# Concise Composers



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Do you think Beethoven started the trend of being overly "wordy"? Lots of romantic music hurts my head, but Bach and Mozart era music is just wonderful to me.

I also appreciate Debussy and Ravel which I've posted a number of times on here.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven wrote bigger and longer symphonies, quartets, and so forth. But there aren't very many extra notes in there.

Later composers said, "My, look how BIG LvB's works are! We should do that too."

Unfortunately, they didn't have enough notes to fill up their works, which is a problem.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Webern. I don't think he wrote anything longer than 10 minutes (with several multi-movement works less than 5 minutes), and he only wrote about 31 works with opus numbers. Yet there's just as much depth as in anything Wagner or Mahler ever wrote.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven wrote bigger and longer symphonies, quartets, and so forth. But there aren't very many extra notes in there.
> 
> Later composers said, "My, look how BIG LvB's works are! We should do that too."
> 
> Unfortunately, they didn't have enough notes to fill up their works, which is a problem.


I'm not sure I agree, I think Beethoven was "trying to impress beyond his means" as they say in Amadeus.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

The most concise composition ever composed is 4'33". Whether or not Cage is the most concise composer I don't know.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> The most concise composition ever composed is 4'33". Whether or not Cage is the most concise composer I don't know.


lol, hahaha, :lol:


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you think Beethoven started the trend of being overly "wordy"? Lots of romantic music hurts my head, but Bach and Mozart era music is just wonderful to me.
> 
> I also appreciate Debussy and Ravel which I've posted a number of times on here.


You read my mind,,,Jung calls this SYNCHRONCITY ,,,where 2 events happen indendent of each other in time and space..
I was about to post a new topic

Which famous composers, , should we take a look at, and see which of their works we can retire to the vaults?

OK, so you say there are some Beethoven's works, which are just a bit too much for the eras.
Perhaps his 1,2,8th syms?

I will start with Sibelius 
His 7th sym. To the valuts,
Next Prokofiev. 
His 4th sym, To the vaults, both versions.
Next up, ravel..
Oh yes my beloved Ravel 
His Bolero, vaulted.
Next up,,,,well add your own
Mozart's 5 VC's, valuted


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

flamencosketches said:


> Webern. I don't think he wrote anything longer than 10 minutes. Yet there's just as much depth as in anything Wagner or Mahler ever wrote.


The word "depth" seems to have taken on a meaning it never had before.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I would say Mozart, Haydn are concise, as balance and restraint were part of their aesthetics. Mozart conforms golden rule in many of his movements in sonata form. I was listening to String Quintet in C minor K406 the other day and noticed that the exposition took 137 seconds and development+recapitulation took 214 seconds. The ratio is roughly 38:62.

Chopin is also concise, albeit in a different way, he explored piano miniature forms such as Etudes, Nocturnes etc.
a number of Beethoven works feel a bit long to my ears, such as the slow movement from Hammerklavier sonata.
But not so "long-winded" compared with Schubert's "heavenly length".


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> The word "depth" seems to have taken on a meaning it never had before.


Well, there's a reason I didn't say "length" or "width".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

flamencosketches said:


> Well, there's a reason I didn't say "length" or "width".


Or, fortunately, height.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Concision has nothing to do with length. A work should be as long or short as it needs to be. An hour-long act of an opera may be more concise than a five-minute song.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

No, I don't think Beethoven is "overly wordy". His music is very concise but more lengthy argument. It's called expansion of form.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> No, I don't think Beethoven is "overly wordy". His music is very concise but more lengthy argument. It's called expansion of form.


Hear, hear! Beethoven not only did _not _have too many notes, but the notes he _did _have were the right ones.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

None of you understand the OP ideas.

You are all coming to Beethoven;s defense?
Why?
The OP states *I have found that perhaps Beethoven has worked in fluff,gimmicks, dribble and druel,,and I need some time away from his rhetorical compositions*


well whadayaknow,,I too have made this same discovery 35 yrs ago.


why try to cover up? No composers , who is truly great needs any apologists.
Take Henze,,,from 1st note to last, Schnittke, 1st to last,l Pettersson, 1st to last, carter, 1st to the very final note,,,all beauty , meanings, and substance, No BS.


This is why I listen to some composers and NOT OTHERS, like Sibelius, I've found better and that's that. Sibelius bores me. 
Note how everyone in this world runs after excitement and thrills. 

Why should CM , The HIGH Arts be any different. 'If you finda composer boring,,dump him, move on to the next,,,There is a whole world of great High Art out there,,,why settle for fluff?


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you think Beethoven started the trend of being overly "wordy"? Lots of romantic music hurts my head, but Bach and Mozart era music is just wonderful to me.
> 
> I also appreciate Debussy and Ravel which I've posted a number of times on here.


In the earlier part of the "classical" era, works like Haydn's symphonies were very much shorter than they eventually finished up by the time of late Haydn and early Beethoven.

I don't accept the inference that Beethoven was a "romantic". Regardless of that, although his later works became longer, I don't find any of them to be over long, or "wordy".

Some of Schubert's later compositions go on for too long according to some people, because he didn't know when to stop writing, but I like them all immensely and don't find any of them to be too long.

Berlioz, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann all kept within reasonable time limits for their major works. Of course, many of Chopin's works are very short indeed, by their very nature. For me, Schumann hit the bulls-eye in terms of ideal length for every piece he wrote, whether a piano piece, chamber work, song cycle, concerto, or symphony. I find his work to be among the very best that the "romantic" era has to offer.

Many of Liszt's compositions are short, and none of his symphonic poems seems over-long. Bruckner and Wagner are are the first major composers who dragged things out a bit too far in my opinion, especially Wagner. This is a sensitive subject and I don't wish to tread on anyone's toes, but although I enjoy much of Wagner I do find some of them to be too long, and can only happily listen to "highlight" versions that are roughly a third of the total length. Bruckner is rather more borderline, as I do like his symphonies on the whole even though some seem a tad too long.

None of the main works by Brahms and Tchaikovsky seems to be "wordy". Again, like Schumann, they both seemed to have the knack of getting things right in terms of length for all their main works.

The next culprit in my opinion for over-egging the pudding was Mahler. With many of his symphonies, I find myself often getting fidgety wondering when they're going to end. I don't find them interesting enough in terms of development to hold my attention, and some of the choral inclusions seem out of place to me. Among the great composers, I'm afraid that Mahler is one where I admit to having somewhat of a "blind spot".

Sibelius was another great composer who managed to get things right all the time, achieving perfect lengths. Debussy and Ravel are two more "greats" who kept their writing concise and interestimg all the time.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Carl Ruggles......Anton Webern


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

paulbest said:


> None of you understand the OP ideas.
> 
> You are all coming to Beethoven;s defense?
> Why?
> ...


Could be a neurological problem. Your medical insurance may well cover it!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> None of you understand the OP ideas.
> 
> You are all coming to Beethoven;s defense?
> Why?
> ...


I would really enjoy reading a satisfying answer to the question of why you spend so much - so _very, very_ much - time trashing great music that's been acknowledged to be such for centuries and more.

So you don't like Beethoven. Yeah, we got that about fifty posts ago. Got anything new the world is waiting to hear?


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Concision has nothing to do with length. A work should be as long or short as it needs to be. An hour-long act of an opera may be more concise than a five-minute song.


I've mentioned elsewhere that Beethoven's 9th feels extremely concise to me, despite its length. It feels to me that there's not a wasted note or phrase. (I'm happy to allow that other people may feel differently though.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Beethoven Symphony No. 7, op. 92 in A major: The themes in this symphony can no longer be seen as well-defined melodies.

In this sense, Beethoven was getting more concise, using other elements, like rhythm, to create a new, more concise syntax. IMHO.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven Symphony No. 7, op. 92 in A major: The themes in this symphony can no longer be seen as well-defined melodies.
> 
> In this sense, Beethoven was getting more concise, using other elements, like rhythm, to create a new, more concise syntax. IMHO.


I can see why you wrote this, but the 7th still has some great tunes!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Or, fortunately, height.


Or even more fortunately, girth, bloatedness

There's a big issue generally in the arts about judging the right length, of people knowing when to finish. In some more recent music, the length doesn't seem to justify the idea. Some late Feldman seems like this to me.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I consider Beethoven's Grosse Fuge as one of his most exuberant and joyous of works. But concise and precise rather than expansive, excessive and perhaps even obsessive? - No. He takes 16 minutes to repeat over and over again his rhythmic theme to the point of exasperation of what is essentially a very happy idea and borders on wearing it out through wordy repetition. I consider Mozart the most efficient and concise composer who ever lived because you can't subtract even one note without altering the perfection of what he created. I also consider him more concise than Bach, who at times could never sit still and sounded like he was in perpetual motion like a spinning wheel. So I wouldn't consider Beethoven the most concise of composers because there were times when he could be very long-winded and perhaps didn't know when to quit. But he still remains one of my favorites for his courage to stand up to Fate, his enormous craftsmanship (like Haydn), his work ethic, his idealism about humanity, and his outspokenness. He was a master.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you think Beethoven started the trend of being overly "wordy"?


but wasn't that an intentional part of his plan to write a music which must intentionally sound overbearing?



Captainnumber36 said:


> Lots of romantic music hurts my head


and it is in the nature of romanticism to show no respect for the listener.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you think Beethoven started the trend of being overly "wordy"? Lots of romantic music hurts my head, but Bach and Mozart era music is just wonderful to me.
> 
> I also appreciate Debussy and Ravel which I've posted a number of times on here.


I had understood from several previous threads and posts you've made since joining this Forum that you consider Beethoven to be among the greatest of composers, if not the greatest.

If I have misunderstood what you have said previously then I offer my apologies, but if not why are you now saying that you find Beethoven "wordy" and "hurts your head"? This would seem to be quite a major turnround, if that is what you are actually saying.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Partita said:


> I had understood from several previous threads and posts you've made since joining this Forum that you consider Beethoven to be among the greatest of composers, if not the greatest.
> 
> If I have misunderstood what you have said previously then I offer my apologies, but if not why are you now saying that you find Beethoven "wordy" and "hurts your head"? This would seem to be quite a major turnround, if that is what you are actually saying.


The Capt'n is the most fickle Classical fan I've seen on this forum. He loves expressing what he feels right at the moment.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

They don't come any more "concise" than this -

*"The World's Shortest Complete Symphony" - 26 seconds... written by British composer of German origin Michael Wolters*






Michael Wolters
Spring Symphony: The Joy of Life 
Conductor: Barrie Webb 
Performer: University of Huddersfield Symphony Orchestra

Editor's Note: Bernstein (at his most self-indulgent late '70's recordings with the Berlin Philharmonic on DG) recorded a version which lasted 1:26 or a full minute longer...)

*The Guinness Book record for shortest song - "You Suffer" - is held by English extreme metal band "Napalm Death" from their 1987 album "Scum" - *


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^That symphony was awesome. Going to look into this composer now.

That bit about Bernstein has to be a joke, right? It looks like this symphony was composed in 2002.

Good call on Napalm Death... when I discovered Webern and his early ultra-short, Expressionistic music, the first thing I thought of was Napalm Death and other grindcore, ultra-violent, seconds-long songs being a major touchstone of the genre.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I can see if someone complained Mahler or Bruckner being overly "wordy" but Beethoven's music - and here I'm thinking mainly symphonies, piano sonatas and string quartets - is as concise musically as music gets to my ears. Yeah, there are parts here and there that maybe could have been omitted but overall if you're gonna lay any criticism on his music, wordiness wouldn't be it. I feel that every phrase in Beethoven's music follows naturally the one before; take it out and the musical flow suffers.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven wrote bigger and longer symphonies, quartets, and so forth. But there aren't very many extra notes in there.
> 
> Later composers said, "My, look how BIG LvB's works are! We should do that too."
> 
> Unfortunately, they didn't have enough notes to fill up their works, which is a problem.


What about the 1st movement of the violin concerto as example? - it's one of my favourites of Ludwig's...but I always think there is just one too many repeats. Even so, an extraordinary work.

Not only only Beethoven but, I would say, many many composers could do with some cutting. Debussy, of course, famously found repeats irritating.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Larkenfield said:


> I consider Beethoven's Grosse Fuge as one of his most exuberant and joyous of works. But concise and precise rather than expansive, excessive and perhaps even obsessive? - No. He takes 16 minutes to repeat over and over again his rhythmic theme to the point of exasperation of what is essentially a very happy idea and borders on wearing it out through wordy repetition. I consider Mozart the most efficient and concise composer who ever lived because you can't subtract even one note without altering the perfection of what he created. I also consider him more concise than Bach, who at times could never sit still and sounded like he was in perpetual motion like a spinning wheel. So I wouldn't consider Beethoven the most concise of composers because there were times when he could be very long-winded and perhaps didn't know when to quit. But he still remains one of my favorites for his courage to stand up to Fate, his enormous craftsmanship (like Haydn), his work ethic, his idealism about humanity, and his outspokenness. He was a master.


Grosse Fuge exuberant and joyous? Really? I hear desperation, existential angst and near madness.


----------



## infracave (May 14, 2019)

Instrumental music is probably the most abstract art form known to man (before the birth of abstract painting), so it's kind of hard to know when something is too wordy or not.
Is Pollock more "wordy" than Mondrian ? Because his canvas are bigger ? Because there are more lines ?

Is the huge development section of Eroica's 1st mvt necessary to create the feeling of clonflict and turmoil ? Would it have been better/more effective if Beethoven didn't include a 3rd theme in the middle of the development thus lengthening it ?
In the finale of the 9th, the consecutives attempts at establishing a melody (immediately to be scratched out by the cellos), the quotes from the previous movements, the horror fanfare entries... were they necessary ?
I don't know.

In the end, it's about being receptive (or not) about what the composer is trying to do. I feel Beethoven's music is not about showing what beauty is in itself but rather showing you the process necessary to reach beauty through conflict and transformation. And in order to do that, you'll obviously have buffed development sections.

And actually, I'd argue that Mozart's consiveness is what I dislike the most. He exposes both themes, goes through development, and then restates the themes usually exactly as they were in the exposition. I see this as deep musical "pessimism" because it shows that no matter the journey, you'll eventually go back to the first situation as if nothing happened.
Beethoven, on the other hand, is an "optimist" as his recapitulations and codas see the themes return triumphally, changed by the transformations they went through during the devt.

Anyways, that was my two cents.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

No you are actually descring Beethoven,,,,same throughout,,,no special development,,whereas with Mozart,,,the codas to 1st,4th movements are always explosive, the coda of the 1st,,lets us know we are in for much more special treats along the way,,,and the finale to the 4th, recapitulates what went before PLUS a super charged display of fireworks. 
Thais is why I love Mozart and disdain Beethoven..
I can speed hum any Beethoven work,,,
try speed humming Mozart's last works.
Good ,luck,,but please don't try it,,,you'll, look the fool


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I can see why you wrote this, but the 7th still has some great tunes!


My point: it's hardly Tchaikovsky. Even the melodies you speak of seem to be made up of smaller motives, strung together like beads.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> Webern. I don't think he wrote anything longer than 10 minutes (with several multi-movement works less than 5 minutes), and he only wrote about 31 works with opus numbers. Yet there's just as much depth as in anything Wagner or Mahler ever wrote.





Woodduck said:


> The word "depth" seems to have taken on a meaning it never had before.


Woe be unto him who compares Webern to Wagner.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Woe be unto him who compares Webern to Wagner.


I think both could have learned a little from each other! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> The most concise composition ever composed is 4'33". Whether or not Cage is the most concise composer I don't know.


It is a stunt not a composition.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

paulbest said:


> None of you understand the OP ideas.
> 
> You are all coming to Beethoven;s defense?
> Why?
> ...


Beethoven was "commercial" in his day, and it seems that some of that recognition might have possibly creeped into his work. It's certainly not worth "throwing out the baby with the bath water" though. Of course, much of this depends on if one is a "believer" in all the paradigms and mental constructs which contribute to the "Western Myth" of which Beethoven represents the apotheosis. If someone does not believe in your "religion," why should it affect your own "belief," and why should one be compelled to "defend" that belief, if it is self-sufficient?

Paul Best's harsh opinion is perfectly acceptable, although some may not agree. I don't think he should be "intimidated" or bullied for holding such a view. If one does disagree, it should be done on an "idea" basis, not verbal "shoving" and "territorial challenges."


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Leonard Bernstein didn't think Beethoven wrote too many notes when he stated that each note by Beethoven has an inevitability about it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I think both could have learned a little from each other! :lol:


I don't think it's wise to even mention the two in the same post.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I think both could have learned a little from each other! :lol:


Probably so. I don't know how Webern felt about Wagner, but he was a huge fan and early supporter of Mahler. You can hear it in some of his early music, especially the tone poem Im Sommerwind. In any case, both composers are beyond criticism. What I said earlier was a cheap dig. I was really just fishing for reactions.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> It is a stunt not a composition.


It lasts 4'33"; I'm sure there are shorter pieces.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> Probably so. I don't know how Webern felt about Wagner, but he was a huge fan and early supporter of Mahler. You can hear it in some of his early music, especially the tone poem Im Sommerwind. In any case, both composers are beyond criticism. What I said earlier was a cheap dig. I was really just fishing for reactions.


Webern liked Mahler, and Mahler liked Wagner; now we need the Kevin Bacon connection.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Open Book said:


> Leonard Bernstein didn't think Beethoven wrote too many notes when he stated that each note by Beethoven has an inevitability about it.


I think what Bernstein meant was that inevitability assumes "what comes next," and that implies forward momentum, as in rhythm, not pitch. IMHO.


----------



## infracave (May 14, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> But not so "long-winded" compared with Schubert's "heavenly length".


I've still not really gotten into Schubert's symphonies, but I'm now fully enjoying his SQ 13/14/15 + Cello Quintet, and the "heavenly length" of the first movements has really grown on me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Woe be unto him who compares Webern to Wagner.


Nah, not woe. Just a scornful grunt and a rolling of the eyes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Partita said:


> I had understood from several previous threads and posts you've made since joining this Forum that you consider Beethoven to be among the greatest of composers, if not the greatest.
> 
> If I have misunderstood what you have said previously then I offer my apologies, but if not why are you now saying that you find Beethoven "wordy" and "hurts your head"? This would seem to be quite a major turnround, if that is what you are actually saying.


I'm still young in developing my opinions on this great music. At this time, I prefer Mozart and Bach to Beethoven of the big three.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Apart from his piano miniatures, Scriabin's symphonic poems, especially Prometheus, are very concise works I believe. So much music in 20 minutes, great structure and perfect length. The funny thing is this seems very contradictory with his maniacal plans for The Mysterium. How could he ever compose hours and hours of orchestral music if those perfect 20 minute pieces already took him so long....


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm still young in developing my opinions on this great music. At this time, I prefer Mozart and Bach to Beethoven of the big three.


But you've said that Beethoven is "wordy" and "hurts your head". That's a damning criticism, isn't it? Are you saying that you place Beethoven in third place after Bach and Mozart? If so, what do you think of composers further down your list?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Partita said:


> But you've said that Beethoven is "wordy" and "hurts your head". That's a damning criticism, isn't it? Are you saying that you place Beethoven in third place after Bach and Mozart? If so, what do you think of composers further down your list?


I put all I love in first place: Bach, Mozart, Struass, Ravel & Debussy so far and Debussy's Opera is my favorite, beating out any of Mozart's for me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I do love a few works by Beethoven, that are cliche though: The 9th, Fur Elise and the first Mvt. of Moonlight Sonata.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2019)

post deleted due to my posting in the wrong thread!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Partita said:


> I hope that the OP is able to make sense of all the advice that has been offered so far in this thread on how best to proceed with becoming familiar with Wagner's music. I trust he/she will take note of the general view that highlight CDs are the best way to proceed.
> 
> In my case, when researching a new composer, I usually go to a classical music web site like Arkiv or Presto where they list all of the works of each composer in a rough order of popularity. I next decide which works to acquire based on the kind of music I am looking for, whether solo instrument, chamber, orchestral, choral etc. Finally, I select a recording based on recommendations given by the likes of Gramophone, Penguin, and the BBC. Over quite a few years, I have found this process to be both reliable and very simple.
> 
> I suspect that the OP, who is evidently no novice having been into classical music for 12 years, knows this kind of procedure already but just fancied creating a thread on the topic of Wagner. That, of course, is fine because it gives other members who have less experience and knowledge on the composer in question the opportunity to pick up a few tips. Further, it is always nice to hear other people's opinions on good recordings etc, as there is monopoly of good advice on things like this. The problem is that such discussions can, after a while, sometimes become rather argumentative and sterile, with very little further useful information to be gained.


Wrong thread, !


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Concision has nothing to do with length. A work should be as long or short as it needs to be. An hour-long act of an opera may be more concise than a five-minute song.


I agree. The composer who springs to mind is Carl Nielsen. He had this knack of getting to the bones of the matter without the note-spinning or the long-windedness (in short, not meandering). Tubin, Rorem, Bax (at least his later works), Merikanto, perhaps Braga-Santos are worth mentioning also.
Even Verdi.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Concision has nothing to do with length. A work should be as long or short as it needs to be. An hour-long act of an opera may be more concise than a five-minute song.


I see your point but surely that simply prompts the question: "how long does a work need to be?"

I guess that if a musical work is telling a story of some kind, the details of which have to be adhered to, then that work needs to be of a certain length, or within a reasonable range either side of some central value, in order to do the story justice.

Aside from that kind of situation, musical works of an absolute variety do not have any particular time values that have to be adhered to. Or do they? A symphony for example, can be almost any length from about 20 minutes to a couple of hours or so. On that basis, one could say that the shorter work is more concise than the longer work, but it doesn't say anything about quality. Therefore, I can't see that it's necessarily a useful indicator.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Partita said:


> I see your point but surely that simply prompts the question: "how long does a work need to be?"


In my view, most times a work should be long enough to reach its end. There are occasions, of course, when that is a very bad idea.


----------

