The Song Fight Bulletin Board

frankie big face wrote: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.

I didn't know that was on the table (and I always learn good things arguing with you). Revolver is my favorite Beatles album, btw. I just didn't want to go off into some seemingly random rant justifying prog rock (again), so I was keeping it within the family.

roymond wrote:

frankie big face wrote: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.

I didn't know that was on the table (and I always learn good things arguing with you). Revolver is my favorite Beatles album, btw. I just didn't want to go off into some seemingly random rant justifying prog rock (again), so I was keeping it within the family.

Oh, I just meant "part ways" as in "disagree" not as in "I WILL NEVER SPEAK TO YOU AGAIN FOR WHAT YOU HAVE SAID." (I assume that's what you mean by "that" when you say "I didn't know that was on the table...") You probably have more of a tolerance for length than I do, even though I still get a kick out of listening to The Gates of Delirium.

Maybe we (and I mean all of us) can agree that long songs that seems to unfold over several minutes while generating increasing interest are just fine while long songs that seem to be repetitive because the author/performer seemingly has no sense of or regard for aesthetic balance are not so good.

I listened to Sounds of Silver by LCD Soundsystem the other day and enjoyed every one of the 55 minutes it took to get through nine brilliant songs. The shortest is 3:55 and the longest 8:29, but none of the time seems wasted.

No, I was referring to the "Revolver is better than the others" comment.

Anyway, it's not only up to each listener, but also where their head is at when they listen. Short pop songs are great these days because I want to punch walls and am too impatient to sit around waiting for things to unfold, be it Floyd, Yes, Jane Siberry or Wilco. But driving up to VT two weekends ago was prime long groove time and extended Zappa solos filled the Jetta.

On a related note, my entry for this week will clock under 2:45 and begins with an immediate vocal, sans intro. I hope it doesn't bore anyone.

Although very few of my songs go past 3 minutes (I think my "Massive Intelligence Failure" goes close to 5 minutes - and often longer when I play it live, because I keep adding new verses), there is nothing wrong with writing a 7+ minute "Like A Rolling Stone" if you have it in you.

Caravan Ray wrote:...there is nothing wrong with writing a 7+ minute "Like A Rolling Stone" if you have it in you.

I agree. Unfortunately, I think it would be difficult to find an audience for such a song today. Maybe I'm wrong. When I teach my pop music class at school, I find the students respond well to lyric-driven songs like Like a Rolling Stone, but they also admit to hardly ever or never listening to music as intently on their own as we do in class. Which is quite different from when I was in high school.

Huh!! Kids today! Wouldn't even know their Simons from their Garfunkels. Whie I was at school, the Brothers would regularly strap us to a table and force feed us Supertramp until we sreamed for mercy (usually about halfway through the second verse of "Dreamer" from memory...), and woe betide anyone that couldn't recite all of Cat Steven's "Morning Has Broken" - in Latin - it would be off to the Head Brothers office for a pants-down six-of-the-best followed by half an hour of Brother's "special punishment" that we weren't allowed to tell our parents about. Just seeing the cover of Teaser and the Firecat can still make me break into a cold sweat

frankie big face wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote:...there is nothing wrong with writing a 7+ minute "Like A Rolling Stone" if you have it in you.

I agree. Unfortunately, I think it would be difficult to find an audience for such a song today. Maybe I'm wrong. When I teach my pop music class at school, I find the students respond well to lyric-driven songs like Like a Rolling Stone, but they also admit to hardly ever or never listening to music as intently on their own as we do in class. Which is quite different from when I was in high school.

I do believe some bands (even ones not named Green Day) can get away with a song between 6:00 and 9:00 if it's tucked somewhere in the album and never even considered as a single. Obviously, jam bands get away with it all the time, but I don't think songs like those usually justify their length. And hey, even the cut version of "Jesus of Suburbia" was over six minutes, and it got some play on radio and MTV.

Jack's Mannequin, for instance, ended their wonderful second album The Ghost Overground with an intensely moving six-minute suite called "Caves," which deals in direct lyrical terms with Andrew McMahon's bout with Leukemia. Jenny Lewis' latest, Acid Tongue, features a three-songs-in-one track called "The Next Messiah" that clocks in at 8:47.

Still, I think for songwriters who are still learning, the more likely error is going overly long, so I've spent the last year or so just learning how to keep it short, especially so that when I do get that brilliant idea that requires the song to stretch its legs a little, I'll be able to justify it.

(I think I came close with my "Say the Word," way back then, but I still can't help but wonder if I could've gotten it down below the 5:00 mark with some judicious cutting...)

Some one-hit wonder released a song called "Thriller" a few years back. That one was long. It even had, like, talking in it.

I was going to mention this yesterday, but wasn't sure it was relevant to the discussion. It certainly seems so now... Death Cab for Cutie's "I Will Possess Your Heart" clocks in at around 8 minutes. I'm not sure if there was a radio edit of this song, but it was a pretty big hit around these parts.

ken wrote:I was going to mention this yesterday, but wasn't sure it was relevant to the discussion. It certainly seems so now... Death Cab for Cutie's "I Will Possess Your Heart" clocks in at around 8 minutes. I'm not sure if there was a radio edit of this song, but it was a pretty big hit around these parts.

Yeah, it's around 4 minutes because I D/Ld the radio version apparently. I didn't know there was a longer version.

Generic wrote:I do believe some bands (even ones not named Green Day) can get away with a song between 6:00 and 9:00 if it's tucked somewhere in the album and never even considered as a single.

Since when is Green Day the poster child for long songs?

Dookie:

Burnout 2:07
Having a Blast 2:44
Chump 2:54
Longview 3:59
Welcome to Paradise 3:44
Pulling Teeth 2:30
Basket Case 3:03
She 2:14
Sassafras Roots 2:37
When I Come Around 2:58
Coming Clean 1:34
Emenius Sleepus 1:43
In the End 1:46
F.O.D./All By Myself 5:46

American Idiot:

American Idiot 2:54
Jesus of Suburbia 9:08
Holiday 3:52
Boulevard of Broken Dreams 4:20
Are We the Waitiing 2:42
St. Jimmy 2:55
Give Me Novacaine 3:25
She's a Rebel 2:00
Extraordinary Girl 3:33
Letter Bomb 4:06
Wake Me Up When September Ends 4:45
Homecoming 9:18
Whatsername 6:44

Yeah, they got longer, but still there's a bunch on American Idiot under 3:00. Is it just 'cause they got so popular that kids would accept a 9:00 song that makes them seem like the kings of self-indulgence? (Can it be self-indulgence if it's a monster hit? Eddie Murphy's album was self-indulgence, for example.)

jb wrote:

Generic wrote:I do believe some bands (even ones not named Green Day) can get away with a song between 6:00 and 9:00 if it's tucked somewhere in the album and never even considered as a single.

Since when is Green Day the poster child for long songs?


Yeah, they got longer, but still there's a bunch on American Idiot under 3:00. Is it just 'cause they got so popular that kids would accept a 9:00 song that makes them seem like the kings of self-indulgence? (Can it be self-indulgence if it's a monster hit? Eddie Murphy's album was self-indulgence, for example.)

I didn't mean to paint Green Day as the prime example of songwriters who run long. They're just the only band I could think of with enough pull to get a long song on the radio.

Caravan Ray wrote:Whie I was at school, the Brothers would regularly strap us to a table and force feed us Supertramp until we sreamed for mercy (usually about halfway through the second verse of "Dreamer" from memory...), and woe betide anyone that couldn't recite all of Cat Steven's "Morning Has Broken" - in Latin - it would be off to the Head Brothers office for a pants-down six-of-the-best followed by half an hour of Brother's "special punishment" that we weren't allowed to tell our parents about.

Thanks, now I have Supertramp stuck in my head. I see we went to the same school..

Eric Y. wrote:

roymond wrote:... 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.

Hey Jude could have ended after the first 30 seconds without losing anything important.

All this talk of long songs and has no one mentioned 'Bohemian Rhapsody' yet.

That was a pretty long song, got airplay and was a hit more than once.


As for complete, perfect songs Slayers 'Reign in Blood' album 10 tracks all with intros, verses, choruses, leads and outros, and the whole thing clocks in at under 29 mins.


Length is unimportant, content is. If is good enough it can last for hours. Or it could last for 5 seconds, if thats all it needs to be. Content, content, content.

Me$$iah wrote: Length is unimportant, content is. If is good enough it can last for hours. Or it could last for 5 seconds, if thats all it needs to be.

That's what I always tell the ladies

Generic wrote:I didn't mean to paint Green Day as the prime example of songwriters who run long. They're just the only band I could think of with enough pull to get a long song on the radio.

I remember a DJ that used to be on the classic-rock stations around here saying (at least once or twice) that he always would put on "Comfortably Numb" when he needed to take a bathroom break or something.

Am I the only person reading this who is shocked to learn that "Like a Rolling Stone" actually is over 6 minutes long? It doesn't *feel* that long. I would never had said it was even 4 minutes. Mind has been blown.

Eric Y. wrote: I remember a DJ that used to be on the classic-rock stations around here saying (at least once or twice) that he always would put on "Comfortably Numb" when he needed to take a bathroom break or something.

When I was in college radio, I used to play "Gone World Gone" by the Kitchens of Distinction when I needed a break. But you know, that song clocks in at 8:00 and I wouldn't cut a second from it.

jeff robertson wrote:Am I the only person reading this who is shocked to learn that "Like a Rolling Stone" actually is over 6 minutes long? It doesn't *feel* that long. I would never had said it was even 4 minutes. Mind has been blown.

Wow! You know, I always thought it was 5 seconds long... oh wait... that was me changing the station.