Song + Album Stats Question ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattkw80
  • Start date Start date
M

mattkw80

New member
Some quick questions...

1. How long should a song be to be a "radio single" ?
(I heard the norm in the sixties was 2:50 )


2. How long does everyone feel an Ep should be ?
(How many tracks ?)


3. How many tracks and how long should an LP (full lenght album) be ?


What is everyone's opinion on this? I am under the understanding that
a single should be 3 to 4 minutes long, and EP is 5 to 7 songs, and the average LP is 10 to 15 songs, or 45 minutes. What do you think ?
 
2 outta 3 ....

single for me would be 3:20 to 3:50 somewhere in the middle

ep for demo i would say 5 no less than 4

and i would also say full length 10 to 15
 
I think 45 minutes for a LP is a rip off. I should be at least 60 minutes. Put some lengthy gitarsolo's on it or whatever. ;)
 
45 minutes is a rip....

Yeah I like longer albums (60 min+) as well.
 
When I was a kid in the '80s the stuff I bought was usually 10 songs on an 40 minute LP (the songs might be 3 minutes to 5 minutes...average 4 minutes)...this was before CDs...vinyl albums were still around and cassettes had become popular...I think the limit of vinyl LPs was around 40 minutes and that was what groups used as their canvas when concepualizing their song set. When CDs took over groups had aproximately 70 minutes as a limit. I have come across CD's and cassettes with 17 songs but to me this is information overload and I get the feeling that this just creates more filler music and waters down the album and you still are going to end up with just 3-5 good songs. It seems that in recent years the idea (of using 70 minutes) has started to reverse and I am seeing a lot of CD's with 12 or 13 songs averaging around 4 minutes to make a 55 minute CD. I think this is more digestable and is not a rip-off if the songs are decent. 20 song, 80-minute CDs can be produced now but that does no good if half the songs are crummy. On the other hand a 20 song mix (different groups) CD or a greatest hits CD might work.
 
Im currently hating this very topic in my studio (humble as it is)

I began writing for my current cd march/'03 (yes...18 mos ago)

No lofty goals...just 10 songs. I wanted to maintain a 4 minute max song length (which Ive only exceeded once at 5:13).

I am recording scratch tracks for #9 at the moment. ("Wither", posted here recently is #8...thanks for the help ppl)

To get these 9 tracks I have written 50 songs (I save all but the most atrocious hehe) not counting a couple I had to rewrite completely a few times before getting lyrics I was happy with. Several of those were taken through tracking to pre-production before being dumped as unviable.

I may top 60 songs before I get my 10...sometimes they come sometimes they dont.

Whats my point? hell I dunno hehe...but 60 mins worth of cd? Thats 13-15 radio length songs!! Another 6 mos writing!! Maybe 100 songs written...holy shit!! Ive already got so much scrap laying round Im considering throwing an acoustic cd together after this lol!!

Thats what I miss about vinyl or cassette...the B-side....theres no B-side on a cd.
 
If I'm not mistaken, when you release an album you only get paid for 10 songs when it comes time for royalties. This is why a lot of label releases don't have more songs than this. I could be wrong.

And I'm with mawtangent. I don't think a short album is a ripoff; a crappy album is a ripoff.
 
mawtangent is all over this, and I couldn't agree more.

Quality trumps quanitity every time.

I too see albums finally beginning to come down in their track counts, and I think the extra space will be allocated for "bonus content" more and more in the future... stuff like music videos or interactive computer stuff.

A
 
I've been writing songs for about 30 years, and I don't have 20 good songs! I have a whole lot of "fair songs" - and several lousy songs (fuuny, how the lousy ones didn't seem lousy when I wrote them).

I think most recordings only have 2-3 good songs because that's all the good songs we have in us (perhaps the reason for the dreaded "sophomore slump").

I agree that CD's with 17 songs on them are mostly filler. I would be glad pay (maybe even pay a premium) for 10 good songs vs. 20 songs of filler - problem is, until you open the wrap and pop it in the machine you don't know what you bought.
 
k

I'm a big fan of the eels and i think the album "electro shock blues" is one of their best. Almost every song is great and there is very little padding, even tho there are 16 songs on there.

As for the length of eps and albums: it's down to the artist. Sigur Ros released a 20 minute album recently and it has 4 songs. i certainly don't feel like I'm being ripped off if the album is short. Infact, I think it's better if they're short.

As fo my own work - my album has 12 songs and is about 40 minutes long. I don't think too much about song lengths, but I do try to keep them punchy and short, like, under 4 minutes, with no wanky solos for no reason.

Michael Wookey.
 
the average length for a punk album must be something like 10 tracks and half and hour long. there are alot of two minute songs. its annoying when your driving though and you have to play the cd over and over just because its so short.
 
I wonder if Yes's Tales from Topographic Oceans can be considered an EP. Only 4 songs on it. Of course, it's about 80 minutes long...
 
Thanks for the insight...

Lots of good info here guys and girls, thanks alot.

I just wrote a 16 song album that is about 42 minutes long.
I just was not sure... too short, too long ?

Sometimes I look at song classics "Beatles - Revolver (34:59)" , "Beach Boys - Pet Sounds (42:58)", "The Who - Who's Next (43:24)" as a gage, but sometimes I get stuck in the 60's and 70's and I was hoping for a modern opinion (which you have all given me).

Anybody heard The Shins albums "Chutes too narrow" ? It's great, but only 30 minutes... honestly, when it's done I feel ripped off as a listener, although so many of the songs were great.

Matt
 
There seems to be an exception to any rule one could put on this. In a situation were I am comparing album covers and I have little knowledge of the music on the album I would personally favor having more songs over having substantial album lenth (that is I would rather have 10 songs on a 30 minutes album than 8 songs on a 45 minute album). I guess when I listen to a CD I am into really concentrating on each individual song and I appreciate tightly arranged songs, like intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-lead-verse-chorus-chorus (I like most of the Beatles stuff, they said it all in 3 minutes)...And maybe I have a short attention span.

I've known people who are more into the feel of the whole album and don't listen to individual songs as closely and will put on music to lend atmosphere to a party or to relax to. Some people favor bridges and long solos, following the song like it is a journey of the mind (I've heard songs that, with just a little rearranging, could be made into two totally different songs).

I have experienced music those ways also (some Alan Parson Project songs I like will take you on a 6 minute journey), but I am more of an "intense" listener, I sort of catagorize the song in the first 30 seconds (do I like it or not?) and that impression usually sticks...my philosophy is: if a song is good then it won't hurt it to be short (and leave the audience wanting to hear it again) but if a song is bad then having it a longer length is only going to make it worse.

Having said all that, if I went to buy a CD and it was just 30 minutes long it would be nice if it was a couple of dollars less than the other 50-60 minute CDs.
 
This to that...

Rush "Moving Pictures" and Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" are just two examples of albums that were sold too short.Awesome music that flows so smooth and then just ends.Your almost left askin' yourself,"That's it?" Steve Miller Band's "Greatest Hits" is another one. I feel that if you think your LP is too short then maybe you should add another song or two.Or maybe just an awesome instrumental. :cool:
 
Well that's one way of looking at it .. technically!! :)

but... you know the old saying... "A lot can be said in fewer words!".

To me.. it doesnt matter HOW many songs are on the project.. .as long as the author gets his point across... if you can say what you want to say in less words then Great!

I seen cd releases that are wayyyyyyyy lengthy and get very monotinous!
Then i heard some cds that have way fewer songs.. and it is the songs themselfs that made the actual IMPACT! Not the Length of the cd itself!

SO you see, to me Length of the cd doesnt matter.. it is what the author puts in them FEWER words, is what makes it speak! :)

of course thats just my opinion, but i am sticking with it!! :P

Cheerz
Dog
 
Im My Opinion....

mattkw80 said:
It's not the Size of your album.....
Click to expand...
No... i dont think size matters at all... and i also dont think size effects the cost either.. as mawtamgent suggests.

I think it is what goes into the project.. and what is the outcome.. i mean how does it make the listener feel after listening to it! isnt that the important thing?! Your telling a story through music.. It is what YOU put into it that counts!!

For example .. if you look at some short stories out there are MUCH better then LONG novels!.. (mainly cause i hate to read long novels hehe) ;) But a short story can have much if not more of an impact!

So it all depends on how YOU the Author, feels at the time of writing. An author expresses him/her selves in their work. Thats the setting that goes behind each peice. Even if it makes the listener feel a completely different feeling then how the author has felt when he wrote it, then thats NOT a bad thing either!

I had written stuff in the past.. that my metal head freinds thought was WAY KEWL! Really mental stufff... and then i had people that were into old country music.. listen to the same thing and ALSO thought it was very kewl stuff!.. SO it isnt the SIZE... it is WHAT the people Hear!

Everyone is different .. they each have thier individual taste and expression... I may look at a painting of nothing but simple Grass and Trees and see LIFE! Where as someone else may see it as empty?! nothing exciting!

See what I mean?!?!


Cheerz
dog
 
Fourth rule of Song Club:

"Songs will go on as long as they HAVE to."




Ugh. Sorry...
 
3 minutes is plenty long for me, whether it's on the radio or in concert. Some of my favorite songs barely break 2 minutes. There's nothing worse than hearing the goddamn chorus five times in a row at the end of a song. Speak your piece and then shut-up. It's all about content, which is why even 2 minutes is too long for most of the music I hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top