Length

What does length of music mean?

How long does a piece of music need to be?

On the practical side, there seems to be a certain acceptable window of length in the "serious classical" vein. Anything shorter than, I'd say, three minutes, people may find too short to take seriously, especially the larger the ensemble; heck, it could take longer than that to set up the stage than to play the piece! On the other side, anything longer than 15 or 20 minutes is impractical because it requires so much more in rehearsal from performers (and spaces to rehearse/perform). So yeah, 7-15 minutes seems ideal if you want to be taken seriously and/or enter lots of competitions. And then into this you could inject an expectation of the attention span of your audience.

On the "pure artistic" side (?), we often take the "basic material" and ask of it, what do we want to do with it? Depending on the answer, and of course any person's ingrained style, a piece could "need" to be, well, just about any length.

But I'm mostly curious about others' experience with longer pieces. I've heard that the longer the piece, the *less* material you need, paradoxically. I haven't been able to hit 10 minutes myself. Has anyone had excessive trouble with a long piece, in keeping it together?

On the other side of things, I offer two quite short movements of Kluh (for bottle band). It happens to be explicitly microtonal. Do these movements stand up to you? Could they do more? Less?

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/funwithx...nicitymusic.htm

See "Kluh I" and "Kluh II". You might have to register.

I got a 404 error when I clicked the link, so I can't comment on your pieces (maybe you could attach it to the message?).

But to answer the question, I disregard length nowadays. I used to think 'better make this longer, get it up to 4:31 so it looks nice in the media player', but now I just write pieces and accept them, no matter the length. The longest piece I've written is 6 minutes something, I too struggle to stretch things out. I agree with your point about 3 minute large ensemble works - it's a bit of an anticlimax to have something performed which takes less time than the stage set up!

Interesting point though. I'd like to hear more opinions.

I had a conversating the other night with my roommate about just this. My comment was that the genuis of Muzio Clementi lay in the way he was able to take sonata form and cover it entirely in the span of a minute and a half - little more than one page. My roommate replied saying that since time is an invention, using solely time as a factor to judge a piece is a bad idea.

Anyway. I disagree with him. I think if you can say something in less time, you've accomplished more than someone who used more time to say the same thing. Jacob hit the nail right on the head, methinks - the practical considerations of rehearsal time and especially audience attention span make it so that pieces that are 30 minutes long (or even longer, which starts to border on just plain too much no matter what it is you're saying) may not be taken as seriously.

This is doubly true if you're young and still working to establish yourself in the classical music world. You have to have a name before big conductors with good orchestras are willing to dedicate hours upon hours of rehearsal time to your piece.

sorry, here's a better link: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/funwithx...icity_music.htm

I had a conversating the other night with my roommate about just this. My comment was that the genuis of Muzio Clementi lay in the way he was able to take sonata form and cover it entirely in the span of a minute and a half - little more than one page. My roommate replied saying that since time is an invention, using solely time as a factor to judge a piece is a bad idea.

Anyway. I disagree with him. I think if you can say something in less time, you've accomplished more than someone who used more time to say the same thing.

Well you must admit that no pieces try and say the exact same thing; it will always be apples and oranges and mangoes and peaches and so on. Furthermore, if sonata A is much longer than sonata B but it uses the time not merely to 'cover' the form but to make a unique contribution to it, then, well, that's great.

The simple truth is that some things take longer to say than others. All of minimalist music comes to mind, but style aside, the prevalent opinion among "serious" composers seems to have moved from a mindset of "form rules composition" to a mindset of "material rules form." Academic composers, at least, have a greater inclination towards these custom-tailored forms. I'm just pointing to 7-15 minutes as a new sort of "industry standard" that seems to be acceptable for the paradigm in control of concert music, which other things are judged against.

Jacob hit the nail right on the head, methinks - the practical considerations of rehearsal time and especially audience attention span make it so that pieces that are 30 minutes long (or even longer, which starts to border on just plain too much no matter what it is you're saying) may not be taken as seriously.

Actually, I only meant that pieces too short may be taken less seriously; in long pieces the opposite problem occurs and people take it too seriously. Inexperienced composers may feel unprepared to write something so big; I know I do.

As far as things being plain too much, have you ever heard Terry Riley's In C or Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians?

sorry, here's a better link: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/funwithx...icity_music.htm

Actually, I only meant that pieces too short may be taken less seriously; in long pieces the opposite problem occurs and people take it too seriously.

I feel that pieces do not have to be very lengthy to be considered as a "serious" piece of music. Maybe one will get less recognition for writing a 30 miniature than writing a film score, but an amateur couldn't care less if they do not want to pursue a career in composing. Examples of short pieces that are very profound are Chopin's Mazurkas - such genius and originality within the miniature form.

I personally am not a fan of very long pieces unless they are broken up into clear movements or sections. There is so much music to listen to and and infinite number of styles and moods and emotions that I don't want to spend 15 minutes or 4 hours listening to the same thing when I could have experienced countless more styles and moods during that same time.

Or maybe I just have a shorter attention span.

I prefer to write shorter pieces, but usually in sets, sort of like character pieces. My set may be an hour long, but the pieces can certinally exist on their own.

My longest and best piece I am most confident with is just over 7 minutes long. Most of my solo piano literature is around 5-7 minutes per piece. My sets are longer, but I already explained those. Even my orchestral pieces are not much longer than 7 minutes.

I do plan on writting a much longer piano sonata, however not to exceed 20 minutes.

My same ideas go for learning literature, as well. I prefer to learn sets of pieces or pieces from sets. The longest piece I have tackled to date is the Mozart c minor Fantasie, which runs 13 minutes, but it is clearly broken down into sections.

As far as things being plain too much, have you ever heard Terry Riley's In C or Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians?

Actually, I think these pieces are wonderful in terms of length. Such a discussion of length breaks down when you start discussing minimalism, because the discussion is no longer one of development towards a climax in the traditional sense. The essence of minimalism is that you have very little to say, but you repeat it to allow it to sink into the ear of the listener so he or she might understand its profundity.

I don't think pieces like The Firebird and Rite of Spring count as "long" pieces. They are still suites of lots of little pieces, strung together with a ballet in mind. The holy grails of long pieces that develop profoundly, methinks, are Mahler's symphonies. Even then, the longest movements are not much more than 20 minutes long. It seems like this is the upper limit of the length of one movement, even in the works of the master composers. Any more than that and you're probably being either redundant or just boring.

If we're talking about length of pieces, then I don't think 30 minutes is anywhere near too long. For individual movements, though, 20 minutes seems like a reasonable upper limit - I have heard few movements longer than 15 minutes that can hold my attention throughout.

Although I don't ever intend to make a living from music (I'm going to medical school next year), I find that I rarely attempt to write anything that is not meant to be taken very seriously, even if it means each composition takes months or even years to finish. That's probably why I'm still working on my 3rd and 4th compositions after composing pretty steadily for almost 3 years (and on and off for over 7 years now). Perhaps as an amateur I have the luxury of being able to do this.

In my own work, I find that it's easiest to write movements of between 5 and 10 minutes; finished movements to date range in length from 2:10 to 8:57 at the tempi indicated in the MIDI files. Currently in the works, however, is a piano quartet, the first two movements of which are both expected to exceed 9 minutes.

So I gather from this, some ways to make length:

- use gigantic dramatic forms (Mahler, also traditional Indian music...)

- join many small (or large) pieces into a multi-movement work, possibly aided by connecting features

- use very little material, drawn out into a very gradual, naked process (minimalism)

The gigantic dramatic form has much in common with the minimal approach, and we certainly see the multi-movement aspect used in the context of longer continuous forms.

But what does length do for a piece?

There is so much music to listen to and and infinite number of styles and moods and emotions that I don't want to spend 15 minutes or 4 hours listening to the same thing when I could have experienced countless more styles and moods during that same time.

If all we get out of a piece is experiencing a style/mood...well, that raises some questions.

What about pieces that continuously and organically morph in style? (Can't say I have an example...)

Can we ever hope to find substance in what a piece does and not just what it looks like? (I personally find it really hard.)

If you like listening to a piece due to its mood or "sonic fingerprint," wouldn't you want to be able to experience it more often, and if so, is a longer form preferable to a repeated listening of a short form?

If you like listening to a piece due to its mood or "sonic fingerprint," wouldn't you want to be able to experience it more often, and if so, is a longer form preferable to a repeated listening of a short form?

Often when I listen to music I hear a section which I like, but is not long enough or developed enough to satisfy. It frustrates me, and I'm almost tempted to rewind the piece so I can listen again. Again mentioning The Rite of Spring, I think it's a miracle Stravinsky wasn't tempted to use the idea with the big repeated chords more than once. However, Prokofiev has no such qualms when showcasing his theme in Romeo and Juliet.

Anyway, as far as length goes, I'd say gigantic forms was the hardest to pull off. For the amateur, unsharpened composer, this is probably the way to go, unless the composer is willing to use minimalist techniques which for many is sadly regarded as a cop-out.

Anyway, as far as length goes, I'd say gigantic forms was the hardest to pull off. For the amateur, unsharpened composer, this is probably the way to go, unless the composer is willing to use minimalist techniques which for many is sadly regarded as a cop-out.

Anyway, as far as length goes, I'd say gigantic forms was the hardest to pull off. For the amateur, unsharpened composer, joining many pieces into a multi-movement work is probably the way to go, unless the composer is willing to use minimalist techniques which for many is sadly regarded as a cop-out.

I think the amateur or the beginner should put all thoughts of the length of his or her piece totally out of mind and just write! If you want to get philosophical, time is, after all, an invention, and slapping a numerical value on a piece as to how many "minutes" it lasts does no good for anyone.

When I'm listening to good music, how long it is hardly ever enters my mind, unless I need to be somewhere before the piece will finish. If you have much to say and it means a lot to you and you say it in creative and fresh ways, you can take two hours of my life and I won't complain. However, if you really don't have a lot to say, show, or share, and you plod along into 15 or 20 minutes without ever really digging deep into anything (a plight all too common among young composers) then you'll lose my attention.

I think the point is that at our age, it's incredibly difficult to simply have that much to say! I'm young, and when my music spills past 10 minutes, I must ask myself if I'm crossing into the realm of wasting peoples' time. There will be plenty of time in my life to write long pieces, when I have more to communicate.

I think the amateur or the beginner should put all thoughts of the length of his or her piece totally out of mind and just write! If you want to get philosophical, time is, after all, an invention, and slapping a numerical value on a piece as to how many "minutes" it lasts does no good for anyone.

When I'm listening to good music, how long it is hardly ever enters my mind, unless I need to be somewhere before the piece will finish. If you have much to say and it means a lot to you and you say it in creative and fresh ways, you can take two hours of my life and I won't complain. However, if you really don't have a lot to say, show, or share, and you plod along into 15 or 20 minutes without ever really digging deep into anything (a plight all too common among young composers) then you'll lose my attention.

I think the point is that at our age, it's incredibly difficult to simply have that much to say! I'm young, and when my music spills past 10 minutes, I must ask myself if I'm crossing into the realm of wasting peoples' time. There will be plenty of time in my life to write long pieces, when I have more to communicate.

Agreed. I tend to know the length of my movements well before I've finished them, but that's only because I plan the entire form of the movement very early on in my compositional process.

This is interesting. I like the conclusions that are being made. I've never thought of this subject in quite this way before.

I generally don't consider the length of pieces one way or another, unless something about them makes them seem too long or too short to my sensibilities. I know that while some people may find an underdeveloped idea disappointing, I tend to find it irritating when a composer chooses to take 15 minutes to say something he could have said in 6. There are even some movements of Beethoven I've felt this way about (1st movement of the Violin Concerto, sorry to say...about 5 minutes too long, though the 3rd is perfect) - but then, Beethoven was consciously trying to break out of the conventions of his time and shake things up.

Myself, I tend to err on the side of brevity. I like my writing tight and concise (the opening movement to my latest symphony is only 103 measures long, not including the repeat of the exposition, which is only 42 measures...the movement lasts about 6 minutes and is well-balanced...it says what it needs to say and shuts up). But I've also written a 45-minute string quartet, too - pretty long for the form - which, to my disappointment, was not some of my best work. Overall, I find I'm at my best as a miniaturist.

Yeah.

For my first few years of 'serious' composing, everything I posted was way too short. And yes, I believe there's such a thing as way too short. For instance, writing 12 bars of piano part and calling it a finished piece. Which is something I did embarrassingly often.

Nowadays my pieces still only average about two and a half minutes, but they're getting there. And I'm now writing pieces of multiple movements, too, and they're way longer! * grins *

The National anthem for Qatar is 25 seconds long on average.

So I believe that that music can be any length, just because something is longer doesn't mean it is any better, you simply have more time to enjoy it.

Also I find that long peices of music (what I write at least) tends to have more looping areas, where maybe part of the song loops as one part plays something new. I try to seek as original music as I can find, so I have a fear of loops.

I personally adore a long piece of music that I can sink into and be carried away by. I love listening to some of the symphonies of Allan Pettersson, almost all of which are in a single movement lasting around 45 minutes. They are a constantly evolving canvas of music that takes you on a journey. The destination is not so much important as the rugged road one travels to get there. And when one reaches the destination, there is often in his music a sense of peace that can only come through enduring conflict (with the notable exception of the 10th, which ends with a snapping snarl).

I also love long multimovement works. Most especially Mahler's 6th Symphony or Busoni's Piano Concerto. Though they break up te material into movemens, it is nevertheless part of one larger thought.