennium, this could partly challenge you if you were used to short and straight-forward songs without big surprises. They took some kind of more progressive style in this. The songs themselves which I have in mind also reached lengths of 5 and 6 minutes or maybe even more. ("Death blooms" I'm thinking about, "Severed", "(K)now F(orever)", but also the later released "Choices" (this thing even was political).)
Lyrics were also more complex in these, so that you could acually make up extended length.