Has acceptable and desired song length changed?

[jim1960]

There's this guy named Bob Dylan who makes records.
8 of 10 songs on his first Greatest Hits album were over 3 minutes.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by jim1960

There's this guy named Bob Dylan who makes records.
8 of 10 songs on his first Greatest Hits album were over 3 minutes.

I've heard he put a new record out last year. I think there was a song over 3 minutes on that one too.

Seriously he's known as a wordy songwriter, yet only two of the songs are over 5 minutes (one, "Like a Rolling Stone" famously so) and the other "Mr. Tambourine Man" got trimmed down mightily by The Byrds, and yet their version still has plenty of impact. Arguably more impact.

One of the styles Dylan used was the old British Isles ballad. More than 5 minute songs are quite common in that, and even with editing and selection of verses and reduction of the Tra La La refrains they are hard to trim down without loosing the narrative or scope. I love me some Tam Lin, Willie of Winsbury, Matty Groves, or Fair Annie, but for singer of my weaknesses they are impossible to perform and keep audience attention -- and I think that's true for even better singers than I am.

Similar things for instrumental work. I can enjoy many long jazz blowouts and never notice the time passing, but for my own acoustic guitar instrumentals I like to keep it much shorter, and I suspect the audience does too.

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by jim1960

No, there's enough room on a 45 for songs as long as 5 minutes.

https://peakvinyl.com/record-playtimes/

Hey Jude, at just over 7 minutes was released on a 45rpm single. And no one ever complained about the sound quality - maybe the volume was lower so the grooves were narrower and shallower?

Mountain (the band) released a live album that had something over 23 minutes per side, with a note on the jacket to 'turn it up' - the grooves were narrower/shallower and the volume was lower than normal on it.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

Hey Jude, at just over 7 minutes was released on a 45rpm single. And no one ever complained about the sound quality - maybe the volume was lower so the grooves were narrower and shallower?

Mountain (the band) released a live album that had something over 23 minutes per side, with a note on the jacket to 'turn it up' - the grooves were narrower/shallower and the volume was lower than normal on it.

That was The Beatles. Radio kinda gave those guys the benefit of the doubt. And wasn't that the double-A-side single with "Revolution?" EMI and Capitol had a reasonably safe bet there -- they were going to make out fine even if radio never played "Hey Jude" at all. Also, FWIW, EMI Abbey Road had genius mastering people -- Beatles singles were always roaring loud, very competitive. "Get Back" might be one of the loudest 7" 45's ever.

[wkbryan]

Harry Chapin.sometimes it take >3 minutes to tell a
good story.

[Andy Howell]

I think it very much depends on the story you are trying to tell. I have a few five minute songs which work with the right kind of listening audience, simply because they are interesting stories.

For any live set you need to balance things out. If you have some long songs use them sparsely.

Weirdly, I often don't recognise a short-ish song until I've recorded it. I have songs that seem to say a lot in just 3 minutes and so Harry was right. But then traditional ballads often had more than 20 verses!

[hatamoto]

Originally Posted by BoneDigger

I remember being told that optimally, a song should be no more than 3 to 3.5 minutes long. Listening to Pandora today, many of the songs were between 4.5 and 5.5 minutes long. Has the goalpost for song length changed, or is the 3 to 3.5 minute range still optimal? I do of course realize there have been many well known songs that are well over that length. I'm just wondering if the thinking is still the same, or if that thinking has changed with new listening options (streaming, etc.)?

This is an interesting question and I was actually thinking about this recently.

I think it depends on the genre or the arrangement.

10-15 years ago, my idea of a song should be about 4-5 minutes in length.

Lately, I prefer 3-4 minutes max for contemporary music. I usually find songs that are closing in 5 minutes, that have the verse/chorus/verse chorus format and by the third or second time that happens I get bored.

However, with soundtrack music, I don't mind listening up to 10 minutes because it's different all the time.

So I guess it depends on the format.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by hatamoto

Lately, I prefer 3-4 minutes max for contemporary music. I usually find songs that are closing in 5 minutes, that have the verse/chorus/verse chorus format and by the third or second time that happens I get bored.

I think there's something to that although there are notable exceptions (e.g. American Pie, Papa was a Rolling Stone).

One of my originals clocks in at a healthy 5:30. There's no chorus in this song but there is a little bit of repetition in 6 of the 9 stanzas that act in a similar way to a chorus in the sense they sort of bring you back to familiar ground.

Funny story about this song... one time after performing it at a show, a woman came up to me afterwards, curious about where in Oklahoma one might find Highway 53 which is often mentioned in the song. I had to confess I have no idea if there's a Highway 53 in Oklahoma.

Anyway, my point is songs like this one are akin to short stories in that they have the elements of character, setting, conflict, plot and theme. I love a good story song and of all the songs I've written, I think I'm most proud of this one.