JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Songwriter Message Forum Under 3 Minutes

So I've been gradually picking up the new Beatles remasters, listening to all my favorite recordings, all cleaned up and crisp...

...and I began to notice how long the songs are. 2:10. 2:24...

Yeah, sure I knew the EARLY Beatles songs were short and sweet...but most of the songs on the White Album manage to stay under three minutes as well, and they're action-packed! Hmmm, how did they do that, I wondered...

And I've also been recording a lot of old cover songs...guess what? Most are under three minutes.

So I thought I'd post this as a discussion topic: have you thought much about your song's length?

If you aspire to getting a cut, the music industry wants 'em short and sweet, make no mistake about that. You won't be getting your first cut with another seven minute "Hey Jude" or "Like a Rolling Stone". Maybe one of the best songwriting lessons we can give ourselves is to learn how to embrace economy. How to put the most hooky goodness into the smallest package.

I used to think 3:30 was a reasonable goal for most songs we write for today's markets, and the 4 minute mark signaled the danger zone. Now I'm feeling more inclined to shoot for under 3...

I wanted to respond to this, because I think about it all the time, but I don't feel like I have an answer or even qualify to answer this thread Mark.

I write niche' music. My songs are mostly stories, and length doesn't matter to me. My songs can be two minutes or five minutes long.

I would be happy if someone listened all the way through.

By the way, I'm listening to Mary Hopkins "Those Were The Days" as I'm typing. A very long song.

One of my initial thoughts for this year's 50/90 was to write all 2 minute songs. I didn't really follow through, but if you have V-V-Ch-V-V-Ch-Br-Ch format with no lead break you are in easily at 3 minutes or less for most mid to up tempo songs.

I think trying writing economical songs at around 2:30 is a very worthwhile goal.

Kevin

Right Kevin, but you have to consider an instrumental solo somewhere that adds time to the song.

Lead breaks are not really necessary, especially if you have some good riffs.

But here's a song with V-C-V-C-Br-C that has a pretty good lead break and two ending type tag sections and it comes in at 2:31 with the count-off still in there: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8039830 -- so it can be done.

I like lead breaks and story development so 3 minutes seems to be my practical lower limit.

Kevin

The three thirty goal is pretty much standard. The shorter,the better. Most everything I do comes in around 3:19. Three minutes is the target. The closer you can get to that, the better you are.

The primary reason is that radio is centered around 5 three minute songs and five commercials. Without getting something on the radio, there is very little opportunity to make money. Without making money, there is little reason to pay for demos or the cost of doing business. Without commercials, radio is not on the air. That is why it is called "Commercial radio."

Also,radio factors in a short attention span audience. Due to the constant input of day to day life, radio, 24 hour television, movies, newspaper, internet, people have a considerable amount of info to digest constantly. The attention span lasts in thirty second blocks. If something does not hold or keep the attention in that time, they tune out.

So music has always really been short. The brief time that changed was in the drug days of the 60's and into the 70's where FM radio started. At first there was very little commercials. Then as it realized it had to be funded to survive, commercials became more and more abundant. Most of that changed music BACK to where it was in the 80's. So people often take the abberation of long playing records, which only lasted about 10-12 years in the mainstream, as the rule instead of what it was, the exception.

You have to know history in order to keep from repeating it.

MAB

Great post Mark, I believe the economy of songwriting is a great and important concept in commercial songwriting!

I think about this all the time. I'm a guitarist, and loove to hear myself play looong solos. So I do that.. when I jam for instrumental tv/film tracks, and use very small melody snippets selected from my best improvisations. I do the same when working out hooks and signatures on my songs.. jam all over it for a while, and use the best stuff. That way I get satisfied playing for hours, and still meets the criteria of commercial music using the principle of selection. I think the same applies for working out lyrics and song sections.. we don't use EVERYTHING we write, we extract the best, while considering genre and impact. Entertaining by the second is key, and no 2sec of boredom is allowed

I noticed a producing trend related to this.. Like on Brad Paisleys latest release many of the songs are actually done after about 3.30, and THEN the solo sections are put on..

I guess that structure allows 'fade out' time, as they love to talk over music in Radio (and talking over a Paisley solo really brings them in a good 'light' Actually there are a 'fade in' sections also.. like on "American Saturday Night". But producers place them in sections that are easy to choose not to play, or to use for speak. That is also 'radio friendly'

This is not to say songwriters should do it (it's a no-no), just that solo sections even for artists who can really PLAY (like Paisley) now too are considered add ons. On Radio material, that is..

But Radio are currently loosing listeners world wide, probably due to overexposure of commercials and standardization of playlists. So Internet might be the next big 'format'. In Denmark the latest download stats tell that more and more niche songs are downloaded at the expence of radio format 'hits'. The big attraction are that our national phone company that provides Internet connections, include free download of music with the subscription.

Some preliminary results report of less piracy, more people download a larger variety of songs and a lot more niche songs. So the end of Radio might be closer than we think (personally, I know absolutely none who listens to commercial radio anymore).

Best thing: The phone company has made a deal with the danish pro, so everyone gets paid. Even better, you are not only paid pr. download, you are paid multiple times for the variety of uses (download on IPOD, phone, computer, second media application, burn on CD, TV ect.).

Bottom line:
New hope for alternative songs due to less standarization of formats and potentially more money to a larger variety of songwriters.

And.. (warning: songwriter forecast!) due to the movable media (IPOD ect.), I predict the demand for travelling songs to increase

None of this does change the listeners attention span, though, so the 'no 2sec of boredom is allowed' criteria still applies, depending on the genre. The Beatles were fortunate to be able to draw attention with their hair in the 60ies

I shoot for 3 - 4 minutes for these reasons and get a little worried if it comes in much under 3.

Thinking back, there were a lot of classic rock songs that were too long and were edited for radio. Crossroads by Cream and Light My Fire by the Doors are examples.

Songs that are too short don't lend themselves to concert performances or dancing as well.

Hi Mark

Good topic

Short and sweet leaves them wanting........ : )

Right on Joice!!

As Robert Pickens once said - If it's too short you can play it again.

Scott

Hey Mark:

Another interesting thread... and a great observation... especially regarding the Beatles. I always use the same 3 to 4 minute target Colin mentioned. Alot depends upon the genre in which a song is being written but the 3 to 4 minute mark is fairly standard in Country music.

I've always been concerned about songs that fall short of the three minute mark... but I'll begin to reconsider if I think the strength of the song is sufficient to deliver the goods.

Thanks for this interesting topic.

I use to always aim for 2:30 to 3:00, but then the industry started saying they were too short, so I tried stretching them by another 30 seconds. Sometimes, especially in a story song, you need to go longer to get the story told. The song dictates how long it should be.

I like em short. For the way that I perform, the shorter the better. I can throw a lot more material at my audience with shorter songs.

I always thought it was a cop out to yak a lot between songs or take long solo's. I do understand the importance of establishing a raport with your audience too, but I believe that can be done suscinctly.

Always hated bands that played 3 song sets...

Sorry!!!!! GOT TO DISAGREE. Some of the best songs are several minutes long Eg Bohemian Rhapsody .....Our guitarist does solos that usually last more than three minutes LOL. It all depends on taste, genre and market place. Most pop songs and commercial stuff lasts three or less BUT other styles eg rock, disco, rap etc etc can last several minutes or more. My rule is to take each song as it comes. I have heard 2 min songs that I think are too long and 8 min songs that are too short.
It is worth mentioning that live music should last until the crowd stop singing along or dancing. I once saw Jimmy James and the Vagabonds live....they played "Amen/This little Light of Mine" for over 15 mins and the audience cheered and gave a standing ovation when it was finished cause they enjoyed every second.

Jim,

Why is it people always have to bring up one of the ten or so songs that have ever gone past that time constraints and they are all between 20 and 30 years old? Those are abberations. You can't do those anymore and expect any kind of mainstream success. And even Bohemian Rhapsody was on the heels of dozens of Queen songs that had been hits, in an era where the 10 minute disco dance mix was a standard. Again, for about 10 years.
That was a ten year abberation period in a new format with less constraints than have developed. Before the drug phase of music hit around 1967 Summer of Love to about 1977 where Disco took over, into the dance era of Urban Cowby days, ending not much longer, the format's went back to the three minute songs.

So pulling out exceptions rather than rules really don't help, especially to most people who are trying to find ways into today's music market. The modern world of the Internet have actually made those time constraints tighter, not looser, with people now giving attention closer to two minutes than three minutes.

We all have favorites from that era but that era has gone. Time to try at least to intereact with the modern public.Of course, writers all have the right and obligations to say anything they want, any way they want it, and can be as long or short as they want. But there is no right to be heard. And in the ears of the general music consumer, less is more.

MAB

PS:

On a personal note, as being in the business, I do like the longer songs and solos from people on writer's nights, open mics, writer's showcases, etc. what have you. It gives me longer time to go to the bathroom, make phone calls, check e-mails etc. That is actually the reason those initial longer songs got on the radio in the first place.

Before tape cartridges, all commercials, voice overs, etc. had to be done live. So longer songs gave the DJ's the chance to go to the bathroom, eat, have sex, smoke pot and still be back before it ended. Thus: American Pie, Inna Gadda Divida, Free Bird, Nights in White Satin, Money, long playing albums like Dark Side of the Moon, and pretty much any of the art rock of the 60's-70's.

MAB

A good buddy of mine was a WLAC dj here in Nashville. The first day on the job, he and his wife were over at my house with a few other folks playing poker. My friend left for his first day at work and we all stayed and turned on his show. We clapped and cheered when we heard him announce himself, bring on a couple of records, and do the news. Then, after one song, there was silence. His wife freaked and ran out the door to drive to the station. We kept playing poker. We forgot the radio was on. After more than a half an hour, we heard our friend's voice saying, "You've been listening to WLAC Nashville radio."

His wife came back a little later, laughing. He had put on a record and went out to pour himself a cup of coffee. The door to the broadcast studio had locked. By the time his wife arrived, the station manager was already on his way over with a key. No one was mad at our friend. That week they changed the lock so you had to use the key to lock the broadcast studio door.

Funny stuff.

Ok, carry on.

I NEVER have to think about it all and haven't for years. At least that's one thing off my list

But I often remind others who come to the studio to do this.
LOOK at the clock... It usually tells you something.
When your song is feeling "not right" look at the time, Oh it's now at 5:26 mark? Oh that chorus started at 1:48 or 2:10... Hmmm
well that lead guitar intro for 30 seconds didn't help did it?

Felt good but did it help the song overall?

When you have a basic understanding for arrangements your songs naturally fall into the right time frame. But what Jim said was a HUGE key.. what kinda song and situation are you talking about? Most Rock songs even today are tad longer than regular poppy pop. You'll see many 4:26 - 4:38 etc.... om a Fuel or Nickelback record. And yes dance music is the longest...

The real trouble is making a song NOT feel like it's 10 minutes long lol.. Again arrangement and what you do musically makes all the difference in the world.

I have catchy songs and they all fall in the same time frames.
Once in a while they will stretch out a tad to make them more interesting and a bit more involved musically.
The difference is knowing the difference and the ability to do both and know when to do it.. "it's a feel. Each song tells you.

Also ballads tend to be a little longer.... Make a Slooooow tempo and what is that gonna do to the clock?

One other thing, it is VERY hard to make a really good LONG song.
Most of us starting with me do not have what it takes to make a "Roundabout" or a Bohemiam Rhapsody..
And drugs have ZERO to do with that....

Short attention spans plague today’s audiences. Keep it short and simple or you'll annoy and confuse them.

John

Haha, I knew I'd catch a variety of responses with THIS one.

Well, I also write whatever I durn well feel like writing, be it long or short...but right now I'm fascinated by short. (It's the economy, stupid! ) In fact, I'm willing to bet the industry people aren't warning anyone about songs being TOO short anymore. I keep hearing stories of artists being asked to make trim after trim, even when they have a 3 minute song. It's a race against the world's attention span.

I have a sense that if you polled the publishers today, that old 3:30 goal has probably morphed into something more like 3:00 now.

Either way, we have to do what works for the song. But it sure can be an eye-opener trying to make a structure that keeps things clipping right along with everything finished under 3 flat...I'm just sayin'...

Lets face it most of the crappy pop put out today can only be endured for 3 min before you have to switch it off. LOL

Contrary to what Marc says, outside of Nashville people are still writing, performing and recording good successful songs that last well in excess of 3 min. The average modern indie rock song by chart topping artists usually last at least 4min or even more.

I would worry more about the quality of the song than its length. A good songwriter should know instinctively what length a particular song he writes should be depending on genre, market he is aiming at and tempo etc.

I think focusing on mastering a few good 2:50 songs is a great way to learn about quality. Can't keep flogging the same intro lick forever under those conditions, LOL.

That said, I've been collaborating on yet another cover, Argent's "Hold Your Head Up"...the long version, well over six minutes...

But that song is a GOOD six minutes!

Jim,

Contrary to what you might think I have worked in a LOT of countries and states in 36 years. This whole anti Nashville thing you have, non-withstanding, the rest of the world does do longer songs. They also lose more venues, and are losing revenue hand over fist.
But most of the people that are on a lot of forums like this come to Nashville. But this is not just Nashville. It is American pop, rock, soul, blues music for most of the recorded history.
When the music capital of the world is in Edinburg, we can follow your lead. This forum was started by Mark Kaufman over the shortness of Beatles songs. As I seem to recall, the Beatles gained their biggest success when they came to America.
Sorry if it galls you but that is simply history. You can dissagree, spin it any way you want but the basic rule in almost all pop music and now to country and most other formats are the three minute songs. The reason is the attention span and commercial radio. But even so the blip on the radar screen which are the songs that you are talking about were 30 years ago.

That is my point. We agree to disagree once again. Imagine that.

MAB

The Ramones made a living off songs that were less than 2:30. Although they did have a few longer ones here and there.

Kevin

All I'm sayin' is that WRITING these little suckers is a king hell challenge. If you can get good at the short ones, you can get good at anything.

Here's one of mine. http://kevinedwardrose.com/2009/06/16/song-of-the-week-doe-eyes-in-the-headlights-original/

It comes in at just 2:06. It is probably the shortest thing I have ever written, but I think it says enough.

I had ones in the 90's that were 2:30 minutes... This 2001 pop tune is a perfect example of the nuances that go on... I'll break it down... Because it is more than just lyrical arrangement. You can play the song pause it and follow along
with the thought/feel process...

Little Things ©Caro/Delgaudio 3:35
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=3460736


Intro - Music guitar & drum machine beat only 10 seconds

Verse 1 - First word spoken at 11 seconds

A simple note stuck to the door
Makes your love seem to much more
Pen a heart a smiley face
X's O's and leave a space to sign your name - 26 seconds

Verse 2 - starts at 27 seconds... Bass guitar is now introduced
for the first time, riffing a catchy lick. To support it the drums play on the floor toms to follow the bass phrase. Therefore another hook is added.. musical hooks make songs and buy time..

Eight o clock the corner seat
The time and place we can meet
Share a drink way too tall
Laughing until....... 43 seconds

Chorus - Starts at the 43 second mark, it get's introduced by a stop for 4 beats. The hi hat plays the 4 beats. Now the live drums take over and the whole band kicks in full force. Led by the vocal starting after the second beat... The SNARE hits twice accenting the chorus words Something / To Say

// There's something to say
Say for the little things
That you give
They mean more than anything
As long as I live
I'll savor the little things
In my heart, in my heart.... Chorus ends with another accent at the 1:02 mark

Re- Intro plus... 1:03 mark
Now we could have jumped straight into a verse here and it would have worked and made the song even shorter, BUT because we did such a smooth job so far it allows us to re-set.

We got the WHOLE song across in 1 minute. We made it so we could afford that move.. which is better for the song. Why though technically did it work so well? NO PRE-CHORUS Ah ha that bought us the time for a re-intro. So now it all evens out...

So the more effective thing was to re-intro.. So now I add that
airy organ riff, it brings in yet another hook. This only goes around twice Re-intro with add ons 10 seconds

Verse 3 1:12 Organ is in and so is an acoustic guitar picking gently in the back ground.. that with the sharp electric stabbing chord brings 4 guitars playing something completely different... Hooks!

Take the time to talk to me
Hold me close and quietly, whisper all
the things you said like the first time
that we laid in bed......

Chorus 2 1:30

Oh my goodness second chorus already and 3 verses done?? And all only in 1:30 seconds..

There's something to say
Say for the little things
That you give
They mean more than anything
As long as I live
I'll savor the little things
In my heart, in my heart.... Chorus ends 1:46 mark

Bridge - 1:47 starts with a musical breakdown, to set up the mood. Why not comie in singing? Well we just did a bunch of that and why not let this cool bass guitar effect breathe for a few seconds..

Music 10 seconds Bridge lyric starts at 1:57 seconds...
All kinds of cool subtle musical rhythmic changes. Plus some nice effects.. to set the mood. For a big build up and blast off.

If your thinking
That all I wants the biggest piece of pie
etc.... Don't fill your head..... 2:12 second mark

Solo - What a bridge & a solo, cool
Solo starts at 2:12 seconds....
Short effective solo very catchy over the chorus music.

Solo goes right into Chorus #3 at 2:30 seconds...

Chorus #3 ends at 2:51 - lead kicks back in & vocal starts to add lib... The drums and bass really start pounding to add the intensity, it comes to a BIG 2 beat accent at the end at 3:04

SONG IS OVER by 3:04 seconds... For fun we decide to bring back the cheesy drum machine (intentionally cheesy)
The guitar plays a very cool tremolo volume thing while the bass
bangs a new accent as it fades away.. The fade last to about 3:35
which can be shortened easily for radio. Besides we had the room to spare so why not be creative with your ending?

Intro,Verse/verse/chorus/re-intro/verse/chorus/breakdown/bridge/solo/chorus ALL by 3:04

Now do you think this all happened by accident?

I think about my songs ALOT... Yes you depend on your natural instincts BUT if you only do that your songs can get VERY similar.. the simpler sometimes the more thinking. No sacrifices either, I got to play my butt off & be self indulgent a little bit and have a catchy song that was radio friendly all at the same time.

Mike,

Very interesting analysis and thought process. Lots going on there that is subtle but continues to add interest as the song unfolds.

Hi Colin

Yes, and the key sometimes is just to let the song come to you.
It isn't where you set out thinking "it can go this way that way or that way... But you can try this or that and decide on which is best and feels best. This is where working with others is HUGE!
I always do my best work when others are involved. Nothing beats having a group of some kind to bounce back & forth with. And you don't have to imagine what it will sound like as much.

Writing a hit song is way MORE than just writing a hit song.
The FACT that YOU were able to get it to be a hit is even FAR harder. So even when I hear a TERRIBLE song on the radio.
I still know how much luck,work or BS someone may have had to go through regardless.

So anyhow like I always say when in doubt,first look at the clock,the counter on your song... Many clues are there.

Analyze those Beatles works. You should be able to identify musical movements, generally around a first verse with accompanying arrangement, then repeating for a second verse.

Then you're likely to find a change of dynamics in a chorus or bridge, followed by a 3rd repeat of the first musical movement as a 3rd verse, and perhaps a chorus to close.

The vocal melody, plays very obviously and simplistically, easily duplicated with a kazoo or sax, owing to the obvious and simple lyric, the syllables dictating the notes. The lines are not cluttered with words, like 'cause, and,' or 'but.'

Intros are probably measurably brief, getting them to THE hook within the first minute, or not long after.

I remember observing of their works that, when they end, they could just as easily commence the song from the beginning, without an obvious interruption. The songs are constructed with a continuity. I suspected they practiced them that way, playing those 2:30 pieces 3 or 5 times, taking 10 or 15 minutes, polishing the execution, vocally, harmonically, instrumentally, of each musical movement, the transitions from verse to chorus, what they referred to as 'the middle eight' (bars), bridges or breaks, and the coda to end.

Try playing one of your own 3 times through without break, and you may observe the polish of execution brings up your skills.

If you can write a song and keep it as engagingly interesting as some of the lengthy classics mentioned, "Bohemian Rhapsody," "Stairway To Heaven," "Hotel California," "Light My Fire," endowing them with 'hook factor' to maintain the mass audiences' interest, by all means, write them.

But 'songs,' specifically, compositions designed to tell a short, sweet story, are probably best kept simple, and shorter. "Don't bore us; get to the chorus," preferably in the first 47 to 60 some seconds, get the story told, and get off.

If your poetic lyrical skills are substantial, a long work may also maintain interest. Simpler poem/lyrics are easier to deliver and be received by the listener though.

By all means examine the structures of short pieces and see how they are constructed, dissecting the segments and supporting instrumentation. There is much to be learned by such analytical study.

And if you want to play a longer version in your live shows your fans will just love it.

Short versions are for sales purposes, to get people to listen long enough for the radio to sell them the commercial products that pay for it all.

It seems that most of the comments in this and other threads emphasized at least three things with regard to timing:

1) Intro - less than 12 seconds.

2) Get to the chorus quickly.

3) Song length - less than 3:30 or so.

Keep them doggies movin -----

Tom

Here's one thing I notice:

These shorter songs rarely have two verses before the first chorus. One verse does the trick.

If you decide to write TWO verses before your first chorus, think long and hard about it...are you losing your listener's attention?

Before I did FAWM last year, many of my songs were quite a bit over 4 minutes long - I find I've been economizing - not just because one is under the gun to write quickly during the FAWM challenges, but that I've learned to make my lyrics less wordy - and the recordings in general are just right at a little over 3 minutes. They sound just right at this length - and I still manage a musical/instrumental break

We keep coming back to this. A couple of other things. Do you guys know how long the Beatles live shows were? About 20 minutes. That is it. They did that big walk across the field to the stadium while the girls went bananas, got on stage, while the girls went bananas, plugged up and played, (well at least we think they played,the girls were too busy going bananas.) the did about 6 songs and were off.

That was almost everything in those days. You would be on a show with ten other acts, come out, play your 15-20 minutes and be gone. Television shows, radio, everything was built around getting more songs in. Hence top 40 radio.

On the songs you mentioned that are long players. In almost every one of those, Hotel California being one of the most prevalant, The Eagles, were at least as known for their musical playing, primarily guitar playing, as they were for those big singable choruses and their incredible hooks.

Queen was known for theatrics. I saw them in 83' five feet from the stage, and they did Bohemian Rapsody. Only they didn't do Bohemian Rapsody. It was on tape. When it kicked into the rock part at the end, explosions went off, and the band kicked in, Freddie had done a costume change. The theatrics were what that was all about.

The late 60's and 70's basically expanded the FM format and songs got longer. So again, I maintain that was an abberation instead of the rule.

Mark, you have it exactly right. 95% of songs that are recorded in this day and age follow the formula of "verse, (Channel or lift or pre-chorus)Chorus with the hook line at the end. Then second verse, chorus, bridge on about 50% of the songs, no bridge on the rest.

Is it formula? Of course. The challenge is to keep the listener interested witin the formula. The great ones do that. That is the difference between writers.

Amateur writers say what they want to say.
Professional writers write what other people want to hear.
Great writers do both.

MAB

I agree over the long haul all popular radio music is short in length. Even in the 70's many stations played edited versions of the longer songs. It's understandable.

Marc - I saw Queen live as well 8th row they were even better than I imagined they would be. It's understandable as to why they would walk off and let the tape do the middle section of that song.
They were Great!

Back to formula, the fun part is figuring out which works with each song. On the song I layed out above the two verse before the chorus sounds completely natural and works perfectly.
Why? Because it feels right number one, it could have went verse chorus but it didn't feel right in the room. When 3 musicians the producer and the outside ear all feel the same way it is easier to make a decision

If it is analyzed to see why it works then it's because the short into, then a short verse, then there's no pre-chorus.

Most of my songs have one verse to either pre-chorus or chorus.

I have one where it hits the chorus at the 26 second mark that's my personal best time to date. Then I pull a DOUBLE CHORUS
and it works perfectly! Quite rewarding.

But it is NEVER pre-conceived planted or scripted to be that way. It will come naturally or show itself to you eventually.
In all my songs I only have one that starts with the chorus it just works best that way period, so screw that silly rule.
Of course we don't over use it...

Of course if we stay inside one genre than our rules get tighter
that's understandable. Mark K posted this but doesn't write Country or Hip Hop so that takes him off the radio by about 80%

So say if Mark was to pen something great like a "Heart Of The Matter"by Don Henley which is not 2 or 3 minutes if he followed this automatic built in format and than he could NEVER have that chance. Did you ever notice how the edited version of that song totally sucks

Bottom line to cover everything is...

Write a great song and EVERYTHING will conform to you.
Money aside lol

Would the formulas noted here apply to most genres, or mainly Top 40 pop and country material? The reason for asking is that I have noticed in bluegrass and Americana, there are often 2 verses, then chorus. From there you might get an instrumental break, and then either back to the main verse, the chorus or a bridge into chorus.

On the length of a song, I could be wrong here, but I try to just go with the industry and 3-3:30 seems about "right" for that genre? Faster tempos might be shorter, stories longer. For those in and dealing with Nashville and/or that genre of music....would these be valid observations? Or does the 1 verse, 1 cho still apply regardless.

Thanks

Paul Ryan
www.ryantunes.com

Hi Paul

Yes they would apply to most genres especially those in popular music and main stream radio.

Bluegrass which isn't mainstream radio music of course would be different. They have there layouts as well but I can't imagine any pressure on anyone to worry about it too much. It's nice to have some liberties as well. I often take that out on my instrumentals. I know I have more freedom there. But even vocally
there is NO set rules for ANY song until you want someone else to BUY them so to speak.

Many songs will follow the same format but they don't HAVE to. That's the important thing to remember. There are only a few sensible variations anyway of course.. so finding the best one for each song is the key.

Yes any song is safe at the 3:30 mark regardless of what type.
Dance music can be longer and some rock songs can be a little longer also ballads in general are a touch longer.

I wouldn't care for a long Blue Grass song and would range them at 2- 3 minutes in general.
And I'm glad American Pie was a s long as it was lol...
Wouldn't remove one verse from that song...

Your safe Paul I'd make a few verse/verse/chorus/ a few
Verse/chorus/verse/chorus

If anyone is planning to market something the common sense thing to do is look at what is out there and see. If they make 6 minute songs than go six if it's 2 mins then go two.

Just try to make each song feel good,fresh to you... and fun or intriguing, challenging etc... That's the biggest thing to focus on.

I agree with what is being said. Most pop songs and country have a 3.00min standard although it is not carved n stone.

Most rock songs are usually a tad longer allowing for the traditional long intro and solos etc.

That said a song can be any length as long as instrumentally or storywise it is captivating and not boring. Most pop or country songs should have as a benchmark a max of three verses and three choruses regardless of what order the appear.

(PS Much as I like American pie the full blown version does get tedious and boring and most people I know who perform it trim off a considerable bit)

Now after reading all of this I am totally confused.

I suppose my best bet is to look at the songs that play on radio now and see how long they are and try to aim in that direction. I know it can be longer when done live and that is cool, but if we as writers dream, a big dream, but dream of hearing one of ours on the radio, I suppose we have to try to get to that point of making it not too long or too short...as Goldilocks said, "Just right"

Kim

Is the length of a song ever wrong,
Doesn't it depend on what it's for,
Shorter if you want commercial,
Longer for a movie score.
And isn't based on genre too,
Thereby making a distinction,
I don't think every lengthy song,
Is destined for extinction.
So much depends on it's purpose,
It's presentation in each venue,
There's a time for short, medium and long,
There's a place on the musical menu!

Thanks Mike, one thing I have noticed about my own material is that if a song is poor or needing work, a 3 minute song can sound like it's 4-5 minutes long. If something is off, it can seem like the song never ends. So I tend to discard or rewrite those. And vice versa. If a creation is decent, normally the performance time seems to pass very quickly. Funny how that works.

You lie!

No need for confusion, Kim...it's still same as it ever was: there are a million different ways to write a song.

I'm getting a sense that some folks might think I'm saying a three minute song is what you all MUST write, period. And to that, I say TOSH. TOSH, I say! And fiddlefaddle too!

The point of this thread is to direct people's attention to the IDEA of writing something short and economical, because it's a great challenge. And also to examine your song structure through length. If you have a song that's 4 minutes, is it a NECESSARY 4 minutes? Are you repeating your intro riff several times? If you have 2 verses before a chorus, is it working? Or is it maybe dragging your song?

So to clarify, I'm just saying that if you focus on writing a short one, that sense of editing, of analyzing, will serve you well no matter how long your song is.

Which is, of course, why we're talking about American Pie and Bohemian Rhapsody.

Wait...now I'm confused...

American Pie can be done in under three minutes -- if you sing fast enough.

Kevin

Auctioneerican Pie