JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Musician Message Forum Time constraints on songs....what is too long for radio?

I have heard through the grapevine that radio want songs under a certain time frame. ( I know some classic songs have been long...but lately they seem to fit a certain time)

I try to keep my songs near or under that, as eventually I want to try to pitch some songs and see if there is any interest, though I know it is a long shot to have happen, but anyways, sometimes, a song seems to want to gravitate a bit longer..

I have been working on something that is 4 min 35 sec. Is this just too long??? I have cut it several times, but now feel it is leaning toward missing some of it's charm, (if it has any) , if I cut it more. Any suggestions?? Thanks guys...
Kim

Hi Kim

what I keep hearing from the white robes in this town is that as a general rule-try to keep it around 3.25 minutes........radio stations are wedging in as many commercials as they possibly can these days....as always the bottom line rules......its all about ad revenue....


Tom

Kimberly,

Up until the mid 60's, most songs were in the 2:30 region. Most Early Beatles songs were just that. The drug era and long playing records expanded a bit until the mid 70's, where things started going back to where they were.

The mainstream record and radio business very rarely will play anything past 3:30. The closer on the 3:00 side you get the better you will do. In the case of established artists some times songs are a bit longer and sometimes you will have a song on the charts for a while leading people to think that they are all getting longer. They are actually getting shorter.

If you are in the 4 minute range, you should pretty much eject that one or keep cutting. Newbies are getting about a verse/chorus max. So you are looking more at a minute for a yes or no.

Do we have shorter or longer attention spans?

MAB

And now, a word from our sponsors...

Thank you Tom and Marc....You were both very helpful...now, knowing what to cut is the hard part...LOL..

Kimberly

HiDee Mz Kim!

I'll agree with Marc...but here's something I find Interesting:

The ORIGINAL Version of "Staiway to Heaven" runs for 20 Minutes..was Shortened-for-Airplay to 8:03, and remains the FAVORITE for DJ's to play so as to get-in a Piss Break.

But..it better be a REALLY Good'n' to fit into that kinda SLOT...'cuz Radio makes its MONEY sellin' Commercials...

Good Luck with your Hefty One, M'LadyChum!
Best Wishes, Big Long Hugs,
Stan

If it's longer than 3.30 wield the axe. Send it to me and I'll do the chopping

Makes sense stan

I would agree with Marc the 3:30 range is what most of the songs I listen to and are chart/radio hits tend to be and the 30 second part tends to be the chorus repeating itself.

What I do notice is that the pop songs right now tend not to fade out but rather stop abruptly.

Alan

You'll find longer modern songs on the radio...but you won't find any that were written by a new songwriter hoping to break into the radio with a pitch. The longer ones are by established acts who are already a safe bet...but no one is going to chance on a really long song by someone new. In such a position, you really want to keep it as short as you can.

I write long ones too...but I have no illusions about trying to pitch those. I'd stick with the shorties for that.

It depends on the song, the genre and the success of the artist...people like Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder can record songs of any length they want. I do not think a newbie would have that kind of clout however.
The rule of thumb is stop when the song gets boring.
Some say about 3mins is enough.

I also am in favour of proper endings rather than a fade out.
I keep thinking.... what am I missing that has been faded out... and also ask why they could not come up with a nice crisp ending.
A DJ friend once said that he loves fade outs as it saves him the trouble.....but once in a while he likes a good abrupt ending so he can watch the people taken by surprise.

I've just read "Future hit dna" by Jai Frank, who is a music supervisor in L.A. He writes that music consumers are requesting lengthier songs now, due to faster download times, because people are getting more and more music just to run in the background, and want more from their downloads (doesn't apply to regular Radio, of course - but that market is so small now it's becoming a niche market for the major labels only anyway).

I've known about the 3:30 rule for awhile, but have no interest in cutting a song apart to make it fit that mold. I also have no delusions that I'll ever get airplay...

I think that a song should be as long as it takes for you to say what you have to say. If it's too long for syndicated radio, which is over-rated in my opinion, then submit it to internet radio stations where time does not equal money; where the DJ's are concerned with playing good music and not just songs off the list prescribed by Clear Channel.

Good music sometimes takes more than 3:30.

If you were playing a guitar/vocal song at an open mic and it went over 4 minutes, 95% of us would have lost the audience. Some great performers can make it happen, but the rest of us need to say what needs to be said in a tight, time-friendly format.

Kevin

I insist on keeping mine within a range of 3-1/2 to 5 minutes. The 3-1/2 minute rule no longer has a reason--it used to be, years ago, the maximum amount of music you could physically fit on a 45-rpm record (remember those?). The 5 minutes is the maximum length allowed by a lot of song contests; if you want to send them something, it better be under 5 minutes. I mostly find it a convenient "box" to work in.

Yes, Dylan, Arlo, the Dead and others could go on for much longer than that and not lose their audiences (well, with the Dead, the audience may have been lost beforehand), and still get played on the radio--but I can't, for sure. We have to deal these days with declining attention spans of the public. 5 minutes may well be pushing it (though I'm not going to change my rules).

As far as fade-outs, no, I don't do them. I intend my songs to be performed, either solo or with a band, and I am not able to do fade-outs on stage. (Well, there is one song we end with a fade-out--but the band had to work really hard at it to do it on stage. Mostly, I wouldn't bother.)

Joe

The problem is with people's attention spans. They are good for about 30 seconds, and if you don't hook them, they are gone. There are too many options. So if you are writing much longer than 3:30, you are going to run up against people tuning you out.

Throw in millions of songs out there, internet, multiple televison channels, video games, computer games,Rock Star, Guitar Hero, and everything else, you are gone long before that.

Just a by product of today's internet world.

MAB

True dat, Marc. One rule Pete Seeger articulated at one of his concerts was "You got to grab their attention in the first 30 seconds, and hold it for another 30 seconds. After that, you've got 'em, and you can do what you want." The concert I saw him at, he was playing solo *banjo*. And the audience was riveted all the way through.

Joe

Joe,

There are some guys around, hit writers mostly, who can write and perform songs into the five minute mark. But the songs are so well written and engrossing and their delivery is so engaging you don't even realize how long the song is. By the same token there are people who do three minute songs that FEEL like three hour oddysee's. A lot has to do with the writing, but sometimes the performance, redundant lyrics, overused subject matter, cliched' hooks, redundant chord patterns, all play into that
drudgery.

MAB

Gotta keep it under 20 minutes, folks.

Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick" wasn't!

Stan: WHERE IS THAT 20-MINUTE VERSION? It's not on my copy of Led IV!!!

Here's a funny: Radio was playing 100 top classic rock albums on Labor Day as we were driving home from the beach. Peter Frampton Live came on, and (oh which track is it...?) oh mercy the soloing and talk-boxing was going on forever.

And my youngest, 8-yr old son who is WAY INTO ALL MUSIC and wails on vocals on RockBand, goes: "What IS this song?! This is the WORST SONG EVER! Why is it on here?!"

ROFL. We all agreed and changed the station for a few minutes.

Got to hear a lot of Zeppelin, Hendrix, and Beatles on the drive tho!

OK back to the question: Radio, 3 min. But be true to your inner artist. Some songs SHOULD be longer, or have to be. IE: You cannot cut Bohemian Rhapsody. It's criminal. It doesn't WORK.

However with all due respect to everyone here, including myself, most likely none of us are writing Stairway or Rhapsody.



Linda

I don't know about that. My new CD, "Off Kilter" can be compared to the CD version of Led Zeppelin IV. (At least in terms of size and weight.)

Linda, I guess it just goes to show how everyone has different tastes - I can't get enough of "Do You Feel" :-)

LOL Andrew.... you go right on ahead!
It wouldn't've been in the top 15 if it wasn't great.
Just not our cup of tea on that day on that long drive home

LOL Kevin.

Linda

It depends on the song,some story songs need extra time to tell it all. Many songs say nothing so the shorter the better.

True but more often it doesn’t, sometimes you can knock ‘em dead in 1 Min 59 – my philosophy is better having them want to hear the song again rather than switch off before they’ve heard it once.

I find it odd that most folk seem to be making a case for the longer song yet the majority of classic hits probably come in at around 3 mins or less. Writing a short, 'cut to the chase' song is an art in itself, and sadly many shy away from the challenge. Once you creep over 4.30 minutes you really need another song (e.g. you could argue that Stairway is in fact 2 songs bolted together). I think it is naïve if you think 3.30 is "no longer valid". Also we (here at JPF) are not typical listeners. As songwriters we are more likely to appreciate the craft of a longer song and see depths that Joe Public wouldn’t give a second thought to. A typical buyer/downloader will be after a catchy song with a simple message that they will want to play again.

I know my original comment about wielding the axe may have seemed flippant but I meant it. Many longer songs will benefit from being made slicker.

Now, let me get hold of Echoes by Pink Floyd cut that boring lump out of the middle. Also while I’m at I’ll turn Titanic into 2 separate films (one will be a love story, and the other will be about a big boat hitting an iceberg) and slash 40 minutes off the end of the third Lord of the Rings film (there are only so many times you can say goodbye).

Snip snip snip…. cut the guitar solo in half, shorten the intro, get rid of the verse that says what has already been said. You can do it and your songs will be better for it. If you are a performer finish while they are looking at you and not their watch

Helpful hints for trimming down overweight songs:

Is your intro twice as long as it needs to be?

Do you even need an intro?

Verse two...are you sure you don't want to go right to the chorus instead?

In between verses, are you playing a transitional passage that's the equivalent of paddling an oar in the water? Is it really needed, or can you just move right on to the next part?

Verse 4...sorry, your screener never made it that far.

Bridge...I love them, but if you're trying to pitch a song for airplay, bridges are often just another bit of bloatware.

The tempo of a song can affect the length of a song. A two verse/chorus slow song will take longer to sing than two verse/chorus fast tempo song. I sometimes find it hard to make the two minute mark in a fast song.

I wouldn't touch anything on Echoes! That's one of my faves to just put on and listen to straight through. Though I also like to listen to the whole of Quadrophenia, the whole of Thick as a Brick, and love songs with extended jams...different strokes for different folks I guess.

that is to say that I love songs with extended jams, not that I like "love songs" with extended jams.