Note #29
Song Length: Is it easier to take away, or to add?
For the longest time I’ve tried to make my songs longer than is probably necessary. A lot of this comes down to doing the song justice. I’ve thought, if the song isn’t long enough, no one will listen to it. Or, it needs to be a certain length (which is how long? 3 minutes? 7 minutes?).
My song length reasoning is geared mainly toward performance. In terms of performing, I’ve found I keep them above 3 minutes, but just under 4. This is so that I can fill up either a.) a fifteen minute slot, or b.) a three song slot. If they are too short, you leave a lot of time on the table. I am incapable of noodling enough to make them longer, though I suppose I could add a verse. Lately I have been recording a few songs that are coming in around 3:30. I resist writing a short, two minute song, but feel challenged to try it. In fact, I have a handful of unfinished songs that would probably come in under two minutes, if I dare. On the other hand, lately, I’ve been topping recorded tracks out at just under five minutes. This is because I add a longer outro or throw in some break/bridge that pushes the song length. I know, in terms of recorded music, that it is probably anathema to make five minute songs and expect them to be heard in their entirety. But I am not aiming for charts or anything, just my own sense of what best suits the song.
Regarding open mics and song length. You can shorten a long song to make it fit a slot in an open mic, but for me, it’s harder to make a short song longer, unless you simply shred or noodle, which I don’t feel capable of. In the open mic scheme of things, you get some combination of minutes: 5, 6, 10 or 15 (I’ve had all of these parameters). In other scenarios, there is a limit of two songs, or maybe only one. Generally, I find the venues that offer three songs are the best, as they are usually more generous with the time. Lately, I keep trying to do three song open mics. At one open mic, you may get ten minutes, but you are to adhere to only two songs. In another, you can squeeze in three songs. So, in order to fill ten minutes, I think in terms of either two five minute songs, or three, 3 minute songs. In a fifteen minute slot, putting three, three minute songs into the mix would leave possibly six minutes on the table (!). (In fact, you’d probably have the extra minutes in between, so I’m being slightly hyperbolic here). Still, in this case, a longer song is usually better. Of course, it’s very easy to stretch a song out by a.) playing it slower, or b.) adding a verse or longer bridge. But I have yet to have tried this, mostly because my songs tend to be clearly defined in terms of structure. I have, however, cut a four or five minute song down to 3 and a half minutes. It’s easier to take away than it is to add.
So many bands have made the two minute song a thing, and it seems that it is entirely the point. Guided by Voices predominantly has recorded two minute or shorter songs, and it’s also something I associate with punk rock. GbV are not punk, however. When I listen to GbV songs, I can appreciate the brief approach; a lot of times I will hear one of their songs and think, how great this would be if it was lengthened out to three or four minutes. That brevity leaves you wanting more. The problem for me is that when recording, I can never bring myself to simply do a short song. I want the extra parts, the bridge, the breaks, the intro, the outro. Also, if I really like the chords, I want to stretch it out, I want to do the song justice.
I have spent a lot of time attempting to get perfect mixes. Or what I think of as perfect. At least lately. But how does one define perfect? I’m at the point where I really want to convey the energy, the feel, of a performance. In fact, I don’t think it has to be perfect. To consider it, no one else has done the song I am doing. These are original songs that no one has ever heard before. Why spend so much time worrying about how perfect it is? Listen to R.E.M.’s Murmur. No one had heard it before (except the band, and whoever had heard them playing it live). Or The The’s Soul Mining. There’s literally nothing the average listener would think to fix on these phenomenal fledgling albums. Sure, a sound engineer is going to say, “Well, you could have mic’d the vocals differently, or added some reverb on the rhythm guitar, etc.” But the listener keys into the feel of it. The emotion. The excitement of just how great a song it is. As I happen to be writing songs and recording them, maybe I’m a little more picky about stuff I know the tip of the iceberg about. What can I do? At some point, I want to put the songs out.
Recently, I rerecorded Unexplained Aerial Phenomenon. The demo was fine. But I never liked my second pass at it with drums and instrumentation that I started a few months ago. It was too slow, not energetic enough. But when I recorded it again, I went for probably the fastest, high energy recording I could come up with. I wasn’t sure where this was going to go. I thought I’d still hate it.
The new recording intrigues me. Far from perfect (remember: it doesn’t have to be perfect), it has punch and panache. And the drums are solid. Something I love with Garageband is how the drums seem so lifelike. I am sure a live drummer would disagree, but for me, the drumming has personality to it, which helps drive the entire song. I spent quite a bit of time getting all the levels correct on this mix, and it’s taken at least seven mixes to get to the pre-master mix. And in the order I am doing things, I think I am finally learning which steps to take in which order. It’s become somewhat intuitive, which is great. I still have a lot to learn, but I am more often pleasantly surprised by the results.
