Are longer songs better?

Solius

(• ___ •)
Staff
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
92,231
Some fantastic songs over the years have been the 8 or 9 minute epics, I was thinking, does the length of a song make it great? Some consider Bohemian Rhapsody, Stairway To Heaven or Like A Rolling Stone to be the best song ever. Those are 5:53, 8:02 and 6:10 respectively. Obviously they're not just great songs because of the length of time though.

My question is does the length give these songs something different, a chance to build up and create something great? Or is it just a coincidence?
 
my favourite song is november rain....thats a long one so i will agree with you....longer songs are better
 
I'm a fan of dance music, so 7-10 minutes is the normal length of a track. So in short, yes they are better.
 
Some fantastic songs over the years have been the 8 or 9 minute epics, I was thinking, does the length of a song make it great? Some consider Bohemian Rhapsody, Stairway To Heaven or Like A Rolling Stone to be the best song ever. Those are 5:53, 8:02 and 6:10 respectively. Obviously they're not just great songs because of the length of time though.
Bohemian Rhapsody and Stairway to Heaven are two of the biggest pieces of drivelling shite ever committed to vinyl. Like A Rolling Stone is a masterpiece so I'll let you off.
 
The length of a song certainly doesn't make it great, but the long songs you tend to here tend to be great. It's much harder to get a song on the radio if it's a long song since people are used to 3-4 minute tracks. So unless a long song is exceptional, you probably won't here it. The ones you do are the ones that get through that "filter".
 
Long songs are not great because of their length, but a large percentage of long songs are of a quality that makes people hold that opinion.
 
My question is does the length give these songs something different, a chance to build up and create something great? Or is it just a coincidence?

I think it likely has something to do with more opportunity for repetition.

People love repetition.
 
I think it likely has something to do with more opportunity for repetition.

People love repetition.

They only actually work when there is no repetition as such along the length of the track - maybe variations on a theme, but no repetition. Long songs, 6 minutes+ have to be constructed like a mini symphony of sorts, and have differing "movements".
 
There are some superb long songs but it depends on the mood of the listener to when its appropriate. For example if I am driving a short journey a snappy playlist with 3 minute songs is the choice, if its a long journey its great to have long tracks especially if they are tracks that build up all the way through.

It's also nice to have long songs when just sitting around relaxing, Maggot Brain is my favorite to just lose myself in thought, all 10 minutes of it.
 
April Come She Will is less than 2 minutes and it's fantastic. So no, they're neither better nor worse.
 
They only actually work when there is no repetition as such along the length of the track - maybe variations on a theme, but no repetition. Long songs, 6 minutes+ have to be constructed like a mini symphony of sorts, and have differing "movements".

But surely they are linked by repetitive parts? I get what you;re saying about the obvious repetition but a long song has to have those parts that join it together as a whole, which brings the listener into the journey. The artist takes you somewhere but keeps bringing you back to the same place, wherein lies the appeal.

Even the Beatles did it that way on Abbey Road.
 
But surely they are linked by repetitive parts? I get what you;re saying about the obvious repetition but a long song has to have those parts that join it together as a whole, which brings the listener into the journey. The artist takes you somewhere but keeps bringing you back to the same place, wherein lies the appeal.

Even the Beatles did it that way on Abbey Road.

Well, take say Bohemian Rhapsody - is there any repetition? It's not overly long, but it is around 6 minutes rather than the standard 3:30-4.
 
Well, take say Bohemian Rhapsody - is there any repetition? It's not overly long, but it is around 6 minutes rather than the standard 3:30-4.

Some, if I recall it correctly, but it is minimal. It's a very subtle repetition to keep the song together.

That said I don't think of Bohemian Rhapsody as a traditional rock song. Its construction is quite unique.
 
Some of my favourite songs:

Stairway to Heaven- Led Zeppelin(8:03)
Achilles Last Stand - Led Zeppelin(10:25)
Lateralus - Tool (9:24)
Shine On You Crazy Diamond - Pink Floyd(13:31)
The End - The Doors (11:41)
The Last Baron - Mastodon (13:01)

So I definitely see your point Sol.
 
They only actually work when there is no repetition as such along the length of the track - maybe variations on a theme, but no repetition. Long songs, 6 minutes+ have to be constructed like a mini symphony of sorts, and have differing "movements".
No, they just have to be good.













 
I think you'll find that stopping and restarting the songs I posted after three minutes will give a quite different listening experience.
 
Providence. One of my favourite GY!BE tracks. The album version clocks in at 29 minutes.




 
Aren't most 50's and 60's songs just about two minutes long?

Loads of good music from them times.
 
The Poet and The Pendulum (13:54) > Three Words (4:38)

So based on that sample, yes.
 
Most prog rock fans are used to long songs.

Alot of my favourite songs are around the 20 minute mark.
 
The Poet and The Pendulum (13:54) > Three Words (4:38)

So based on that sample, yes.
Poet and The Pendulum really is a great song indeed.
As is Ghost Love Score (10 mins)

Some of Dream Theater's songs are great examples of this as well. Octavarium (24:00), A Change of Seasons (23:06) and The Count of Tuscany (19:16) are some of my all time favorite songs.