How much time is important in music?

Generally, there is no single length of time by which a song must adhere; some of my favorite albums feature 30-40 minute epics while others are comprised of 1-2 minute vignettes. A song should simply be as lengthy as the music calls for. Albums with only 3-5 minute songs can be concerning not because of the length involved, but because that often (certainly not always) indicates that the songs stick to a certain formula of songwriting, particularly in pop music. In other words, the musicians are composing and recording for billboard success, not for musical quality. Again, clear exceptions exist, but even those phenomenal few artists that can pull off "normal" length tracks (Gentle Giant, perhaps Kate Bush) are generally so good that it becomes abundantly clear why most other artists fail to create proper music within a limited amount of time. I used to only get albums with songs of a certain length, but I do avoid that now, mainly because I don't listen entirely to prog. There's lots of great music that you'd deny yourself if you were unwilling to listen to tracks under 7 minutes. Only two of my favorite five albums have tracks that hit ten minutes long. Likewise, I've listened to a great deal of mediocre music stretched out into 10-20 minute songs to create a false sense of being epic or ambitious. Great music can be any length of time, bad music can be any length of time, lazy formulaic pop music is generally 3-5 minutes. 

I would suggest there are far more great 3-5 minute songs than there are great 10 minute+ long songs. The amount of time in a composition is irrelevant to how good it is.

mechanicalflattery wrote: Generally, there is no single length of time by which a song must adhere; some of my favorite albums feature 30-40 minute epics while others are comprised of 1-2 minute vignettes. A song should simply be as lengthy as the music calls for. Albums with only 3-5 minute songs can be concerning not because of the length involved, but because that often (certainly not always) indicates that the songs stick to a certain formula of songwriting, particularly in pop music. In other words, the musicians are composing and recording for billboard success, not for musical quality. Again, clear exceptions exist, but even those phenomenal few artists that can pull off "normal" length tracks (Gentle Giant, perhaps Kate Bush) are generally so good that it becomes abundantly clear why most other artists fail to create proper music within a limited amount of time. I used to only get albums with songs of a certain length, but I do avoid that now, mainly because I don't listen entirely to prog. There's lots of great music that you'd deny yourself if you were unwilling to listen to tracks under 7 minutes. Only two of my favorite five albums have tracks that hit ten minutes long. Likewise, I've listened to a great deal of mediocre music stretched out into 10-20 minute songs to create a false sense of being epic or ambitious. Great music can be any length of time, bad music can be any length of time, lazy formulaic pop music is generally 3-5 minutes.

Exactly! Specially the last sentence, Pink Floyd's Echoes is probably their best song overall.

fredyair wrote: Length does not matter, music quality yes.

I agree. I used to get excited when I saw a band was releasing a 20 minute epic but not so much now. After all, a long song is just short songs stuck together.

chopper wrote: fredyair wrote: Length does not matter, music quality yes.  I agree. I used to get excited when I saw a band was releasing a 20 minute epic but not so much now. After all, a long song is just short songs stuck together.

Yeah, a good example is Supper's Ready. Unfinished numbers stuck together. Rutherford said it was easier to do extended works "you just keep going" than actual songs.

Lots to listen out for in shorter songs as well as the long stuff. Sometimes blink and you miss them cues from someone to go into a chorus can be just that nice little riff to appreciate as well as the density of say CTTE - which by the way had a single extraced (I Getp And Down or whatever). Sucked as a single imo.

Extended works gave rock a seriousness much needed and someone was forever trying to cut things down to size.

If a work is 40 minutes and works that way then editing it for radio consumption just gives a wrong view of the piece.

One odd example of both a good single and a skewed view of a larger work (probably non prog but art rock) example is Gary Numan's song Cars. Always liked it and finally heard the album and realized the song is taken out of it's context. Yes it works just fine by itself but on the album fits in like a piece in a jig saw puzzle.

Heh. Unless bands do it themselves. How about the Tull "edits" of TAAB... apparently too difficult to do the whole thing live.

The Dark Elf wrote: I would suggest there are far more great 3-5 minute songs than there are great 10 minute+ long songs. The amount of time in a composition is irrelevant to how good it is.

mechanicalflattery wrote: Generally, there seems to be a consensus that song length doesn't particularly matter with regards to quality (meaning great songs can potentially be just about any length of time). How about album length? In order to be great enough to be one of your favorite albums? For me, the shortest they can generally get is 30 minutes. There are a couple really good 20 minute EP's I have, and my main problem with them is a lack of content. On the other end of the spectrum, is there an album length that's just too much? I tend to start tapping out at roughly two-and-a-half hours.

If anything, a shorter albums are often better; 3 of my 5 favorite prog albums are under 40 minutes. Most of my overall favorite albums aren't from the last 20 years, but not because music is getting worse, but purely because groups are generally expected to provide more content. So you're left with these monstrous 70 minute albums which are pretty good, but if cut down to the best 40 minutes, could be utterly fantastic. For every great 70+ minute album I own, there's probably 5-10 albums that are less than 50, something most modern artists apparently aren't allowed to do anymore. If Gentle Giant had been forced to record 60+ minutes of material for every album, they would have made far more generic and mediocre work than their great work could justify. Then of course, you have releases of older albums that insist on inundating you with pointless bonus materials, but that's another topic altogether. 

^ Yeah, that'll put Bashō right in his place then