Strategy for the intro?

Most of my *pop* tunes have really abrupt intros. I try to imagine how they might fit in to a random playlist playing in the back ground and so I like to get them kicked off and full bore ASAP.

I hear many songs here at the songs forum with long and intricate intros, and frankly, I get envious some times. It seems to make the songs feel more serious while also seeming more entertaining or interesting when I am listening with full attention.

I wonder about the what/how/why other people think about good ways to introduce a song.




best regards,
mike

Intro rules for me:

1. Keep the intro under 13 seconds. (it's the average country song intro length)

2. Don't use an intro at all, get right into the song. (film & TV cues)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-DkkpGk5h0

I've been thinking about using my wife's piano for the beginning of a minimalistic piece here..then building it up from there...adding things that way seems the way to go with this one... 

Karyn


'ello  is always a good start to a tune.


Long or short, soft or loud, gentle build up or bang straight in.  All depends on the atmosphere you're trying to create and your target audience.
You'll set the tone for the song in the first 5 seconds, and the average AnR guy with a stack of CDs from floor to ceiling may only listen to the first 10 - 20 seconds.

Spot on Karyn

One of my prog rock pieces has an intro of about 5 minutes before you hear any singing

If you can't be self-indulgent in Prog Rock then when can you?

I really like the way Fountains of Wayne arrange their songs.  The intros are sometimes quick, sometimes lengthy, but IMO always appropriate for the song.  Their arrangements in general make me think of the Beatles, specifically the Rubber Soul and Revolver albums.

As a young lad, I worked as a gopher at an oldies radio station.  I studied everything the DJs did, including talking over song intros.  The main goal - don't step on the vocal!  These songs (mid 1950s - early 1970s) had intros of all different lengths and stylistic approaches, whether they were (1) the chords from the bridge, (2) the vocal break badly tacked onto the beginning, or (3) the verse progression with no singing.

My point here - there are no hard and fast rules.  You've got to go with what sounds good to you.  But along with that, be open to constructive critcism.

My thinking about intro's is that they have to have somewhat of a "hook" quality to them, whether long or short.  The intro needs to keep drawing you into the song until you get to the verse.  If it does n't work in that way, then its best to just get right to the meat as quickly as possible. 

Attention spans seem to be shorter these days.  I remember when sitting through a lengthy into to songs in the 60's, 70's, 80's was an enjoyable musical experience.  These days people don't seem to be able to lislten for more than 10 seconds if it is not grabbing their attention.

I agree that the song/genre and the intended target audience is an important factor in deciding if an intro is desirable or not. An intro should also be an opportunity to give a hint of what's in store for the listener by introducing a "whiff" of the main melodic element(s) early on. An intro is a "first impression" that can make or break a song. Handle with care, IMHO. 

 ... hahahahah!

And keep the song under 4 minutes if feasible.  I just axed a 1 minute 'masterly'-intro into the trash.

ELO 'succeeded' with long intro's, these 'overtures' should never be axed, IMHO ... but they were 'different' songs.

Why an intro becomes a song, I dunno.

But for pop's sake, I suppose the hook takes precedence.  I dunno.

....The straightforward drum roll into She Loves You
The immediately compelling word HELP!
Harpsichord on Lucy
Cello & Drums on I Am The Walrus

I reckon we could do this all night Dave. (well, it's night here)

Thank you to everyone for sharing some thoughts about intros. It was a real good read.

best regards,
mike

I'm starting to think that maybe starting a song with my cat doing his "mmm---aaah?" meows might be interesting.... 

mike_mccue


I wonder about the what/how/why other people think about good ways to introduce a song.

"Our next song is called <insert_title_here>" usually works (on stage).

^ While I agree with the "just because," I must counter because I have done "long" intros and even outros before.

Now, this is just my opinion and I will use the pronoun you (although I don't mean you specifically), but I do think that you have a short attention span.

There's a song I'm thinking of and I don't know if it's by Queen or Kiss, but I think the intro is long with purpose, but I don't think the outro is truncated to "make up the difference"

As it pertains to me, the "unique" of Blossoms (imo) is "just right" which is also partly at the beginning and serves as the end because that is the part I wanted to have more emphasis. This is because this part is what makes this song different - not the arrangement of what was already established.

I think when the ingredients are shown, it's sends a signal that it'll be something laborious which it's not if the listener like the composer divides it into sections.

5+ minutes all at once could seem intimidating to some; however, if it's structured such that the listener is able to section it off  then it's not as long as it seems. Hopefully, you already did this when you wrote the song or lyrics.

30 minutes is a long time for a child; however, what do they do? They ask you what time it is every 5 minutes, They broke up that block of time.

A sixteen bar chorus is too long for something at a moderate tempo; so split this into eight bars. Pop/R&B songs do this with split verses/choruses Hiphop or Rap usually sees 16 bars verses; however, these can also be split into 8 bars (32 beats) or 4 bars (16 beats) a piece.

I've got split-bridges. At what point do they split? That's for me to know and the listener to find out as well as when does the intro stop and the song start? I don't think said creators make it difficult to figure out on purpose - f they do so at all.

But I agree with you on the creative and technical aspect and this goes for entire songs; however, you shouldn't feel it's necessarily to get too technical or creative as to think you'll keep a listener if you do because like the while one hand, one can play Chopin's Minute Waltz in half the time; the guy who can play it and may need to play it at half-speed may have more ears gravitate towards him. 

Showcasing is different than showing off. While both are legit terms, people do confuse them sometimes, although it is easy to spot the difference and that might be why. (This is of course subjective), but there is a clear difference.

Having said this, long intros/outros or songs in general do have their purpose and it's not always to show-off. It may be just because that what it is. ie: you with long-winded posts which I can clearly relate to. 

However, I don't doubt most who know our posting style know we aren't about showing off. We're just passionate about our craft. It's when you start boasting about it is when it becomes showing off and no one likes folks who boasts.

[Perhaps we should truncate these before we are accused of showing off! (!)]

Rus
Now, this is just my opinion and I will use the pronoun you (although I don't mean you specifically), but I do think that you have a short attention span.

You totally lost me with that sentence bro...if you don't mean me specifically as having a short attention span, I don't know how else one can take that. Whatever the case, I can assure you that I personally don't have a short attention span. I love all styles of music and only care about length of intro's or long songs when they just don't stimulate ME as a listener. I have a song on my new album that's nearly 8 minutes long. I'd not dream of cutting any of it short. :) Those that are into the stuff I do will definitely love it because it will keep their interest...and most importantly, (in my opinion and the opinion of the band and those who have heard it) it's a pretty darned good song. :) 

Ever hear a band of kids just rattle on and on with the same progression? Though it's fun to them and I've had my own share of 20 minute jams and long intros, unless there's "something" there that keeps my interest, I just don't see the point to make things any longer than they have to be. That "something" doesn't have to be technical, but it does have to do "something" other than repeat for the sake of. Art or not, things like that just don't do anything for ME. It's even worse when it's a band of adults doing this with the same lacking elements.

As for things being technical or not technical, I didn't mean to imply something needs to be technical....but if it's the same boring chords or segment over and over again or the same recurring parts that make an intro too long or a song too long, that's just not stuff that is to my liking. I'm really not into super technical, but bands like YES, Rush, Gentle Giant, Liquid Tension Experiment, some Dream Theater, Boston, Kansas, Queen, Beatles, The Who, Billy Joel, Chicago, old Alice Cooper etc....could get away with stuff like that a bit easier due to how they all had their moments of brilliance within those long lengths of material. It's easy to make a song long, but it's not easy to make every part of it as grand as what those bands were able to do.

Take a song like American Pie. Remove the words and the story line (which in a sense is so loaded with riddles it doesn't even make much sense to a dope like me) and we have a song that pretty much does the same thing over and over while getting quieter and coming back to life. All well and good for the times but not something I could listen through all the way today. 

Taking Queen, the Beatles, and Alice Cooper from that bunch I mentioned, none of them were super technical or progressive really as far as musicianship goes. They didn't have to be or need to be...they just delivered the goods and kept interest because of the craftiness and brilliance within their writing, ya know? 

Listening to a band today playing the same 3 sections of a song 12 times making it 9 minutes long with repeated vocal lines just does nothing for me unless there's something more to go along with it....which is my point. Creating that "something more" is the tough part for people in my opinion. :) I'm also not stoned anymore to where I was a bit more receptive to stuff like that back in the day. LOL! :-Þ

-Danny