If your Scrum meeting takes less than 30 seconds, you must not be doing Scrum either. Scrum is not about rigid time absolutes, it's about communication. Too much? Bad. Too little? Bad. Sometimes you need more, sometimes you need less. By the way, Scrum masters are often bad at determining which communication is important and how long stand ups need to last on both the short and long ends.
Ultimately, the question is not your "One True Scotsman" shibboleth, but what is industry standard. And right now, industry standard is standup meetings that run too long, transmit too little useful information, and take up too much project time as a percentage. Are we getting the transparency "bang for the buck" that Scrum promises from its process or were we better off with half-hour weekly status meetings and dailys when projects were coming down to an end? Are standups what bring value to the process or is it all of the other practices that often get snuck in on the back of Scrum? Strict timeboxing on tasks, TDD, continual improvement, transparent status, all of which actually reduce risk? How much does the standup actually bring to the party? More importantly, why is the Scrum community unwilling to discuss questions like this, simply saying "It's not true Scrum, so I don't care."?