What is the latest that singing should begin??

geraci89

geraci89

New member
Hi, what are your thoughts on what is the latest vocals should start on a "radio friendly" song? 25 seconds, 40 seconds, 1 min, 2 min, dont matter??

We have a tune we're recording currently and the singing starts after about a minute. Someone mentioned that "usually" on radio material the singing should start no later than 25 seconds in. Do any of you think this is true? Personally I understand his fact, but it's not really something I would personally notice for at least a couple minutes and maybe say k this is starting to drag on now...

Thanks!!
 
If someone decides that a song merits airplay, then it doesn't matter. That's not the real hurdle.

The hurdle is getting someone to make that decision in the first place. That means they need to be impressed by the first 15 seconds or so. If the song doesn't engage them by then, then it's not likely going to at all.

If the vocals are the key to securing that engagement, then they need to start early. If the song is musically interesting instrumentally, then it doesn't matter so much when the vocals come in.

Having said that, the prospects of anyone here securing airplay are low, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just structure the song how you want.
 
If you're trying to get on one of the larger pop-based radio stations, then I'd say no more than 8 bars for a moderately-paced song. However, some of the indie stations are way more relaxed...I'd still try to get it going in no more than a minute though.
 
gecko zzed said:
If someone decides that a song merits airplay, then it doesn't matter. That's not the real hurdle.

The hurdle is getting someone to make that decision in the first place. That means they need to be impressed by the first 15 seconds or so. If the song doesn't engage them by then, then it's not likely going to at all.

If the vocals are the key to securing that engagement, then they need to start early. If the song is musically interesting instrumentally, then it doesn't matter so much when the vocals come in.

Having said that, the prospects of anyone here securing airplay are low, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just structure the song how you want.
Click to expand...

This was personally my opinion as well. I wouldn't notice something like where the singing starts unless the intro part is rather dull and drags on. Ours is a minute, but IMO it's a fun, gradually building minute so it utilizes the time well. I'll post the tune itself when it's ready to compare to mine in particular.

@ido1957 15 seconds?! that must be a real tight ass head hunter lol
 
If you can come up with the world's best riff / melody, it won't matter so much... if you're doing the same thing as everyone else then I reckon 15 seconds is optimistic...

Last song I recorded took 46 seconds before the vocal starts, incidentally... and it's only 4.08 long. Could I give a rat's arse? No...
 
Blimey, the vocals in loads of my songs don't appear until 6 or 7 minutes in ! :facepalm: Seriously. :p
And they get played all the time on Radio Imagination FM ! :listeningmusic:
 
I can really get behind what Gecko said.

If I'm just auditing songs (i.e. previewing a bunch I've never heard of to see if I'm interested in them), long intros and build-up just annoy me. If you're one of 15 bands on a sampler that I've never heard of, I don't want to give you more than 15 or so seconds to pique my interest. I'm sure it's much worse for radio execs, DJs, booking managers, etc. who often have to review hundreds of bands a week.

I suppose that means it's the hook that's really important. If the guitar plays the hook, get to that guitar riff right away! But in most pop/rock, the vocals carry the hook, so you need to get to them quickly (at least for your singles).
 
I would agree that 15sec's is probably heading for a long time if it's a radio edit, I've been trying to think of songs with longer intro's (pop genre) and can't come up with many.
( I wasn't counting Jim Steinmam songs)
 
VomitHatSteve said:
If I'm just auditing songs (i.e. previewing a bunch I've never heard of to see if I'm interested in them), long intros and build-up just annoy me. If you're one of 15 bands on a sampler that I've never heard of, I don't want to give you more than 15 or so seconds to pique my interest.
Click to expand...
I can dig that. But I'm the opposite, on those download sites where you only get 30 seconds to hear a snippet, I'm forever frustrated because such a short time just doesn't do it for me. If I'm going to spend my money on a song, I'd like to hear it all. That said, much of the time, the 30 seconds has told me zero but I've gone ahead and bought anyway and often it was worthwhile.

geraci89 said:
What is the latest that singing should begin?
Click to expand...
What time do the neighbours go to bed and how loud is your voice ?
 
vomithat said:

QUOTE:"long intros and build-up just annoy me."

Hmmm... right off, of course hes "right", in as much as Ive read and heard on here and other places a zillion times... you need to GRAB that listener reviewing thru a hundred pieces RIGHT away to have a chance...

*shrugs*

yet this is SAD. some of my FAVORITE songs I still like are long, a little drawn out, and might have the extended intro, the extended bridge, and later ON you get to the big "payoff". I like the "long epics", but really most people dont...

I think prolly/mostlikely most of "us" are here to songwrite the next top 40 hit on the radio, I figure either pop,rock, country, folk... whatever.

Me? *shrugs* I am an "odd duck" as I ended up trying to get into a sort of "big classial soundtrack number" sort of thing I am trying to learn to pull off... so, I quit worrying about writing lyrics and stuff, I just compose instrumentals, most of them classical-ish... very few "pop experiments" on the whole...

on the off chance ayone ELSE here is into such a *gasp* thing...

There ARE reasons for extended intros... and valid ones...

1) for an extended classical number, you CANT just "get right to it" and PLOP the hook down, I mean of course you CAN (GRIEG-Hall of the mountain king anyone?) , but, I myself almost expect a classical number to be a bit extended

2) reasons? well... the accepted guidelines (as there are no true RULES per se...) are that an intro, while not REQUIRED by any means, does serve purpose(s). Among them... they allow the composer to start with a "very light" theme that would otherwise be hard to use. Also, and for me the most important? Starting with an extended light intro, conspires to give the end piece more "weight"; it makes it more "substantial" of a track...

groups like Floyd straddle the fence between classical composer, and rock songwriter... they are "progressive". Old Queensryche, anyone? Dream theater? lol... even "soft rock" bands like Fleetwood Mac are thought to be "progressive" and the while the song is a toe tapper, theres something going on to make it more than the sum of its parts...

honestly, the "cookie cutter" 3-chords-an-the-truth approach to country/pop songs? are just a condensed, boiled down version of the not-so-humble "sonata form".

wherever "there" is... you can get there by ear, by trial and error, by studying classical and theory, by an older experienced hand helping you out... but "there" is still the same place, whichever path YOU TOOK to get there.



PS - personally, I find it VERY SAD to know that:

1) dont bore us, get to the chorus
2) if there aint a HOOK in the first 15-30 seconds, it goes in the trash... *no buildups*, *no late payoffs*
3) "you know all long songs are goo for? making OTHER peopel think its okay to write long, boring songs!"


*urp*
*puke*

and I just CANT shake the idea that there aren't more people out there like me in this desire... and it pains me to know that the next "floyd" or "queensryche" or "fleetwood mac" demos are going RIGHT into the garbage...

*shrugs* it is what it is, though...
 
It's not so much abut a hook or chorus or any such device. I like extended introductions, gradual buildups. I like development.

But if you want to structure music that way, you need to do it so that it cause the listener to want to hear what comes next.

Even a single long note can be intriguing . . . but it can only be held so long before the listener gets impatient. AT the point you need to introduce something else.
 
The OP was about "Radio" friendly,,, I'm pretty sure all of us appreciate a bit of a musical wank, but very few radio shows would give valuable airtime to rambling pieces (unless you want the 4 am slot)
 
bruiser1964 said:
I'm pretty sure all of us appreciate a bit of a musical wank
Click to expand...
Music is music and developing a long piece in one's own way is not the same as wanking ! :D
bruiser1964 said:
The OP was about "Radio" friendly,,,
Click to expand...
True. But there's more than one kind of radio station or perhaps there isn't ? We so often talk as though only one kind of anything exists so when people lament at Just in Bee ber or A me wine house as examples of the current scene, I think to myself "It may be a global village but it's a big world".
bruiser1964 said:
very few radio shows would give valuable airtime to rambling pieces (unless you want the 4 am slot)
Click to expand...
I'll take it ! :yawn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top