Keepin' it short

[erik]

Well, duh I'm a slacker, but I'm a Socratic slacker, yo. Plus, lots of the music that I love just doesn't make use of solos, so I would do a *much* worse job than you have already done at trying to show how they can be used well. I could add a bunch of "Proof by Contradiction" examples of songs that have no solos, where you don't go "Where's the solo, fercryinoutloud?" I might could add some examples (or unexamples) of the other bulletpoints I listed too, but later on, because I'm supposed to be working.

[JonPorobil]

A ton of good stuff.

Thanks, JB. Your response was very involved and very helpful.

Btw, I was never trying to argue that EVERY song MUST have a solo, just rather wondering whether it's even possible to record a good, complete-sounding song that has a solo in under four minutes. You clearly put a LOT of thought and work into your response, for which I'm grateful.

[erik]

A ton of good stuff.

Thanks, JB. Your response was very involved and very helpful.

Btw, I was never trying to argue that EVERY song MUST have a solo, just rather wondering whether it's even possible to record a good, complete-sounding song that has a solo in under four minutes. You clearly put a LOT of thought and work into your response, for which I'm grateful.

Excellent. If you concede that not every song must have a solo, then you have some sort of criterion in your head that you use to decide when a song should have a solo and when it shouldn't. THAT CRITERION is going to be more useful to you than whatever criterion I myself use to decide when I should use a solo.

I'm not trying to defend some unimportant point in the Great Solo Debate of Right Now, I'm trying to say this:

If one thinks their songs need to be shorter, a good way to reduce the length of one's songs is to examine what things are necessary and which are not, and to examine under what circumstances certain elements contribute significantly to the song's total enjoyment vs. how much time they are allotted in the song.

I am suggesting to you that you* examine how important solos are to a song (and under what circumstances), because that's a way to reduce the time of a song.






















*Not me.

[ujnhunter]

My rule of thumb is, only add a Solo if you are singing about Wookies...

[Billy's Little Trip]

I take it that you were dying to use your new wookie emoticon and that was the best line you could muster up?

*hands uncircumcisedhunter a book on funny one liners*

[Eric Y.]

If I was in a band with a really good guitar player, I wouldn't let him solo on every single song. Would you?

This is exactly why Audioslave got really old really fast. They had a lot going for them, including a rather talented and innovative guitarist, but it got to a point where they couldn't have a single song where it wasn't like "oh okay now you're going to insert some weird guitar noises here for a bit." There was some really good songwriting going on there, but a lot of it was overshadowed by the compulsive need to always include a solo.

More tersely: listen to either of their records, and at least half the songs on there will serve as examples of songs that don't need solos, or solos that aren't adding anything to the song but length.

[Adam!]

I say throw out the standard song structure. Maybe try keeping the chorus short? I prefer a chorus that's half as long as the verse. Plus that way you can double it up at the end of the song without feeling guilty. My best song went like this: Intro => Chorus => Another Intro => Verse A => Verse B => Chorus => Chorus => Chorus => Chorus => Outro. It clocks in at 2 1/2 minutes, and it's exactly as long as it needs to be.

[Billy's Little Trip]

I say throw out the standard song structure. Maybe try keeping the chorus short? I prefer a chorus that's half as long as the verse. Plus that way you can double it up at the end of the song without feeling guilty. My best song went like this: Intro => Chorus => Another Intro => Verse A => Verse B => Chorus => Chorus => Chorus => Chorus => Outro. It clocks in at 2 1/2 minutes, and it's exactly as long as it needs to be.

link?

[jeff robertson]

"Verse" and "chorus" don't have to be separate. Your "chorus" could simply be the same line occurring as the last line of each verse.

If you do have a separate chorus, not all verses need choruses between them. Try VVCVC.

Bridges and solos are both optional, and you especially don't need both in the same song.

A solo can be as short as 4 bars and still say everything it needs to say.

Try to get most of your "soloing" done *during* the verses, as fills between vocal lines or something.

Some genres are just better for short songs than others.

FWIW, since everybody seems to be citing their own songs as examples, these are my songs 2:30 or shorter. I'm not claiming these are good, but you can't deny their shortness.

"Mobile Home House Party", 2:30, http://www.songfight.org/music/mobile_h ... m_mhhp.mp3
"Radio Ready", 2:30, http://www.songfight.org/music/radio_re ... son_rr.mp3
"Late to a Funeral", 2:22, http://www.songfight.org/music/late_to_ ... m_ltaf.mp3
"Pink Ribbon", 2:20, http://www.songfight.org/music/pink_rib ... rvm_pr.mp3
"Stone Palace', 2:19, http://www.songfight.org/music/stone_pa ... son_sp.mp3
"All Tan", 2:18, http://www.songfight.org/music/all_tan/ ... rvm_at.mp3
"A Problem of Perspective", 2:14, http://www.songfight.org/music/a_proble ... n_apop.mp3
"Walking the Border", 2:11: http://www.songfight.org/music/walking_ ... vm_wtb.mp3
"501", 1:50, http://www.songfight.org/music/501/flvx ... vm_501.mp3
"I Don't Want to be Your Friend", 1:40: http://www.songfight.org/music/i_dont_w ... dwtbyf.mp3
"A Friendly Reminder", 1:20: http://www.songfight.org/music/a_friend ... vm_afr.mp3
"Tw3rp", 1;20: http://www.songfight.org/music/tw3rp/fl ... _tw3rp.mp3
"They Control the Weather", 55 seconds: http://www.songfight.org/music/they_con ... m_tctw.mp3
"Get a Life", 39 seconds: http://www.songfight.org/music/get_a_li ... vm_gal.mp3

I think I have an advantage over many people, since I usually have very little time in which to come up a lot of lyrics or any interesting ideas that I just can't stand to leave out of the song.

[jeff robertson]

If you want to have a short song you either need to say lots of words quickly, or write fewer damn words for crying out loud.

Excellent point.

My "In the Valley" is under 2 minutes, and that's including a solo (or, depending on how you hear it, a bridge without any lyrics). I came up with the music first and then forced myself only write just enough words to fit it.

[Kill Me Sarah]

If I'm going to squeeze in a solo (and with my guitar skills, I use the term loosely) I usually solo during the bridge.

You can also use the popular '90s alternative practice of cutting out the words to one of the verses and having a solo that is basically just the vocal melody all over again with a couple of extra tweedles at the end

[rone rivendale]

I could list every song I've done for SF that's under 2:30 but I'd be better off just linking my artist page since 90% of them are under the mark.

[Mostess]

So how do you cram everything a song needs (verses, lyrics that tell some kind of complete story, bridge, maybe a solo, maybe a coda) into three minutes? Especially if your song's tempo isn't above 150bpm? Is it possible?

Webern once said that the composer's most powerful tool is his eraser. Don't cram: delete.

Lyrics can always be tightened (omit needless words!), measures can always be dropped. 3-line verses can be more interesting than boxy ballad forms. You can always merge two verses into one. I really like starting songs immediately: no intro unless it's a melodic riff that shows up a bunch of times in the song. Never ever strum I-iv-IV-V-I-iv-IV-V before starting to sing. Might as well record yourself tuning up.

From your exchange with Erik (who is correct about solos, BTW), you really want to have it all. If so, you need to make everything in your song catchier so it doesn't need so much repetition. But it's hard work. If I spend a couple days on a SongFight! entry, it ends up around 4:00 or more. If I spend three or four days, I can trim it to 3:30. I think a 3:00 song of any worth might necessarily take me more than a week.

But the best practical tip I can give: record one long track that spans the whole song. Do that first. It can be drums or bass or guitar or piano or whatever. But if you really, really need the song to come in a 3:00, lay down a single track that lasts 3:00. If it lasts 4:00, delete something and do it again.

My personal favorite short Hostess Mostess entries (from longest to shortest):

Zero to Phantom: 2:54. Clipped phrases, tight lyrics. Allows for a lot of musical space. Chorus is really just the end of the verse, which allows for a bridge-like section that even has quick "solos" (those would have really been crazier if I could actually shred, but I wouldn't make them any longer).

I Wish I Was So Sure: 2:57. I violate my "no intros" rule, and the chorus is way too repetitive, but the verse lyrics say a lot, very quickly. Three verses and a bridge (one of my best bridges, IMO). Bridge overlaps with the verse.

Gone Phishing: 2:21. Overlap the ends of sections. No intro. Verse uses short, clipped phrases, and the chorus is only 6 bars long and only repeats once at the end. Verses still seem a little wordy and some repetition could be cut. Given that we entered 11 songs that week, though, not bad.

Last Date: 2:04. Very short chorus. Intro is a 2-bar phrase that is basically the hook of the song. Only 2 verses but each has a second part that acts like a bridge.

[JonPorobil]

Thread resurrection!

Something about this conversation must have gotten through to me, because I haven't done a 4:00 song since "Love Me a Little Bit More."

It's a little odd, but I don't even really feel like I need to try for it anymore. I just recorded a ballad with a fairly plodding tempo last night, and was surprised to find it clocked in at only 3:15.

I was also surprised at how much room I had to mess around during the coda of my "Amsterdam." Thanks to short verses and an upbeat tempo, the song clocked in at about 2:30 before the coda, which gave me tons of time to throw in random factoids about Amsterdam and the Dutch language.

Conservation of language has been key, to be sure.

On the other hand, there's tons of words in my "Schadenfreude," (and a bridge, AND a solo, to boot), and it still manages to clock in at 3:16.

Even my "We Keep Them Alive" manages to clock in at a mere 3:33 INCLUDING a fake ending and extended instrumental coda (2:30 at the first fadeout).

Thanks, Songfight!

[rone rivendale]

And on the other side I've actually worked very hard to INCREASE my average song time.

I've gone several years writing songs that range from 1:15 to 2:30 for the most part. But with improved vocals, a couple changes in genre, and a general personal need to extend my works to a more 'normal' time frame, I've managed to increase the average time of my songs for my 4th album to a range closer to 2:00 to 3:00 with 2 songs clocking in at over 4 minutes. One of those 4 minute songs, Step On Me, was labeled by a couple of you as my best work yet.

So there is something to be said for longer works as well. ^_^

[Billy's Little Trip]

I feel the same way, Jon. At the time of this thread, I was still struggling with the long song issue. But it was about that time that I started experimenting with new techniques and layouts. Shorter intros, which seemed hard at first, shorter bidges, more to the point with my lyrics, etc. Now it seems easy and I can't figure out why it was once so difficult. I guess I just need to open that door in my mind.

I think my second song for this years Nur Ein, Bullets and Lovers, is the shortest, yet fullest song I've ever done. Not necessarily my best work. But I'm amazed that it clocks in at 2:00 and has full verses, full chorus, a lead'ish bridge, tight breaks and a strong outro. Even now I listen to it and think, damn, that song has everything I need to get me pumped.

[roymond]

When the songs calls for a quick trip, it's short. When it wants to explore and wander, it's longer. But I hear ya, BLT, I've tried to keep more to the point in either case, lately.

[frankie big face]

The Beatles' Revolver:

Side one
1. "Taxman" (George Harrison) Harrison 2:39
2. "Eleanor Rigby" McCartney 2:08
3. "I'm Only Sleeping" Lennon 3:02
4. "Love You To" (Harrison) Harrison 3:01
5. "Here, There and Everywhere" McCartney 2:26
6. "Yellow Submarine" Starr 2:40
7. "She Said She Said" Lennon 2:37
Side two
# Title Lead vocals Length
1. "Good Day Sunshine" McCartney 2:10
2. "And Your Bird Can Sing" Lennon 2:02
3. "For No One" McCartney 2:02
4. "Doctor Robert" Lennon 2:15
5. "I Want to Tell You" (Harrison) Harrison 2:30
6. "Got to Get You into My Life" McCartney 2:31
7. "Tomorrow Never Knows" Lennon 2:57

Even "Tomorrow Never Knows" with all of its trippy instrumental work clocks in under 3 minutes. Most people would agree that these songs say everything they need to say and none of them seems too short.

[roymond]

It's great to reflect on such examples as Revolver as a model of what can be done. But that's an album where they still wrote short pop tunes while just getting into sonic atmosphere. Much of what follows goes well over 3 minutes (excluding the "experimental" stuff that some say wastes lots of time). Within You Without You, A Day In The Life, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, She's Leaving Home, Hey Jude, Across the Universe, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, The Long and Winding Road, Let It Be...

[Eric Y.]

... Hey Jude ...

That one, specifically, is a terrible example. That's a song that's said everything it needs to and more in the first 2-1/2 to 3 minutes, and just keeps on keeping on for another three minutes or so.

[roymond]

... Hey Jude ...

That one, specifically, is a terrible example. That's a song that's said everything it needs to and more in the first 2-1/2 to 3 minutes, and just keeps on keeping on for another three minutes or so.

HAHA, yes, you're right. In general, McCartney can't sustain much interest over 3 minutes, but he does have a few.

[frankie big face]

It's great to reflect on such examples as Revolver as a model of what can be done. But that's an album where they still wrote short pop tunes while just getting into sonic atmosphere. Much of what follows goes well over 3 minutes (excluding the "experimental" stuff that some say wastes lots of time). Within You Without You, A Day In The Life, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, She's Leaving Home, Hey Jude, Across the Universe, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, The Long and Winding Road, Let It Be...

That's fine, but it's probably where you and I would part ways. I think Revolver is better than any Beatles album that came after it. Even still, if you look at the length of the songs you've listed, they're almost all under four minutes, a few under 3:30. Within You Without You is a bit over five and could have been ten (BECAUSE THAT'S HOW AWESOME IT IS and also because it's not really a pop song, is it?) and While My Guitar... is not even five minutes, despite what seems like the longest guitar solo known to man. A Day in the Life is more like two or three songs squished in to one (what would essentially [and sadly, imo] become Paul's modus operandi with Wings) and it still only clocks in at five minutes.