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

best regards,
mike

Timely question. I was listening to my old songs a couple of days ago, and I find many of my intros far too long. I think getting a great intro is part art.

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

It's for a number of reasons:

1) Genre

2) Theme

3) Mood

4) Message

5) Effect

6) Technical music aura called: "Tension & Release"

By this, I mean quite a few things:

a) Theoretical POV:

Without going to deep, there are many ways to create this:

Dynamics (Abrupt Start/Fade In then out, etc.)
Length
Tone (Certain chords used; frequency and how; progressions)
Key (Major/Minor)

the first four seem pretty self-explanatory whether or not these are original songs or arrangements; however, those dame four items are also where arrangements often differ.

My signature track is one of my favorites; however, it differs greatly as far as those items are concerned. IT's the same song, but the idea is totally different. I even threw in my own part which complements what was established wonderfully. (This is the whole whole, but even just the intro can be the same way)

Instrumentation goes without saying, but all of the above are considered.

My Blossoms intro is :30. Now without the melody or one not being able to piece together the song, then it shouldn't be too long. YMMV, but for me, I'd have :60-75 as a threshold starting out. that's the other thing, too. You shouldn't be concerned with length if you're writing for yourself, but even the composer has a limit.

For instance, Blossoms is 7:00, but if you hear the source piece, you'll see it's not that far off. It's actually sounds shorter because not everything was used.

Girl From Ipanema's intro is about :55 (which may go for 7 minutes (don't know yet) Anyway, there's lots of tension in this intro before the song starts (release)

Of course, you could do a long, serious intro only to have the song itself short and satirical (if humor is your desired effect) Or the opposite.

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).

bitflipper


For pop genres, conventional wisdom dictates that intros must be short, because you've got about five seconds to hook the listener before they hit the Next button. 

Personally, I say f*ck that. Let it build. Not so slowly that it's tedious, but as slow as it takes. Like an appetizer, the intro's job is to make you anticipate the coming main course. But I'll never ever be in the same room with a top 40 hit.

The Beatles were masters of intros that served both goals:

- the fade-in of Eight Days a Week
- the single big chord at the start of A Hard Day's Night
- the feedback and melodic lick introducing I Feel Fine
- crowd and orchestra noises before Sgt Pepper
- sharp trebly staccato guitar introducing Getting Better
- harpsichord, layered with guitar in Because
- capo'd acoustic guitar playing the melodic theme in Here Comes the Sun

Beatles definitely rocked at that stuff. I think there were quite a few masters of this bit..especially in the 70's. When vinyl had meaning eh? :) I'm with you on the pop thing as much as it seems to be what I enjoy most these days. That said, if an intro has a purpose and sets a mood, I don't think it should ever be cut unless it's a radio tune that needs to be edited as such...but I'm all for the long version on the album.
 
One of the problems I hear today when compared to the great songs of the 60's and 70's is...the intro's now don't have the same meaning. They just sort of take up space "for the sake of". The same with long songs. I just don't see a need or a purpose unless it's a "Jack and Diane" or "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant" or "Foreplay/Long time", something by YES or Kansas (I think Dream Theater over-does it a bit to where I just lose interest yet I really like them) where songs like that in my opinion, never lost the listener. If it has meaning, a purpose, sets a mood and delivers the goods, by all means keep the intro, the long song or heck, a concept album. :) But long and repetitive without a purpose just does nothing for me no matter what genre it is.
 
I got a band in the studio now that's been together for 25 years...decent little band with good songs, but their songs and intro's are just way too long. I understand and accept the art part of it, but they aren't very good players to have songs that long in my opinion. It just sounds repetitive to me and well, when they don't keep interest due to maybe a few bad decisions in the arrangements and try to play over their means....it's just a long wave file that doesn't do much really and is a bit too raw and un-polished. Picture Gentle Giant without the sick creativity and technical aspect they had...without that, they would be a bit boring and long winded...like me and my posts. LOL! :)
 
-Danny

^ 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! (!)]

mike_mccue

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

I like to include a preamble before the intro, in a different style from the song.  Just a bit of fun really.

Here's an example:
http://soundcloud.com/kev...c/cold-shoulders-remix

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

@ Danny: "You lost me ..."

What I meant was:
Lots of songs that start immediately - no buildup, however, that comes. (Instrumentation, Dynamics, etc.) The song starts at :01 with an instant tutti. That works, but as someone said, if the listener has to play with the volume knob (arrangement view, not production) ...

Again, it's not bad, but let's say the previous song fades and the knoc is at a reasonable level, then the next song "hits you in the face."

I think though that it may take more than one listen though - especially if you aren't told what's going on. 

I mentioned that Blossoms has a :30 intro, but without the melody (not knowing the song), one may think it's longer than :30. However, the intro has a dynamic factor, so it's clear when the song does start as well as one that denotes the song's middle and end (The instrumentation factor is there as well)

Cold starts aren't bad, but warming up is better to some.

When Blossoms is done and posted you'll hear the sheer amount of warming up and cooling down done.