The total yardage of a golf course is so abstract a measure of the experience that it's almost totally useless.
If you're worried about playing tees that are too long or too short, look at the yardages of the actual holes you'll be playing. If you don't care enough to do that, scan for the longest par 3 or 4. If that number seems too long, move up.
Re: Matt Cohn's experience above, amateurs and pros play courses that vary by 1,000 yards over the course of a year or season. Confining oneself to a range 20% that size doesn't make much sense.
This gets at what I keep thinking about. Part of a course's character and design intent is reflected in its length and difficulty level. Cape Arundel is quirky and funky and short. If you could somehow stretch it to 7800 yards, some of the quirky and funky features might seem ridiculous. But at 6000ish, it feels very much in proportion. A strong player can go low there, but it requires creativity and finesse to extract the desired score.
Compare that with an Erin Hills, where the course is bigger and brawnier. Scooting up a tee (or two or three or four) makes the course a little more manageable, and you can eventually scoot all the way up to a Cape Arundel-esque yardage. And it might be fun to shoot a better score from a not-so-difficult set of tees, but at some point aren't you starting to miss the designed character of the course? And does that matter if that character is monstrous and not particularly appealing? I mean, some courses are bastards. As someone who cares about architecture, is there a benefit to jumping in and meeting the bastard, even if it might be more fun to scooch up to a friendlier length? I think Hogan would've said yes, at least.
Most of us are crappy enough at this game to justify playing every course from within our comfort zone, and as a guy with a comfort zone between 6100 and 6500 yards, there's usually a set of tees that keeps me in it. But do I miss out on part of what makes different courses different when I don't stretch out of it?
I think the answer is probably yes, at least to some degree. And it goes both ways - it's not always about stretching beyond a comfortable length. Like, Clovernook was short enough that decent-player guests almost always wanted to play the back tees, added over many years, at 6500ish yards. But some of those tees were in spots that limited options or forced awkward angles. I always thought the blue tees at 6350ish revealed the course's character better. And there are some very short courses that a lot of guys dismiss as being "too easy," but it's not actually easier to play to one's handicap on them. As a ~10 handicap, do I really get to call a course "easy" if I shoot 77 to log my best score of the year, but only equal the same 13 differential that I posted when I shot 89 on a long and tough layout?