|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 13, 2019 19:10:40 GMT
I think it just depends on what the song contains. A long song needs reasons to justify it. John Cage or other “classical world” minimalists would do simple repetitions of arpeggios or drones for hours—HOURS—and to me that’s just an insult to the listener. It’s not pleasant. Maybe it’s intellectually worthwhile on some level, but it’s hard to imagine that lack of content earning its length. “The Song Remains the Same” is one, for example, that is worth its 5:24 running time. There are interesting changes, sections, textures, that keep it interesting. But when songs just repeat one or two simple parts, I find that annoying. So yes, I do think “D’yer Mak’er” is unworthy of its 4:23, and “Fool in the Rain” is definitely undeserving of 6:08!
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 13, 2019 19:14:44 GMT
I honestly thought D'yer Maker was longer. Maybe it just feels longer.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 13, 2019 19:20:43 GMT
It’s only got the two sections, with the verses going on forever. So it feels long. It’s like how a 30-second section of atmospheric sound or feedback seems interminable. Without diversity, time drags.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 13, 2019 19:37:43 GMT
This is true.
Sorry to focus on the album's one weak spot (IMO), as I do find the album quite enjoyable. It might also be LZ's last great album.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Nov 13, 2019 19:45:07 GMT
I don't think I'll ever fully understand why songs got longer. It seems like over a 20 year period (or so) the average length of a song nearly doubled. At some point, it became a standard, and song sections stretched out and those stretched out sections were repeated an extra 2, 3, or 4 times. To Kapitan's point about a song being deserving of its length, in my (completely unscientific) opinion, maybe a grand total of 5% of all songs over 4 minutes are (especially songs over 4:45). The thing is, no matter how inventive a 6-10 minute song is, the sections are going to be related to some extent. And, if they aren't, why not break them up? I'd rather listen to an album of 12-14 unrelated pieces of music than 8-9. I guess there's an argument to be made that an 8-9 song album could potentially eliminate filler, but at what expense? Besides, no fan base will ever come to a meaningful consensus on what is or isn't filler. Give me more songs. Give me short songs. I'll decide which musical pieces to listen to on repeat. Not to mention, the longer a song or album, the more likely it is to lose listeners' attention. There's no way around that.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 13, 2019 19:45:44 GMT
Focus on good or bad, all’s fair.
This album is also one that’s been sampled a lot in hip hop. Some of the more prominent solo drum beats used to pop up all the time.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 13, 2019 20:22:47 GMT
Focus on good or bad, all’s fair. This album is also one that’s been sampled a lot in hip hop. Some of the more prominent solo drum beats used to pop up all the time. It's also been sampled by Plant himself, using The Ocean, and a couple other LZ clips on Tall Cool One.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 13, 2019 20:26:04 GMT
I don't think I'll ever fully understand why songs got longer. It seems like over a 20 year period (or so) the average length of a song nearly doubled. At some point, it became a standard, and song sections stretched out and those stretched out sections were repeated an extra 2, 3, or 4 times. To Kapitan's point about a song being deserving of its length, in my (completely unscientific) opinion, maybe a grand total of 5% of all songs over 4 minutes are (especially songs over 4:45). The thing is, no matter how inventive a 6-10 minute song is, the sections are going to be related to some extent. And, if they aren't, why not break them up? I'd rather listen to an album of 12-14 unrelated pieces of music than 8-9. I guess there's an argument to be made that an 8-9 song album could potentially eliminate filler, but at what expense? Besides, no fan base will ever come to a meaningful consensus on what is or isn't filler. Give me more songs. Give me short songs. I'll decide which musical pieces to listen to on repeat. Not to mention, the longer a song or album, the more likely it is to lose listeners' attention. There's no way around that. I think the popularity of Pink Floyd, Rush, Iron Maiden, etc show that some listeners don't lose attention with long songs. I think a great song can range anywhere from 2 to 25 minutes if done right. I've heard two minute songs that feel like an eternity, and I've heard 20 minute epics that fly by in an instant. And, at least before the CD age, a lot of albums where the songs tended to be longer had less songs, so you'd still get that 35-50 minutes of music.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Nov 13, 2019 21:13:08 GMT
I think the popularity of Pink Floyd, Rush, Iron Maiden, etc show that some listeners don't lose attention with long songs. I think a great song can range anywhere from 2 to 25 minutes if done right. I've heard two minute songs that feel like an eternity, and I've heard 20 minute epics that fly by in an instant. You could add Zeppelin to the list. You could add Bob Dylan (he wasn't shy about verse count!). The list goes on. Obviously, the music is more important than the duration. In these examples, great music wins out. But, if Dylan were a little more concise, would I be less of a fan? No way. If those other groups wrote shorter songs would they lose fans? Not as many as they'd gain, in my opinion. Either way, to me, it's just a matter of getting less with longer songs. In a way, it's like what you were discussing in the 'Touring Albums in Full' thread - performing 50+ minute albums just isn't feasible. The inevitably long songs of such albums just eat up space that other songs could have filled. And, at least before the CD age, a lot of albums where the songs tended to be longer had less songs, so you'd still get that 35-50 minutes of music. That's my point. Generally, I'd rather my 35-50 minute album contain 12-14 different song ideas than just 8-9. If I don't like 2 songs of an 8 song album, well, I'm out 1/4 of an album. And, if I'm listened to an LP and they're both on the same side, I'm basically out 1/2 an album.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Nov 13, 2019 23:49:45 GMT
I like Houses Of The Holy. A lot. But it wasn't always that way. At least not at the beginning. For some reason, it took a much later second breath and getting the album on CD to fully appreciate it.
When Houses Of The Holy was released in 1973, it was met with overall positive praise - but not without some mixed reviews and concerns. The comparison to Led Zeppelin IV was inevitable. Start with the AM singles, "Black Dog" vs. "D'yer Mak'er". Which would you choose? Or the FM staples, "Stairway To Heaven" vs. "Over The Hills And Far Away"? In all fairness, "OTHAFA" was a crossover hit and I love it. Led Zeppelin IV was solid from beginning to end, but..."The Crunge"? And again, "D'yer Mak'er"? And just eight songs? Well, Led Zeppelin IV only had eight songs! It just seemed like more music. Even the album cover was criticized. Naked little children?
I think Houses Of The Holy has aged well. I think it went from a possible letdown to the underdog. The singles continue to get massive airplay on both oldies stations and classic rock stations. A few of the songs became live staples. And some of the tracks are just flat out out great. "The Songs Remains The Same", "No Quarter" (how did they come up with something like that?!), "Over The Hills And Far Away", and "Dancing Days" are stone cold classics. "The Ocean" is a great rocker. I've never been that fond of "The Rain Song" (I know it has its fans but I think it drags slightly).
It's hard to compare Houses Of The Holy to the first three albums. It even has a different feel from IV. To me it has a unique sound, almost a slickness to it. Jimmy's writing style AND his guitar sound was changing. Led Zeppelin were a long way from having to prove themselves. Now they were trying to stay on top. In a funny way I think Houses Of The Holy has found its niche and has carved out it's own place in Led Zep's history. Because of this thread, I found myself listening to all of the old Led Zeppelin albums. I've been listening to this one constantly over the last week and enjoying the hell out of it!
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 14, 2019 14:41:53 GMT
I think the popularity of Pink Floyd, Rush, Iron Maiden, etc show that some listeners don't lose attention with long songs. I think a great song can range anywhere from 2 to 25 minutes if done right. I've heard two minute songs that feel like an eternity, and I've heard 20 minute epics that fly by in an instant. You could add Zeppelin to the list. You could add Bob Dylan (he wasn't shy about verse count!). The list goes on. Obviously, the music is more important than the duration. In these examples, great music wins out. But, if Dylan were a little more concise, would I be less of a fan? No way. If those other groups wrote shorter songs would they lose fans? Not as many as they'd gain, in my opinion. Either way, to me, it's just a matter of getting less with longer songs. In a way, it's like what you were discussing in the 'Touring Albums in Full' thread - performing 50+ minute albums just isn't feasible. The inevitably long songs of such albums just eat up space that other songs could have filled. And, at least before the CD age, a lot of albums where the songs tended to be longer had less songs, so you'd still get that 35-50 minutes of music. That's my point. Generally, I'd rather my 35-50 minute album contain 12-14 different song ideas than just 8-9. If I don't like 2 songs of an 8 song album, well, I'm out 1/4 of an album. And, if I'm listened to an LP and they're both on the same side, I'm basically out 1/2 an album. To each their own. I think it depends on what works best for the artist. I'm a big Iron Maiden fan, and their popularity actually dipped a bit in the early 90s when they began doing shorter songs. But, they've embraced their prog influences in the last couple decades, and their current albums are right up there with their classic material.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Nov 14, 2019 16:46:18 GMT
Even the album cover was criticized. Naked little children?
I've never really thought much about it (and why should I? It's sold millions of copies. Surely, there's nothing amiss. It just is.), but I'll say, while the colors are great, the children... weird. I've since read a few articles, and according to the brother and sister, they came from a poor family and did lots of nude modeling back then. Like I said, weird (and exploitative).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 14, 2019 17:06:59 GMT
Even the album cover was criticized. Naked little children?
I've never really thought much about it (and why should I? It's sold millions of copies. Surely, there's nothing amiss. It just is.), but I'll say, while the colors are great, the children... weird. I've since read a few articles, and according to the brother and sister, they came from a poor family and did lots of nude modeling back then. Like I said, weird (and exploitative). Quite odd indeed, and somewhat surprising an alternate cover was never issued, like with Blind Faith's debut and Scorpions - Virgin Killer. Although this kind of thing still exists in music, most recently in some very creepy music videos from a pop singer called Sia, figuring a young girl in a flesh colored body suit. Not actually nudity, but still really really weird.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 14, 2019 19:33:18 GMT
I don't know about the image on this being such a big deal. It's weird, but I don't think it's especially creepy. I think we just hypersexualize everything as a society. To me it was more symbolic of striving, growing, seeking.
That said, if I had kids and someone asked whether they'd model for a cover like this? Uh, no. No thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Nov 15, 2019 1:42:19 GMT
10 things you didn't know about Houses Of The Holy:
|
|