-
Ideal song length
What is your preference for song length? I wonder if there is an ideal song length that aligns with a person’s attention span and enables the most impact?
It seems 2 to 3 minutes is the standard in most of the 60s music, and it got longer from there, almost to the point today people criticize the old music (60s) was too short. In one article, they explain why most songs in the 50s and 60s were on average 3 minutes or less.
In 1949, RCA introduced a 45 rpm disk that quickly overtook the 78 and made it obsolete. These 45s were better than 78s in numerous ways. They were made of vinyl instead of shellac, which made them more durable and more easily portable. They were also cheap to make and to buy, which made them easy to market to teenagers in the mid-1950s. Like the 78, the 45 also holds about three minutes of music (depending on the range of sound a song required and the depth of the groove in the disc).
For a band to get its songs played on the radio, it needed to have a 45. Artists complied. This invented what was known as the “single,” for a record containing a single song. The 45 record was cheaper for Americans to buy than a full album and easier for radios to share, making the single in many ways the bedrock of American music.
Did technology make a difference?
It makes sense to assume that since the basis of the three-minute song was the 78 and then 45 rpm single, then songs would become longer as technology evolved.
And there have, of course, been bands that wrote songs longer than four minutes even before the music industry switched to CDs. Rush and Jimi Hendrix have both recorded 20-minute-long songs. Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, and Bob Dylan all have 10-minute songs. In no way are long songs unheard of in music, but the average song length is still — even as the industry has evolved almost entirely to digital media — under five minutes.
Another interesting article I came across suggests 2:42 (2 mins, 42 secs) is the ideal length for a song, going back to the 60s standard.
In music, brevity can be the soul of listenability. One of the most obvious traits of the “most unwanted” song ever recorded is its 22-minute length. If that monstrosity lasted two minutes and 42 seconds, maybe more people would want to hear it.
Joshua Allen of The Morning News would agree that short songs are best. He wrote last week that the perfect track length is precisely 18 seconds short of three minutes – making 2:42 a kind of golden mean of audio.
Most of us here I am sure would agree the best pop/rock music was created in the 60s and early 70s. Interestingly as the data suggests, the songs on average were the shortest in length in the 60s, at around 2:30 minutes (150 seconds) in the early 60s to around 3:20 minutes (200 seconds) by the early 70s, as illustrated in the graph below.
In a 2019 “Digital Music News Article”, it mentioned:
According to a new report, the average pop song is now significantly shorter.
The average song length on the Billboard Hot 100 has decreased by 20 seconds in the past five years. Songs now average 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
Anyway just some interesting info I uncovered about song lengths. Personally in my job over the years when doing technical or sales presentations, keeping it relatively short and sweet was always important for maximum impact, and I wonder if the same apply to music. The data seems to suggest songs got increasingly longer after the 60s and 70s as the music became increasingly less inspired and inferior. Thoughts?
Despite all the data suggesting shorter songs are better, Stairway to Heaven, and Hey Jude are 8:03 and 7:06 mins long respectively. Yesterday and Sounds of Silence are 2:06 and 3:06 respectively, so there is no firm formulaic rule either it seems.
-
16 Replies
-
Good morning Jung, Your last paragraph.
Despite all the data suggesting shorter songs are better, Stairway to Heaven, and Hey Jude are 8:03 and 7:06 mins long respectively. Yesterday and Sounds of Silence are 2:06 and 3:06 respectively, so there is no firm formulaic rule either it seems.
I sort of agree with some of the data you posted. Then I think that’s why they came up with FM radio. FM was created to play album tracks not hit 45. Music was changing. Songs were written with concepts. From protest songs to rock operas to concept albums. There were a lot of issues going on from Vietnam to Free Love to Race Issues. Song writing became intense and song times became longer. So there is really no correct answer on the length of a song.
From In A Gadda Da Vida to Her Majesty A Pretty Nice Girl. If a song is good then who cares how long or short it is. Now one last thing. I can’t stand when they play a song that is long and play the shorten version. That get’s my goat…
But besides that Jung have a good day my friend.
Joe
-
Very interesting! Impressive bit of research there, Jung. I guess I had always assumed that the lengthening of songs since the early 60’s was mainly because music evolved from being something to dance to, to something to listen to, and one needs more frequent breaks when dancing than when listening.
My preference is generally for the two-to-three-minute range. I tend to be more into the musical structure of a song than the lyrics, and that’s about how long it usually takes for the structural elements to play out to the point where I feel I’ve absorbed them.
Dirty little secret: when someone posts a song here that’s longer than four minutes, I usually play it at double speed!
-
Jung was making a point about a song fitting a length for a reason.
I had no idea the original constraint was the physical media (the 45), but now we know
Great research Jung, however …
Desolation Row by Bob Dylan 🙂
-
Hey Joe, David, and Thomas, some interesting points you make. Song topics certainly got more complex as music evolved, and interesting point about FM coming along to focus on the album, not the 45 singles, to give the artists more freedom and not be constrained in song length due to the technology and AM radio requirements. Just within the Beatles, it went from singing about holding a girls hand in the early 60s to social issues later by 1970. So it would make sense songs taking longer to express all it needed to, but then David you make an interesting point about how long it takes for a music’s structural element to play out regardless of the the lyrics. The Dylan song again is an example of a song taking the length of time it needs to express itself fully.
This discussion reminded me of a funny scene from Amadeus. Perhaps, when it comes to art, it’s just not possible to impose restrictions and boundaries. A good written songs is as long or short as it needs to be, no more and no less. It has as many notes as it requires, no more, no less.
-
Jung,
that’s what i was trying to say.
A song should be as long as the writer needs to say what he wants to say.
I especially like the Grateful Dead version of Desolation Row.
The Dead were never in a hurry to complete a song.
Then again they didn’t have too many songs on the radio. 🙂
-
To me, I see it from a poetical aspect, it all depends on what inspires you, if it’s meant to be 2-3 mins or more, and having said that I feel a song is an extended poem that has added verses of music instrumentaion and vocals to intertwine to add the creative artistic flow. Every fibre of music through the centuries, are ongoing poems that offer to invoke emotions, heal, etc not one piece of music is exactly alike but yet can come together like jigsaw puzzle, that truly defines itself. Each song, piece of music creation is unique onto its own merrits and is timed according to its rightful place it it is ought and meant to be for. It’s all individual but yet collectively it becomes complimentary…?
-
I agree with Joseph about not liking the short (single) version of a song! Interesting memory, when I was young I thought artists made songs longer for albums not shortened them for single edits! Ah youth!
-
Jung – Nice scene from Amadeus. I’m going to watch it later. It’s been a while since I last saw it.
Thanks
Joe
-
I assume that we are talking about songs that include lyrics, but even that can get muddy when you consider songs with lengthy instrumental sections. The studio version of “Hotel California” is 6 1/2 minutes long, but only 3 ½ minutes if you cut out the instrumental portions at the beginning and end. Of course, nobody would seriously want to do that. One of my sons used to skip the first 8 1/2 minutes of “Shine on You Crazy Diamond”, thinking that the lyrics were the most important part of the song (he doesn’t anymore). Is there a Pink Floyd fan out there who thinks that song should only be 2 ½ minutes long instead of 13 ½? I hope not.
Arguably, the best song Taylor Swift has written is “All Too Well”. It tells the story of a love that begins, progresses and then ends (I know what you are thinking, but it is much more than just another “break-up” song). It is 5 1/2 minutes long and is one of her longest. However, she says the original version was 10 minutes long. Fans have been begging her to release the longer version for years, but she hasn’t and I think it has a lot to do with what Jacki and others have said about how much the artist needs to say in a song. Taylor Swift may be just an average musician or singer in the business (so was John Lennon according to critics), but she is a genius when it comes to song writing and I believe that whatever was in those additional minutes was more than she felt she needed to say. I’ve listened to the song many times and I honestly can’t think of anything that needs to be added. Nor would I take anything away.
On the other hand, when I listen to songs like “Wish You Were Here” there’s a feeling like I want to hear another verse. I want to say, “Tell me more” to the songwriter. Does that mean that I don’t think the song is the ideal length? Not necessarily. In the case of “Wish You Were Here” I think the intent is to leave you wanting to know more. Again, I have to ask Pink Floyd fans, if you didn’t know about Syd Barrett before you heard this song, did it inspire you to look him up?
-
Not sure Bill, if this topic posting had also intended to include lyrics, in which I agree, if that’s correct, would make out to drag on and on in replies, I say keep it, short, simple, sweet….in terms of just sticking with replies of song titles , and perhaps just mention their time length , brief overview without going into the full blown nooks and crannies of each song … just a thought…
-
One from Motown
12 minutes. Eight minutes instrumental.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71l85z2bXAs
Jung, you’ve done it again.
This topic just goes on and on.
-
When We’re Together begins with a short one 2:08
and ends with Nothing Is In Vain, which is prefect at 5:35
Pink Floyd fans know that Echoes takes over twenty-three minutes to absorb
When an artists feels they have to make a song a bit longer, they play the chorus “One More Time” (dadjoke?)
JP
-
JP, repeating a chorus (the Hook) sometimes works well and sometimes doesn’t. Here’s one of my favorite “no chorus” songs that is a “perfect” five minutes long. The “lie la lies” might seem excessive to some, but when I listened to where the music is going while the voices repeat the phrase it gives me goose bumps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3LFML_pxlY
-
Hey guys you can add Hey Jude to that mix too. That’s my favorite.
I do like Lynn The Boxer too.
Na, na, na, na-na-na na
Na-na-na na, hey Jude -
I prefer songs in the 2:30-3:30 range mostly. Some songs go on WAY too long. The Beatles’ songs were almost all about the perfect length. Most 60’s stuff was a good length I would say.
Log in to reply.
