How Short is too short for a song ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Work over Talent
  • Start date Start date
W

Work over Talent

New member
With the short attention span of this generation, why write more than one 16 for a song when the main focus is the beat and hook. Im taking the 2:00 song approach because I feel in this day and age anything over 3:15 minutes is pushing it. What do you guys and ladies think ? I've even seen chief keef take this approach. It makes sense to me
 
Work over Talent said:
With the short attention span of this generation, why write more than one 16 for a song when the main focus is the beat and hook. Im taking the 2:00 song approach because I feel in this day and age anything over 3:15 minutes is pushing it. What do you guys and ladies think ? I've even seen chief keef take this approach. It makes sense to me
Click to expand...

15 minute songs can work occasionally (free bird). So can 2 minute songs but the average of 3 is at the top of the charts for a reason. I don't know if it's because that's the perfect amount of repetition to commit it to memory without getting boring or the right amount of time for a story to be told but that's what's popular.
 
Personally, I rather a song be 3.30 to 7.00 ...
If it is to short then I will think "that never had much to it" and if it was too long then I'd get bored.
Keep it around 4minutes
 
You know, I was reading your question and the song "You Suffer" from the grindcore band Napalm Death came into my mind. The song is precisely 1.316 seconds long, and even made it into Guinness Book as the shortest ever recorded song.

IMO, the artist/producer must have a great time doing his song. So, if he feels like doing a 17 minute long song, he'll do and that's all.
 
"Beach is better" made it to my top played on itunes because i kept playing it back. The song is only 56 secs long
 
If your song is mainly chorus, I'm probably not gonna listen to it ever again.
That's my, and a lot of people's view.
 
Last edited:
Most Pop "hits" are 3-4 minutes. And if they're longer, they usually get edited down to 3-4 minutes for radio.

Take as little or as much time as you need to get your point across. If it's a repetitive beat or song, I don't think there's a need to run 7 minutes of the same 2 alternating parts. But if your song is finally starting to come together, and then you cut it short, well maybe it wasn't long enough for the vibe to really catch the listener.

Pretty grey though. I don't get too worried about it, but I do like to vary my song lengths.
 
I don't think there's a magic number but for me, nothing less than a minute
 
Work over Talent said:
With the short attention span of this generation, why write more than one 16 for a song when the main focus is the beat and hook. Im taking the 2:00 song approach because I feel in this day and age anything over 3:15 minutes is pushing it. What do you guys and ladies think ? I've even seen chief keef take this approach. It makes sense to me
Click to expand...

I'm going to challenge your assumption that there's an attention-span problem to begin with. Perhaps nothing has changed about this generation's attention span -- it's possible that content is simply more readily available thanks to advances in technology.

This may seem like nit-picking, but stay with me here for a moment because I believe that the difference is meaningful.

If you had a short attention span, you'd have a hard time paying attention to ANYTHING for an extended period of time. Why, then, do I see comments like "raped the repeat button" so frequently in the top comments of YouTube videos? Surely someone with a truly short attention span can't listen to the same song for half-an-hour, can they?

If anything, indie musicians should appreciate someone listening to their low-budget indie productions for even ten seconds. This is a unique opportunity in the modern era. The "attention span" issue would be a moot point, since your waveform would have never reached the listeners' ears in bygone decades.

I play my favorite songs over and over and focus on their nuances. I've memorized their lyrics. However, I am easily distracted from content that I'm not quite passionate about, and often don't have a clue what they're saying.

When all's said and done, I think you can make your songs as long as you like.
Here's a rule of thumb that I think would be good to go by:
Create variation throughout your track constantly. No two sections (verse, chorus, etc.) should be entirely identical. Listeners will get tired of listening to your song at around the same point in which you get tired of making variations in your song. When you reach that point, you've discovered that song's ideal length.

-Ki
Salem Beats
 
Last edited:
In the 1950's Pop songs used to be 1:30, then they edged towards 2:00 at the start of the 1960's and continue to grow until at some point in the 1970's they hit their peak at 3:45.

Sure there were aberrations such as Money, Stairway to heaven (both 7:00+) and Bohemian Rhapsody (4:55 on the 45rpm release) and Inagadavida (17:00+) and several Eno, Eno/Fripp tracks also pushing that 17 minute mark but these only served to remind us why 3:30-3:45 was "ideal",

The length of songs are based on what radio will play and what it won't, particularly commercial radio which uses the bits between the songs to make the money they need to run.

Advertising slots a run at 15", 30" and maybe even 45" and 60": the longer the ad, the more it costs to run - a single 2 minute ad break made enough money to pay the dj for the week (or at least it did prior to the digital age)

artistically you should write what needs to be written for you to feel that you have communicate whatever it is you are trying to communicate; time is irrelevant to the artist and the creative process. It is only when you come up against the harsh commercial realities that you begin to learn that you need to keep your songs under 5:00, as a higher royalty/mechanical performance rights rate kicks in as determined by the PRO's - this has been highlighted in several threads in the Business/marketing/legal section of fp
 
I keep my songs between 3 minutes and 5 minutes.
I've heard several beats that are shorter than 2 minutes, and honestly they just don't catch my attention, because even If I put it on replay, all I'll be hearing is the same damn verse - and that's exhausting.

Now, song that are like, 6, 7 minutes long, don't catch my attention either. By the time that the song reaches 4 minutes I'm already thinking about playing another track.

I think that 3-4 minutes is the most common and the most sucessful. But I don't think that you should worry much about it. Make music as you imagine it and the way you like to hear it - that's the most important thing.
 
it depends on what its for i think - if it's a single for the public / charts round 3 mins is best. if it's just an album thing or you really don't care and just want to do your thing then don't worry & just let it run how long you like
 
I Try to keep it under round 3:30. Of course this depends on the tempo.
It makes listening to it over and over a breeze if it jams out! Don't overstay your (aural) welcome.
This is what makes Oldies & Motown songs so easy to listen to & replayable, the go in and leave as quickly as the beat dropped, ;-)
 
There are avaliable public for songs that have 1 min, and a different public for songs that have 6 min. If you don't please one, you'll please another.
 
Now that this has gotten so many responses, I'd like to give my refined thought.

It doesn't really matter. It should come down to what you think is best. I have some pretty awesome 1 minute songs on my phone from rappers I like.
3 to 4 minutes is a fantastic go to. But you can make longer songs interesting.

Some people just like long songs for ambiance reasons (Like pink floyds shine on you)

It's varies from genre to genre, But I believe all genre's can have 1 to 7 minute tracks

A good song to take a look at is Throw That by slaughterhouse. You may find sophomoric. After all, it's about throwing your dick on girls. But the song has a great example of different things you can do in a beat.

It's got the intro, then the chorus to grab them right away. The chorus itself has two different parts to it, one where it's eminem singing, and one where the drum adds a bunch of reverb and he sings in a lower voice, then back to the first part.

During Royce's verse, you hear Eminem come in once or twice and a little bit of BG vocals to give it flavor

After Royce's verse, the Pre-Chorus is introduced, which is a new element to the song and again, adds flavor to it.

Then the chorus hits again, another verse with more BG stuff. Then prechorus

Then an entire new part is introduced, where Eminem sings a bridge with a new synth. Then a verse, and then the final part. Its the same chorus, but with pretty much only piano and vocals playing, and Eminem adding extra layers to harmonize the chorus.

The song is only about 4 minutes long, but those are all great examples of keeping a song interesting, and it could've been 6 minutes with that bag of tricks. I don't even like the subject matter all that much in the song, it gets a little old. But the beat, the variety and the change-ups make it so interesting to listen to.

It could be the same with any Genre. Something as simple as dropping out or adding instruments keeps it interesting. Bridges and Pre-Choruses and new parts also help.

However, I will say that if you plan to release music professionally, you shouldn't get in the habit of making 1 to 2 minute songs when you're charging them for the same price of a 3 minute song. Somebody may look at it and go WELL WHAT THE HELL.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top