Slashdot Mirror
The Economics of Streaming is Making Songs Shorter (qz.com)
Popular music is shrinking. From 2013 to 2018, the average song on the Billboard Hot 100 fell from 3 minutes and 50 seconds to about 3 minutes and 30 seconds. From a report: Six percent of hit songs were 2 minutes 30 seconds or shorter in 2018, up from just 1% five years before. Take Kendrick Lamar. One of the world's most popular musicians right now. The average track length on Lamar's breakout 2013 album good kid, m.A.A.d city is 5 minutes 37 seconds. All are 3 minutes 30 seconds or longer. On Lamar's most recent album DAMN., the average song is 3 minutes and 57 seconds. DAMN. won the Pulitzer Prize for music, going to show that this trend isn't necessarily lowering the quality of music. It's not just Lamar. The trend can be seen in albums of music's biggest stars, like the rapper and singer Drake, perhaps pop music's most dominant force.
In the hey day of AM radio the songs aimed for 2 min 30 seconds. It's not economics. And on top of that, comparing averages to individual songs is also silly. Half fo them will be longer than the median. Lastly Album oriented music tends to be longer than radio/stream oriented music because the former has a larger story telling context and the latter is about a catchy vibe.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Long term trend is actually the reverse; although it might well be starting to turn around now for reasons that may or may not be related to streaming economics... but my grandparents and parents generations both lived with most hit music being sub-3 minutes. While my generation and my kids saw it climb to 4+ so its hardly a big deal its down a bit.
2010's: 4'26"
2000's: 4'10"
1990's: 4'14"
1980's: 4'08"
1970's: 3'55"
1960's: 2'59"
1950's: 2'36"
1940's: 2'41"
https://thelister.blogspot.com...
I'm not sure that most of your reasoning is valid.
If everyone is producing shorter songs, it means that over some amount of time a user streams, they're more likely to have played some artist's song. All artists cooperatively adopting this strategy means that everyone gets paid more. You also assume that longer song lengths result in greater occupation of listener's attention (whatever that means), which even if true, doesn't result in more revenue (at least not directly) for the artists. Maybe you could claim it generates album sales, but you'd need to prove the hypothesis that longer songs do a better job of this.
Consumers of the service pay a flat rate. They spend a certain amount of time listening regardless of how many songs play. There's no indication that they prefer songs of any particular length, but it seems reasonable there's a time range that most people enjoy since we neither have lots of 2 minute songs or lots of 10 minute songs. I believe that there are streaming services that still offer free ad-supported options. That means that the streaming platform would support shorter songs based on your comparison with AM radio, but contradicts your earlier claim that they would support longer songs as it means fewer payments on their part.
...the shorter a rap song is, the less bad it is. Now if they can hit 0:00 it'd be perfect!
The logic is pretty simple. Someone sits down to work for an hour and decides to stream some Lamar. If the average Lamar song is 5 minutes, only 12 songs are played. If the average song is 3 minutes, that's 20 songs. Almost twice as many plays, so twice as much money for Lamar. Even if they don't exclusively listen to just Lamar, if they're on a playlist with different artists and, say, 20% of it is Lamar, Lamar will get 4 plays instead of 2-3, so it ends up being better for everyone (in a per-song royalty world) if the average song is shorter.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
In the middle of last century, the 45 rpm record did the exact same thing. Before that, pop songs would have long intros and the singer might not come in until the third chorus. For example, here's a Tommy Dorsey/Sinatra record from the 40's that was a big hit (it's a cool tune, so you should listen to it):
https://youtu.be/M_EPgmVaLWA
I wish some Tommy Dorsey/Sinatra tunes could have made it into the Fallout games. The song still comes in at 3:19, but the structure is pure 78 rpm.
Once the 45 rpm came out, it was one measure and the singer comes in. Verse/chorus/verse/chorus. Not even a bridge sometimes.
https://youtu.be/-eHJ12Vhpyc
It has been said that 3 minutes should be the outer limit for a pop song. One of the greatest records of all time had an average song length of about 2 minutes, and many songs much shorter. Here is a great song from The Ramones' self-titled first record that comes in at exactly 1:30. No fat, no filler, all pumping pure pop goodness.
https://youtu.be/K6GAGdBiJF0
You are welcome on my lawn.
The popular singles may be getting shorter, and streaming may be becoming more common, but where's the proven connection? Perhaps shorter songs are simply more "attractive" to the demographic with a reduced attention span, and artists and their record companies are aiming for that market?
Streaming has changed modern music - but it is the song introduction that has changed, not the duration. A song has to "hook" people within the first 15 seconds or else the listener will hit next. When this happens, the streaming service does not have to pay the artist. With traditional radio, songs could start up slowly. This gave artists had more flexibility in how the music was presented. With streaming, artists have around 15 seconds to sell their tune. It is limiting - but the price one has to pay for the way streaming currently operates.
**Note; I have forgotten the exact time so 15 seconds might be off. But it is close to 15.
Even in the chorus before the first verse, listeners learn two of the things Meat Loaf's character won't do are "lie to you" and "forget the way you feel right now". Later "do it better than I do it with you" and "be screwing around" are added. I understand all this to mean he won't "cheat", or swing without Lorraine Crosby's character's permission. It wouldn't be infeasible for a shorter edit of the song to keep the same message.
"You think songs are about message?"
Only the truly great songs. Regardless of length.
If there's no message, it's just fluff.
And fluff is just fine, fluff becomes the filler in-between, and must outnumber songs with a message in order for those songs to transcend the mundane and become the great songs in the first place.
Without the fluff, the meanings would just be lost in the noise.
It is hardly infantile.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Ohh, I'm a dipshit for disagreeing with you
So we now see the true definition of infantile.
I'm a musician, and I disagree. The sonic and the lyric are intertwined to create the work.
Since you cannot argue like a rational human being, we can safely ignore your opinion.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable