Attitudes to short songs (~2mins) and song length in general.

[lemonstar]

What are you thoughts and arguments around shorter than average songs - I'm thinking of songs around 2minutes. I think some are fine left at 2mins -and that may be a reflection of the music I have listen to where I know there are some great short songs around the 2min mark in amongst regular 3-5min songs on albums - plus, I hear a quite a few songs where something is repeated often, I think, just to pad the song out to clear 3mins - and maybe that works better for a repeated chorus than a repeated verse. I'm glad some songs aren't extended as I think it would dilute them down - there are quite a few Lemonheads/Smudge songs that come in just over 2mins. I have a couple of songs that just go over 5 mins and I feel a bit self-conscious that they might be a bit too long. Usually I'm happier to just clear 3 minutes so while some songs I'm OK about leaving at under 3mins, some, I feel need another verse or... something more - a middle 8, an instrumental section, longer bridging sections or a pre-chorus or an outro adding. On the other hand, and I may be wrong about this, I don;t think most listeners are quite as positive about short ~2min songs as I am so I also feel slightly self conscious about those. What's your thinking on the matter?

[songbird52]

I try to keep all my songs somewhere between 3 and 4 minutes. If it's less than 3 minutes, I add more instrumental breaks. 

 

My first reaction to the idea of 2 minute songs is that it's too short. But maybe that's just because I'm in the habit of 3 to 4 minutes. 

 

I think if a song is only 2 minutes there can't be enough to it, and it needs something more. Not necessarily more words.

 

If it's over 4 minutes, then I think it's too long and listeners might lose patience. Unless it's a fascinating story song, then maybe longer is ok. There are guys I've heard at open mics with songs that seem to go on forever and ever and ever. That is annoying. 

 

But 2 minutes, it seems to me, is barely enough time to get the listener's attention. So I would stretch it out with interesting instrumental breaks.

[Driftwood]

     I strive to write songs under 3 minutes. The closer to 2 minutes the better in my opinion. It just seems like a reasonable amount of time for a song to maintain it's purpose of entertainment. Obviously there are other genre's of music that need extra room, but in the case of an average song , 3 minutes or less is fine. The Everly brothers were a great example of how good a song could be at just over 2 minutes.

     So yes, I think even 2 minute songs are viable (and I have written a few at that time rate too) just on artistic merit alone.

  

[MikeRobinson]

I just want a song to say something creative and in a creative way – no matter how many minutes it takes to do so.  But, most of all, I want to hear variety.  I expect to hear a song-structure that I recognize, but I never want to just hear repetition of the same thing.  So, when I am composing something, and I hear for myself that I am repeating myself – to repeat, that I am repeatedly repeating myself repetitiously  –  I take one of those phrases and "jig it up" somehow,.  Do something different.

 

Usually, the song winds up being somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 minutes.  I haven't written my Bohemian Rhapsody yet . . . 

[Peggy]

When I first started writing lyrics/melody I never gave it a thought about the length the song would be when finished. So many, early on, were just too long, too many words.  No room for the musicians. Over time I learned that my writings and songs improved when trying to be more consise with my words and leaving space for performance and arrangement.   

 

I'm not always successful, but ideally, I try to keep a song I'd like to demo or market, under 4 minutes, (as close as possible to 3:38).  

With that said the song can also become an extended version with it's own appeal and purpose. 

 

I have written 1 "song" that's around a minute, and my good music bud let me know it's not a song because of it's missing parts. So I call it a diddy

 

@MikeRobinson, your mentioning "repeating" reminded me of King Crimson's Indiscipline.  I had to cue and crank it up. I added a link in the music lounge topic "what are you listening to" 

 

[Driftwood]

Here's one of my shortys. Clocks in a 1:56.  I couldn't see going any longer cause I wanted to keep it's simplicity in tact. Link at the bottom.

 

Came To Light

(J.Upham)(c) 2015

 

In the night

As you whisper in my ear

I know

Is more than just a fond fare well

And promises to keep

 

In my arms

Dreams are coming true

I guess

It's time to take them to heart

You are the one for me (came to light)

 

Someday we'll find the sun

Someday we'll be as one

Someday has come for you and me

You'll see

 

As I hold you now

And tell you that you are the one

The one that brings me to love

True love for me

 

Came to light-for me

Came to light-for me

Came to light-will you wait for me

 

came to lite.wma

[MikeRobinson]

Yes, Driftwood, and I fully agree with you.  "Say what you came here to say, and then, please, shut up."  ... 😃 ... 

 

I say – if you can manage to condense "your profound thought" into fewer words and still make it "bridge the cognitive distance" ... woo hoo!!

[Driftwood]

1 hour ago, MikeRobinson said:

Yes, Driftwood, and I fully agree with you.  "Say what you came here to say, and then, please, shut up."  ... 😃 ... I couldnt imagine it going any longer.🤪  I thought of it as a retro 60s song for a movie when I wrote it.

 

I say – if you can manage to condense "your profound thought" into fewer words and still make it "bridge the cognitive distance" ... woo hoo!!

Just like the Beatles "I'll Follow The Sun". Quaint little tune, but had it been extended it would have lost some of it's charm.

[devilthearchitect]

On 12/27/2018 at 11:32 PM, Peggy said:

When I first started writing lyrics/melody I never gave it a thought about the length the song would be when finished. So many, early on, were just too long, too many words.  No room for the musicians. Over time I learned that my writings and songs improved when trying to be more consise with my words and leaving space for performance and arrangement.   

 

I'm not always successful, but ideally, I try to keep a song I'd like to demo or market, under 4 minutes, (as close as possible to 3:38).  

With that said the song can also become an extended version with it's own appeal and purpose. 

 

I have written 1 "song" that's around a minute, and my good music bud let me know it's not a song because of it's missing parts. So I call it a diddy

 

@MikeRobinson, your mentioning "repeating" reminded me of King Crimson's Indiscipline.  I had to cue and crank it up. I added a link in the music lounge topic "what are you listening to" 

 

Why specifically 3:38?

 

To me the question about size of the song depends a lot on the details. I find some small songs (Lorde's cover of Everybody wants to rule the world with 2:37 mins or The Beatles Words of Love (also a cover)  with 2 mins) very enjoyable. Especially small instrumental songs, if they are very melodic, I think they can easily get away with being small (For the damaged coda by Blonde Redhead, 2:40 minutes or Bron-Yr-Aur by Led Zeppelin, 2 mins). However, me, for example, when I was starting to compose, I would often have a very nice intro or chorus, or chord progression of some kind, that sounded really nice, but that I wouldn't be able to expand. Then I would try to convince myself that it sounded more "artistic" being small and what not, but they ended up sounding better when I put the effort to expand them. I also experienced the opposite, wanting to have a longer songs just for the sake of it and just repeating parts and in the end settling with smaller versions.

You can always ask your friends and family, being careful to chose people who actually enjoy the style you are trying to use. I have found that the time of the song is something that people will almost invariably point out, whether because they think it is too short or too long, and then you can decide what do you prefer.

 

Edit: An example of a song people told us not to make bigger:

 

[Peggy]

1 hour ago, devilthearchitect said:

Why specifically 3:38?

 I would do calculations just for personal grins. Definitely not scientific. I did them in commute traffic to pass the time (head games)

 

30 minute timeframes on a couple of radio stations, subtracting out commercials, news updates, psa's and DJ setup for song. then  how many songs were being played which gave me song length. Averaged out 3:38. I could easily have said 3:30 and probably should have...

[Driftwood]

That was a nice piece there(Sweet Cherry Tree). I think the length was about right. It's the type of music soundtrack or background music that has a certain vibe to it. Other than how short some of the Everly Brothers or early Beatle songs were, I found Brian Eno's fractured pieces to be an influence too. His "Music For Films" cd was certainly influential in the idea that a short piece can work on different levels.

 

The thing is, alot of writers have pretty much staked out the territory they want to write in and rarely ever experiment outside their comfort zone, which is a shame. Being roped into the "structure" mantra and being told "you can't do that in a song" really does cut off any room for creativity.

     I used to belong to a songwriters club that was made up of 90% folk and country writers and I used to just befuddle them with the variety of patterns I used to use. In time they went from jeering my approach to accepting and even incorporating such things as bridges and intros or even a solo passages where the melody was different from the verse which would normally be where a solo would take place. Yes, I was deemed the "liberator"😂