Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fibes]

Yeah, right, I'm talking song length. After hearing the Nickleback songs smashed together and realizing that formula now trumps content, this ol' boy is a little worried. The 70's used to be a time of exploration with bands taking listeners on 7 minute long journeys and djs flipping off station managers to get the new rock opus to the airwaves. Sure that era had it's share of self indulgent shlock bnut I'd take Children of the Sun over some of these 2:59 ABABACBB anyday. Well orchestrated, executed 5 minute songs that have something to say don't sound as long as 3 minute vapid attempts at record sales. Sure, this cracka likes a pop gem as much as the next guy but i also wouldn't want to eat sushi for dinner every night.
Have we painted ourselves into a corner? Do you really beleive that attention spans are to blame? Is radios pressure taking over. Money before Music? Lack of talented risk takers? A machine that destroys it's creative young and lifts up the bland?

Why am I ranting? I dunno 'cause i work with some real freaks and know they are out there, I'd just love to see the Zeitgeist get by on an accidental hit for a change. Ya' know, back when djs had brains and smoked fatties rather than the computerized ones run by central command in a bunker next to where Cheney counts his money and Cher hangs out with dead rock legends, some of which were in a band with no bass.

[sturgis58]

Funny...I had this very discussion with several people during the mixing phase of my latest CD. A couple of AE professionals, as well as 2 enlightened fans were involved in the discussion. I wanted to know what they considered optimal length for "pop" songs, given the understanding that my music was NOT fodder for radio. Nor is it "pop' by any accepted standard. Half of the songs on my CD were originally 6 to 7 minutes long (in their pre-production demo versions). Now, I was never self conscious about that, but when it came time to prepare them for commercial release, friends of mine voiced some concern over the length of these particular songs. There still exists an almost religious belief that a song must conform to the 3 minute pop "standard" in order to be acceptable to the listening public. Whoever that is.....
I must admit, I can be susceptible to criticism, and I began to worry. I went as far as rewriting 2 of the songs in an attempt to shorten them, and improve the overall "focus". There's nothing inherently wrong with this, it is part of the songwriters craft. Part of the process, if you will. But I feel guilty for doing it....As if my motives were all wrong. I thought the songs were fine. One of them was a composition I originally wrote for another artist. And then I produced it; honestly, the 6 minute length was NEVER an issue. Until it was time for ME to record it.
I have no conclusive end to this post, nor do I have any better understanding of this issue. I hope to hear from the rest of you, and maybe find an answer.

[j.hall]

i'm all for short songs that get to the point and get out.....

you can easily write a song with good direction and purpose in under 5 minutes.  radio probably won't play it, but you can do it.

i haven't heard a 7 minute song in a really long time that had any direction other then to just repeat the parts an extra two times.

[micguy]

Doesn't it depend on the content? If all you have is a couple good hooks, a catchy chorus, and some intriguing thoughts for the verses, you'd better be done and gone in 3. If you have something more - something that justifies 7 minutes, by all means, go for it. People don't usually run around criticising Beethoven, saying it'd play better if it was 2:50, because there is enough good stuff there to justify the time spent (at least if you're into classical).

[j.hall]

yeah, but the hallelujah chorus timing in at roughly 10 minutes (i think) can easily be cut down to 1 minute and still get the point across........

[Fibes]

j.hall wrote on Wed, 12 May 2004 10:06

i haven't heard a 7 minute song in a really long time that had any direction other then to just repeat the parts an extra two times.

I have, but you make a great point, you have to dig deep to find the true adventurers out there. A song can be a journey and sometimes I want to go further than the corner store for some candy.

Brad just mastered an album for me that two songs are at 8 minutes and only one is less than four. We actually retracked a tune to make it shorter and went with the long version because it needed room to breathe. Not once during the project did I feel like I was getting bored with the material. More often than not the 3-3:30 tunes some "pop" artists I work with make me feel like I'm on ludes or having a stroke.

I wonder what Miles would say about this?  

[j.hall]

Fibes wrote on Wed, 12 May 2004 12:30

A song can be a journey and sometimes I want to go further than the corner store for some candy.

CAN BE?????

a song HAS TO BE a journey or it goes down in flames!!!!

that is one of a few things that separates music from the rest of the arts.  it HAS TO BE a journey.....imo at least

i have to retract my earlier statement

mars volta can write a long song that has forward movement the entire time.  juno does it well too, in a totally different way.  they'll move a song ahead lyrically, and be musically repetitive, then switch it up toward the end.  an interesting approach to more lengthy writing.

mars volta is a sheer flight of ideas spawning off a similar thought and running it's course no matter what stands in the way.

[Fibes]

Yeah, it has to be...

I almost feel like instrumental music has more leeway with lengthy tunes, it becomes about mood, color and more abstract things than even the most obtuse lyrics.

It is interesting how some artists have a knack for writing tunes that are short and to the point from the get go. Others have a hard time losing the fat at every turn. If the middle verse isn't saying anything, why bother? Repeating whole verses isn't really something I'm into.  FZ said that it was a great way to learn English but...

[j.hall]

when i'm writing (not that i'm a good writer)

my thoughts are this:

throw out all that crap about verses and chorus, bridge

that's all convention that holds you back

any part can be a verse, bridge, jam, intro, outro

you have to stop thinking about your composition in black and white terms....."this is my verse!!!"

screw that....write for the song, not convention or theory.  let the parts fall into place and move themselves along

i love using variations.....i'll typically come up with a part, work it out, then come up with at least 3 variations of the part

different time signature, different articulation

many times those variations end up in the tune in one form or another

Quote:

It is interesting how some artists have a knack for writing tunes that are short and to the point from the get go. Others have a hard time losing the fat at every turn.

personally, this is the difference between an artist that understand direction, and restraint, and a guy just making up parts the "sound cool"

i tell all the bands i work with and play with.....there is a very hard line between a cool part, and simply "too much cool"

less is more.....play that hot part way less then you think and the listener will back the track up ten times just to hear that one part some more....

[natpub]

I agree, Fibes. A huge part of the "homogenization" of music today is a result of time contraint in a "sound bite" world. Now, I would agree with those who say it was the same way in the day of the Beatles, and that it was not until AOR broke through that longer times were permitted. However, I am worried that no similar medium will break the mold now for us, unless something drastic occurs.


-KT

[12345]

You are absolutely right.  This is a pointless question in theory, but one that brings so much controversy and hence has purpose.  There are persons who make music for different reasons...to support their families, to become popular, to fight convention, for paradigm, or any other reason.  We must not question their driving forces, but must scrutinize them artistically and expect nothing less than perfection.  I think the obvious answer is that the masses are inherently uninformed---and the artist is sacred.  The 50+ -minute Mountain Jam into Whipping Post from the Allman Brothers Band Fillmore East had its place in musicality, but this was a far departure from Donovan's original.  One of the most wonderful things about music is that it is a defining aspect of an artist's direction, but also exists in a temporal medium.  That is to say, the timing of a work is as important as the size of a canvas for a painter.  The timing can be expansive or succint, and by default drives the character of the work.  I will never challenge the timing of a song--but if I find out that an artist created a song within certain constraints for the sole purpose of fitting in, I would question that artist's integrity and therefore my desire to work with him/her.  

Sincerely,
My World (yes, that's my name)
My World Studios
Los Angeles, CA

[joeq]

I had a writing teacher who would give an assignment and the students would ask how long it should be.  His answer was always "as long as its good"


I love a good long song-  a current project has some 6 to 8 minute tunes with solos (gasp) and jamming (shudder).  I hope there is a revival

when discussing the great long-form rock tunes of yesteryear, we should not forget the butchering done to those songs  to cut them down down to radio size.

Light My Fire,  Sunshine of Your Love.  I cringe just thinking about those "edits" .  

or the "fadeouts" that were used when something like Mountain Jam or Spoonful didn't fit on one program side of an 8-track!

[natpub]

joeq wrote on Thu, 13 May 2004 21:27

I had a writing teacher who would give an assignment and the students would ask how long it should be.  His answer was always "as long as its good"

Woo! I love that answer! (two thumbs up:-)

[mitgong]

I was thinking about a lot of these things while listening to "Lady Madonna" on the way in today.

It can be as long as you want it to be just as long as there is.....NO! FAT!

[Fulcrum]

I'm working on a CD at the moment-- have been for longer than I care to admit-- in which all the songs are at least six minutes in length. Several hover around ten minutes; one clocks in at twenty.

Why, yes, it's progressive rock, or perhaps post-progressive is a better term, but that's beside the point.

As a composer my stock in trade lies in what Pat Metheny calls "trip quotient", and in not necessarily feeling constrained to taking the shortest distance between two points. Whether I'm testing your attention span is not really my concern. If you don't feel like you've been on a journey, and if you don't feel like I've left you in a better place for having taken that journey, then in some way I've failed-- but the piece is what it is.

Can I get my point across in three minutes? I've done it, sure. These songs happen to be longer than that; I was guided to use the form to spin the song a little longer; I'm not working in a form that requires me to rein it in after such and thus a time span. If there's some fat, well, it contrasts with the lean sections. (And my project also has solos and jam sections, along with some spacey interludes, and I also hope for a revival though I'm not optimistic.)