# Long vs. short



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

What's your favorite duration for a piece and why?: Long, broad, big, and slow developments vs. short, tight, but well shaped forms.
I prefer the short form. Maybe I like the shock of adrenaline .


----------



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

I generally prefer pieces/movements not to drag on for too long, lest I lose my damn mind! All joking a side, If a movement is intensely interesting I could care less how long it lasts, but if it's not, I'll still listen to it but less enthusiastically. On the other hand, a concise and short piece/movement can do wonders. I suppose it all depends on how interesting the work really is. :}


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

By default I like short. Why? I like shorter pieces for their concision and concentration, also appreciating the underlying selflessness that it can take to be brief (i.e., Anton Webern). 

Of course, I'm a big fan of Anton Bruckner and am not against indulging in something by Morton Feldman, so I think I'm expanding outward also.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

A piece should be as long as its material allows, without losing concentration on the goal ahead.

If that's 3 minutes, great. If that's 90 minutes, also great. So long as the composer doesn't run out of things to say.

Speaking personally, I prefer short music that works itself out confidently and inconspicuously (Webern and Takemitsu, for example, or Debussy). I prefer long music that takes in a lot and finds a lot to do with it (Mahler, Messiaen, Beethoven, Wagner). For mid-length pieces, I prefer something balanced between the two (Mozart, Bach).


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

It doesn't really matter to me how long a work is if I'm enjoying it and will, ultimately, get something out of the music.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2013)

4' 33"

But seriously, one thing about music is how it can change one's perception of time.

I was at a performance of Mahler's sixth back when I was first getting to really dig Mahler. I went with a group of people whose enthusiasm had finally rubbed off on me.

As we left the hall, we looked at each other incredulously. "That can't have been more than twenty minutes." 

"Twenty minutes, tops."

Five minutes of, say, Bax, and I am fidgeting uncontrollably. (Actually, at about three minutes, I'm looking around for something to bash--and something to bash it with.)

Anyway, you know. What neo just said.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

I think that--as in all things worth doing or devoting one's time and attention to--it always comes down to *quality *over *quantity. *


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I've never really thought about that question. I guess I always accept the length as a given and just evaluate how I feel about the work. When a piece grabs hold of you and you are truly in the moment, time is not an issue. When such a piece (or maybe movement) ends, you "come back to reality", and time begins again. 

I guess I want works that do not engage me to be rather short and works that fully engage me to be as long as they are.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I guess I want works that do not engage me to be rather short and works that fully engage me to be as long as they are.


That's, of course, a valid point of view. But my question was more related with the _form_ of composition. 
For example, I'm more fond of a piece which has a few, but interesting, musical ideas which are developed consistently in a short to middle period of time. Possibly, the possibilities of these ideas will not be fully exhausted, but I greatly appreciate if these few developments are adjusted in a tight and well shaped form. Like this little masterpiece, for example: 



I didn't want to use the word "miniature", but whatever then.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I generally like my sonata form first movements longer and the slow movements shorter.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think it's human nature to take longer works more seriously, so if I'm in a serious listening mood I go for longer works if they are within reason. However short works can be finely crafted gems and for all I know may be just as hard to compose. It is said that a short story is harder to write well than a novel.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Though there are probably more good poems than novels.


With classical music I think the more substantial works are often not on the very short side, slightly longer works give a composer more chance to develop the music and may mean the music is actually more interesting and has more potential for them. Of course that doesn't mean that a piece lasting longer is always better than a piece which is shorter, there definitely will come a point where most composers can't sustain the inspiration. Hard to say exactly how long but I'll say around 20-30 minutes on average. But that's only in very general terms, there can be obviously a lot of great pieces longer and shorter than that. And of course if a piece is split into several movements that complicates things as well, as does the style. I'm thinking more in terms of modern music here.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> That's, of course, a valid point of view. But my question was more related with the _form_ of composition.
> For example, I'm more fond of a piece which has a few, but interesting, musical ideas which are developed consistently in a short to middle period of time. Possibly, the possibilities of these ideas will not be fully exhausted, but I greatly appreciate if these few developments are adjusted in a tight and well shaped form. Like this little masterpiece, for example:
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps my relative ignorance of musical development leaves me with less preference. I adore some short works in various genres that do not much expand upon on an idea or two, but I also adore Mahler's symphonies which seem to wander to and fro far from the original idea. But then I love many works that follow relatively rigid forms (e.g. Classical era symphonies). Schubert's Ave Maria and Wagner's Ring are both sublime. So I honestly don't seem to care about the form or length of a work.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Most of the time, I have a frustratingly short attention span. Like, I want to listen to whole symphonies all the way through, but my attention wanders and then I feel like I'm just continuing listening out of a sense of duty. The exception is right when I wake up in the morning and right before I go to sleep at night. Those are the times I can focus intensely on a piece of music for an extended period of time, without getting distracted. I listen with my eyes closed and sometimes become so absorbed that I forget about my surroundings, like when I am falling asleep. I love big, sprawling slow movements at times like that.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

It depends on the nature of the piece and the thematic materials. Sometimes, a theme may sound perfectly complete by simply exposing itself with 1-2 repetitions (like some of Chopin's themes), making the piece short but satisfying. Other times, the theme may not be stunning and complete on its own but welcomes endless potential for development (causing the piece to have a longer duration), and this applies for a lot of good symphonic thematic materials. However, even though the length depends on the thematic material, I think I'm willing to listen to any length of music as long as it is long enough to be satisfying while still keeping my interest all the way through.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Well i like music like 15 minutes to 60 minutes long,as long it does not repeat to much.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Bruckner´s symphonies are definitely too short, but I like them very much anyway.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

Music is like well made dress. It must be long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to be interesting


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

To paraphrase Mahler: even if there's little to say, I prefer when it's said with huge forces and a great amount of time!


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Mahler's Third Symphony is far far too short.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I like music that sounds _concise_ regardless of the actual duration of the piece.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Xaltotun said:


> To paraphrase Mahler: even if there's little to say, I prefer when it's said with huge forces and a great amount of time!


This is very nearly the opposite of Mahler's views on music...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

aleazk said:


> What's your favorite duration for a piece and why?: Long, broad, big, and slow developments vs. short, tight, but well shaped forms.
> I prefer the short form. Maybe I like the shock of adrenaline .


About ten minutes is perfect for me.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Why would I have a preference? Short, medium, long, if it's good it's good.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

Until a few months ago I had a problem with bigger works. I always liked Mahler but had the opinion that his symphonies could be shortened and I couldn't listen to a whole Bruckner symphony without getting bored. Looks like I think I was still not ready for them. Now I love Mahler symphonies entirely and I think I could listen to any Bruckner adagio for the rest of my life!


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

It's difficult to generalize about whether to prefer works that are longer or shorter. I generally engage with works or composers on their own terms.

I absolutely agree with Mahlerian: as long as a work is expanded by interesting musical arguments that continue the momentum of a work, I'm usually satisfied.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Three hours will do. Four and a half is even better though.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

Concise as can be. Five pieces for orchestra by Webern, or Variations: "Aldous Huxley in memoriam" come to mind. Though I do indulge in symphonies which I like to be around a half hour in length.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I like shorter and right to the point. That's why the Baroque and Classical Era are my favorite. Though I like some Romanticism, some of it gets too tedious and long. Mixed feelings about it.


----------

