The Duration of a Piece.

[reith]

Ok, the simple answer is that a piece should last as long as it needs.

However, there's the matter of getting it played, heard if not listened to. It's increasingly difficult to get a) a performance and b) get an audience to listen to new work of more than a few mins length, unless you're lucky enough to be in fashion or get a commission from some prestigious outfit.

As for listening, unless I attend a live performance, I've rarely time or inclination to listen to more than a single movement. If I have I'll choose bits from different pieces. Sometimes I have music going on in the background but even that's rare. I'm sure I'm not alone.

So I think shorter pieces are easier to cope with all round - easier to compose because the "opportunities for distraction" per minute are less, the chance of performance is easier and - more to the point, getting someone to listen is easier.

The longest continuous movement I've written lasts just under 10 mins but I aim for about 3 - 5 mins. I'm more likely to listen to something with a track time of 5 mins than 10. A Bruckner symphony is a project not a listen!

What do others think?

[Boneman]

I agree there R. Someone once said that if a piece was longer than three minutes people lose interest! I am lucky in that I have outlets for some of my music now which is great because I get lots of input into each piece.

[Ballaw de Quincewold]

In my opinion, if you have a piece longer then 2 minutes and it hasn't had at least a small amount of repetition, the general public will lose interest and walk away. (of course I live in Georgia,USA, the 3rd stupidest state around, so my idea of the general public is probably skewed)

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Ballaw de Quincewold

In my opinion, if you have a piece longer then 2 minutes and it hasn't had at least a small amount of repetition, the general public will lose interest and walk away. (of course I live in Georgia,USA, the 3rd stupidest state around, so my idea of the general public is probably skewed)

I agree with everyone. In this day and age of "sound bites" and information overload, you are in competition with TV, Internet, iPods, etc.etc. People have shorter attention spans than ever before.

But there's another point to this that we shouldn't neglect - not only are people's attention spans short, but, If you as a composer can't hold their attention for 2 minutes, you damn sure don't need to be writing pieces that are an hour long!

That's one of the beefs I have with the people who post "How do you write a Symphony?" Forget that - how bout let's see if you can write 3-5 minutes of engaging music first!

I too tend to write shorter pieces - most in the 3-5 range, a few up to 7-10. I think too many composers either feel like in order for it to be good, it must "substantial" (lengthy), and others are simply pleasing themselves. I don't know that either of those make for desireable music.

And remember, the longer it is, the harder it is to get someone to program it :-)

Steve

[PeterG]

I have to disagree with everyone here.
Where are we going to if we cannot focus for more than a few seconds? Yes, we seem to live in a soundbite age, but that is not a given. It is something we choose to.

It's like reading, lot's of people do not read books nowadays, but then again there are people that will dissolve completely into a book and will be grabbed for hours and hours. Most music produced nowadays is pop-music which lasts 3 minutes and has several repeats in that time even, but....Great music will grab people that will appreciate it and it doesn't matter if it will be 3 hrs long or just a minute.

So what to do to keep the listener interested in your 5 hr piece? Well, I think you need to bring in a good story. Pieces that long need to have a storyline I think, because just impressive notes or chords will not keep people's minds occupied long enough (unless.......you like that ofcourse). Pop music solves relatively boring melodies by adding nice words / lyrics that will appeal to the listener as well.

So, back to the original question; how long to make your piece? Well, as long as you have to to tell your story! For some people that is in a few bars, for some it's a lengthly symphony with all the works attached. Like with books; some people write best with a few words only, others tend to fill pages and pages with all kinds of discriptions to add to the mood.

Now, guess, what my favorite is?
Indeed, I like short, to the point, not loose yourself in details unless they're vital to the story, type of creations. In books as well as in music. And remember that even Mozart has written some boring scales and arpeggios in his work. And Beethoven managed to make an entire sonata movement with only 25 or so bars.

I write small pieces because I don't like lengthly tales filled with details.
I tend to tell my children small stories when they go to bed. I make them up as I sit along the bed and they never last until the next day. They will have a (happy) end before they are asleep (with lots of details to be filled in by imagination). My music is like that too (I think).

So,........ a piece is as long as you will like it and if the audience walks away because they are bored, so be it; they porbably do not share your taste.

[reith]

Please tell us why, Peter G. A contrary view would be most welcome.

I think there is a case for longer works - I did a threnody, basically slow (and good because it's moderately atonal so listeners have time to absorb events before they change) but no way could the material evolve in 3 minutes. It lasts about 10 mins. It would appeal to a limited audience and hopefully if they turned up at a concert, they'd sit through without talking, coughing and (if just before the interval) thinking 'oh Christ! Let me pass please so I can get to the bar first!'

That may be an exceptional case. Another is a sinfonietta I started a couple of years back. I'm having trouble finishing it for motivational reasons. Methinks, if I'm having trouble with it how can I expect an audience not to?
So I wondered about making it a suite.... then I find, from a few comments here and elsewhere that the movement I presented doesn't work as a standalone. I doubt I'd get the 16 minutes to perform the full work in a concert. I will finish it but that'll be my last extended work.

So...over to you, if you've a mind to reply.
regards,
reith.

[Will Kirk]

If anyone thinks that people lose interest after 2 minutes, then they need to listen to Beethoven's 9th or his 5th. Or Prokofiev's 1st

Each one of those pieces is considerably large, and I have numerous friends that say once they start listening they can't stop, even for a half hour

[stevel]

Originally Posted by PeterG

I have to disagree with everyone here.

Where are we going to if we cannot focus for more than a few seconds?
So what to do to keep the listener interested in your 5 hr piece?

So,........ a piece is as long as you will like it and if the audience walks away because they are bored, so be it; they porbably do not share your taste.

Peter, I don't disagree with you. Yes, there are always going to be people whose tastes are different. If they're bored, so be it - you can't please everyone.

My point was not so much that there aren't people who will listen to a longer piece - like the Beethoven's 5th Will mentions - sure, there are always going to be people who are engaged in this piece - but it's an egeaging piece!

So going to your second sentence above, where are we going? We seem to be having a lot of people who write long, unengaging music just for the sake of writing lengthy (which these people equate with quality) music.

My point remains, composers who can't engage an audience for two minutes are still not going to be able to engage an audience (and let's assume an audience who would prefer to listen to said music) for 10 minutes!

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Will Kirk

If anyone thinks that people lose interest after 2 minutes, then they need to listen to Beethoven's 9th or his 5th. Or Prokofiev's 1st

Each one of those pieces is considerably large, and I have numerous friends that say once they start listening they can't stop, even for a half hour

Yes, but these are good pieces. And what "people" are we discussing? My mother-in-law would lose interest before the piece even began. My father would lose interest a couple of bars in - but if you play him a Sousa March he'll listen for hours.

So there's certainly engaging things about Beethoven that engage listeners who like that type of music, and the same could be said about Sousa. But listeners don't seem to be as universally engaged (assuming they like the style) by Salieri, or Clementi.

So I'll allow Beethoven to write for an hour - he could do it effectively. But there are composers who can not compose for even 2 minutes before losing their audience. You gotta hook 'em and reel 'em in - you can't just paddle around the pond for hours!

Best,
Steve

[PeterG]

First of all sorry for the delay in my answering this. I had some serious compu-issues and wasn't even sure my post had made it alt all; They didn't show up.

Steve, you're right for the most part that if you aren't able to interest someone for 2 min's you should not engage to produce 2 hrs of music, unless.... your story cannot be told in 2 minutes ofcourse.

I strongly believe that music need a "storyline". This can be a series of emotions you felt and want to convey via the music, or an actual story (Peter and the wolf..), or a dance, or.. well you get it I hope. You can make a piece based on one (strong) emotion or feeling but this should not be too long then, emotions don't last forever and the mind does not expect them too either.

This brings me to the question why people get bored. I think this is because they:
- cannot understand the "story" you're telling (it's too complicated for your audience), or
- think it's not a normal progression of feelings (people who feel the same way you want to express in the music would not think that way and like it vey much), or
- think it's more of the same thing; if you over-explain things you "insult" the mind of the listener, or
- are used to very strong impressions and tend to be bored with more subtile ones (typically people that want to ride more and more dangerous roller coasters), or
-
A good storyteller knows these pitfalls and works around it. A good composer does that too and can keep them hooked on the music?

What do you think?

Peter

P.S. very good discussion we have here....