# How long should a song be?



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

I've often wondered, should there be a time I should be striving for, like, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 2, 1? 20? My songs never seem to be much more than 2 minutes, I've been attempting to write longer songs, but it's been a struggle. This is something I've always wondered about.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Manok said:


> I've often wondered, should there be a time I should be striving for, like, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 2, 1? 20? My songs never seem to be much more than 2 minutes, I've been attempting to write longer songs, but it's been a struggle. This is something I've always wondered about.


I would say, just focus on expressing yourself completely within each song. As long as you are doing that, the length will find itself.

Most early Beatles songs were only two minutes in length, and they were quite successful!

Just think of the audience you are attempting to cater too, most Classical audiences want their pieces a bit longer than two minutes I presume, just food for thought!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I'll be cagey and go for 4 minutes and 33 seconds


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

It's not easy to answer that question. The length is determined by the composer per each piece. A great piece can be extremely short (look at the success of Kabelevsky's "Comedian's Galop" or Rimsky-Korsakov's "Flight of the Bumblebee", both under 2 minutes, but tremendous hits. Say what you can musically and when you feel you've done it all it's over. 

However, if you're trying to deliberately stretch yourself, I'd recommend creating a piece that has a specific structure like ABACABA or ABCBDCB or whatever. Thinking in sections with each section being very different from one another will make the music expand with as many sections as you want. And if you don't like that then you'll have to struggle with the way you've been doing. 

Personally, before I compose a piece, I decide whether it's going to be multi-movement (short vs long separate movements) or a single movement (with either a continuous tempo or tempo changes), and I also decide a rough estimate of its overall timing. Having such goals helps push me along. Sometimes the material refuses to go the full length but sometimes I get surprised and it goes beyond the estimated timing.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I'll be cagey and go for 4 minutes and 33 seconds


It had to be you :lol:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I would say, just focus on expressing yourself completely within each song. As long as you are doing that, the length will find itself.
> 
> Most early Beatles songs were only two minutes in length, and they were quite successful!
> 
> Just think of the audience you are attempting to cater too, most Classical audiences want their pieces a bit longer than two minutes I presume, just food for thought!


A lot of the Beach Boys songs were under 2 minutes so it during that time that was like the standard length for a song then.


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

Vasks said:


> It's not easy to answer that question. The length is determined by the composer per each piece. A great piece can be extremely short (look at the success of Kabelevsky's "Comedian's Galop" or Rimsky-Korsakov's "Flight of the Bumblebee", both under 2 minutes, but tremendous hits. Say what you can musically and when you feel you've done it all it's over.
> 
> However, if you're trying to deliberately stretch yourself, I'd recommend creating a piece that has a specific structure like ABACABA or ABCBDCB or whatever. Thinking in sections with each section being very different from one another will make the music expand with as many sections as you want. And if you don't like that then you'll have to struggle with the way you've been doing.
> 
> Personally, before I compose a piece, I decide whether it's going to be multi-movement (short vs long separate movements) or a single movement (with either a continuous tempo or tempo changes), and I also decide a rough estimate of its overall timing. Having such goals helps push me along. Sometimes the material refuses to go the full length but sometimes I get surprised and it goes beyond the estimated timing.


This seems like sensible advice, maybe I just need to plan a little more before writing. I improvise quite a lot on the piano and that is where the vast majority of my things come from. While this often produces my best results, I sometimes want a bit more structure to my music and I'd like to be able to write full length classical works at some point.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

You know as long as the singer takes rests then the song can be long.Of course they will need more air to sing.


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

Songs in traditional format are often between 3 and 6 minutes. In the classical idiom, you can expect that if a theme/melody/harmonic structure or tone row provides you with enough possibilities, it could result in a whole cycle.


----------



## PsychoBunny (Jun 11, 2016)

The primary criteria for the length of the song should be 1. how much you have to say that's interesting and 2. are you able to effectively change keys? 

If you're no good with key changes, keep the song under 3 minutes as that's about as long as the average persons ear will pay attention before wondering off in search of some "other threat." An effective key change - by "effective" I mean one that's not jarring to the audience such as the Stop-Go up a half step-Continue nonsense that's somehow become acceptable but, rather, one the audience "experiences" more than "hears." 

Bach was a genius at this and would do things like start in the first key - imply a second and then land the piece in a third key. Usually before you knew he was even thinking about a key change. Because he was a jerk, that way....lol.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> A lot of the Beach Boys songs were under 2 minutes so it during that time that was like the standard length for a song then.


They kept them short (~2 to 2.5 minutes) to fit one side of a 45 rpm single because that was pretty much the format required to get on the top 40 chart. That ended when Dylan came out with "Like a Rolling Stone," on an LP, which Columbia nixed as a single because of its length, but an employee sent it to a local DJ and the song hit #2 on the pop charts.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A song (or any other piece of music) should be long enough to reach the end at the right time, not well after the end would have been welcome.

Look at Beethoven’s 5th Cello Sonata:

1 – 6:22
2 – 7:30
3 – 4:12

Not much longer than popular songs, but what a wealth of music is stuffed in there!


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

A long (non-classical) song for me has to be pretty long then because I know songs 20 minutes, 40 minutes, 1 hour, 6 hours, 24 hours (not kidding).


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2017)

Pugg said:


> It had to be you :lol:


No, I don't think that was 4' 33"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Had_to_Be_You_(song)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> No, I don't think that was 4' 33"...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Had_to_Be_You_(song)


But maybe it was an inspiration for 4'33"


----------

