Why are radio hits getting shorter in length?

[4 Minutes to be a Legend]

The last couple of months, i have noticed that many of the #1 singles that have been hitting #1 on top 40 or getting close to the top have been getting shorter and shorter in length. Has anyone else noticed this?

For example, we have the current #1 'Apologize' which clocks in at a short 3:04 seconds. Right behind it is 'Bubbly' which clocks in at 3:17 seconds. Before that we had 'The Way I Are' with 2:59, and 'Who Knew' with 3:29 seconds.

I find that very strange considering in 2006, the SHORTEST #1 song clocked in at 3:30, with many songs over 4:00 hitting #1 (Lips of an Angel, Sexyback, My Love, Promiscuous, SOS). This year, only two songs over 4:00 hit #1...'Stronger' by Kanye West, and 'Cupids Chokehold' by Gym Class Hereoes.. Fergie and Justin Timberlakes hits 'Big Girls Don't Cry' 'What Goes Around' and 'Summer Love' in their original form are also over 4:00, but they were trimmed down for radio edits. Why do you think is happening?

I just find this so strange compared to the 90s where it was VERY RARE to find any song clock in under 3:30. In fact, the majority of the songs that hit #1...especially the big ballads...were all over 4:00 in length, sometimes even 5:00. Todays big ballads like 'Apologize' and 'We Belong Together' can barely even crack 3:00.

[**βécky**™]

For some reason I hate when songs dont hit over 3:00 Min!
They could have made "The Way I Are" longer, its too good to be just 2:59 Min!

[oscillations.]

Good news for the Hives.

[Az Paynter]

Here's a theory: the modern teenager's attention span has been shot to hell, so hit songs are becoming shorter so the modern teenager will even sit through them.

[popmusicaddict]

azrieldrake said:

Here's a theory: the modern teenager's attention span has been shot to hell, so hit songs are becoming shorter so the modern teenager will even sit through them.

Unfortunately true. Timbaland especially is jumping on the bandwagon as ALL his songs he produces never are over 4 minutes (most bearly crack 3 minutes).

Also another reason is faster rotation. 4½ - 5 minute songs add up and eat up commercial time and rotation time. Theoritically in a week a 3 minute song can add about anywhere to 10 to 15 plays. Whether they use that time for extra songs or not is the stations poragative I would suppose, but were seeing many stations that play their power rotation songs 100 or more times. To do that you need more time (unless you WANT to piss off your audience). Some just rotate it off for longer played songs, but some stations take advantage of that to add more spins in.

[Sticky&Sweet™]

I can't sit through a long song unless I really really like the song.

I have like song ADD or something haha.

I always listen to like half of a song and then change it to the next song.

[Haley]

bl0ndxrebel said:

I can't sit through a long song unless I really really like the song.

I have like song ADD or something haha.

I always listen to like half of a song and then change it to the next song.

lol, same here. I can even be singing a song but I'll have to change it because I can't listen to it for over a minute..

[popmusicaddict]

azrieldrake said:

Here's a theory: the modern teenager's attention span has been shot to hell, so hit songs are becoming shorter so the modern teenager will even sit through them.

I think you two just proved his/our point Tsk tsk.

[43dudleyvillas]

It was before my time (and before most of yours, I'm guessing), but weren't most of the pop hits from the 60s relatively short, as in around 3 minutes in length? I remember reading an article years ago about how pop songs were getting longer (i.e., approaching the 4 minute mark)...I don't know if I can find it now, but I'll try. Point being, maybe it's cyclical.

[atlantaboy]

Some of the shortest CHR hits I can remember are "Out Of My Head" by Fastball ('99) and "Roll To Me" by Del Amitri ('95-'96 I think) - they both had to be under 3 min...never realized "The Way I Are" is so short...

[Positive Tension]

I agree that radio hits are getting shorter in length to hold people's attention, so leaving out/shortening all the breaks and repetition of the chorus ensures that there's always something interesting going on in the song without being redundant. I also think a lot of hits are shorter so people will be left wanting more instead of getting sick of the song.

I've noticed this on a lot of album tracks as well. Artists like Beyonce, Mariah, Kelly, and Britney and many more have fairly short songs on their albums (3:10 is a common time for many of those songs to end) wheras on many 90s albums I have, 3:40-4:00 was the norm. At least Madonna is generous, clocking in at 5:00 much of the time.

[vinyl]

bl0ndxrebel said:

I can't sit through a long song unless I really really like the song.

I have like song ADD or something haha.

I always listen to like half of a song and then change it to the next song.

Ooh I'm the sameee.

[4 Minutes to be a Legend]

My biggest pet peeve is when i'm listening to a song...and then someone else changes it because they don't like listening to a song whole way through. That shit really pisses me off because in most cases, i ALWAYS look forward to the climax of the song which is supposed to be the best part of the song anyway.

[RihannaFAN²=ColdUmbrella!]

legendtina1 said:

My biggest pet peeve is when i'm listening to a song...and then someone else changes it because they don't like listening to a song whole way through. That s**t really pisses me off because in most cases, i ALWAYS look forward to the climax of the song which is supposed to be the best part of the song anyway.

oh that pisses me off soo much i hate wen ppl do that.

[somelikeitwhen]

When I first heard "I Miss You" my thoughts were "OK, now what? Wait, that's the song? They didn't even repeat the chorus in the right places! What was that, 2 minutes long? What a rip-off!"

[singingsparrow]

Actually, the average #1 hit's duration now is still well longer than the average #1 hit's duration back during the 1950's through the British invasion.

Look at the entire catalog of the Beatles. With several exceptions, the average Beatles #1 hit was under the three-minute mark in duration, as with just about every single Beach Boys hit or Motown recording.

*

Thus, while I will agree that the average #1 now is shorter than the more epic hits that permeated the arena-leaning 1970's and the dance-heavy, theatrical 1980's, this era decidedly still produces singles greater in length than the two-minute ditty heavy 1950's and 1960's.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

[John77]

popmusicaddict said:

azrieldrake said:

Here's a theory: the modern teenager's attention span has been shot to hell, so hit songs are becoming shorter so the modern teenager will even sit through them.

Unfortunately true. Timbaland especially is jumping on the bandwagon as ALL his songs he produces never are over 4 minutes (most bearly crack 3 minutes).

Also another reason is faster rotation. 4½ - 5 minute songs add up and eat up commercial time and rotation time. Theoritically in a week a 3 minute song can add about anywhere to 10 to 15 plays. Whether they use that time for extra songs or not is the stations poragative I would suppose, but were seeing many stations that play their power rotation songs 100 or more times. To do that you need more time (unless you WANT to piss off your audience). Some just rotate it off for longer played songs, but some stations take advantage of that to add more spins in.

Which is why you see so many "radio edits" of songs... the more songs you can fit in, the more listeners you usually will please.

[John77]

atlantaboy said:

Some of the shortest CHR hits I can remember are "Out Of My Head" by Fastball ('99) and "Roll To Me" by Del Amitri ('95-'96 I think) - they both had to be under 3 min...never realized "The Way I Are" is so short...

Short songs have been around pretty much every decade from what I can see... Some short (2:30 or less) hits on my PC would include:

"When Will I Be Loved" - Linda Ronstadt (2:07)
"Big Me" - Foo Fighters (2:12)
"Roll To Me" - Del Amitri (2:14)
"Tush" - ZZ Top (2:17)
"Are We Ourselves" - The Fixx (2:28)
"We Got The Beat" - The GoGo's (2:30)

FYI, "Out Of My Head" by Fastball clocks in at 2:33.

[bogglethemind]

Justin has long songs. There's not a song on his album under 4 minutes, and most are close to 5 minutes if not more. lol

[🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾]

Some of the versions played on the radio are shorter Single Versions/Radio Edits.

I read something somewhere a couple years ago about how a shorter radio edit could increase the likelihood of a song getting more spins. I think that's only true to a limited extent. I remember CHR/Rhythmic KYLD 94.9 in SF used to play Shaft's "Mambo Italiano" in the early 2000's. They edited down the already 4 minute version into 2:30. They were playing it about 75 to 110 times per week for several months. That excludes the mixshow spins that they gave. That would add about 27 to 35 more to the number if those got counted. It was crazy. It literally felt like "oh no, there it is again." That station tended to overplay many songs that got a lot of attention in the area. Then once the song was done, most of the time, you would never ever hear it again there.

alanismariahmadonn said:

At least Madonna is generous, clocking in at 5:00 much of the time.

Most of her singles, even the ones that were shorter than 5:00 but longer than 4:00 have had a radio edit/single version of some sort. The Radio Edit of "Hung Up" was 3:24. It just felt too short and forced. It could have been done differently and the length could remain similar.

bogglethemind said:

Justin has long songs. There's not a song on his album under 4 minutes, and most are close to 5 minutes if not more. lol

The stations over here usually only played the first part of the longer songs instead of tacking on the interlude. I managed to make a 3:47 edit of "LoveStoned/I Think She Knows" and a 4:38 edit of "What Goes Around.../...Comes Around" that included both the main song and the interlude. It was quite a challenge, but it worked.

[Minor Scratch]

I believe it has to do with rotation a lot too. Songs will get more airplay if they are shorter because PDs will include them more in their playlists so more songs can be played in a set. Choruses are also getting shorter and less verbose for ringtones, thus making the song shorter and more instrumental.

Perfecting album tracks to be released as singles are being focused on more these days because of poor album sales and rising internet downloads. Tracks with an emphasis on catchier, shorter choruses, complemented with shorter verses (The Way I Are, Gimme More, Big Girls Don't Cry, Apologize) are more formidable for success on the radio.

[Deleted]

singingsparrow said:

Actually, the average #1 hit's duration now is still well longer than the average #1 hit's duration back during the 1950's through the British invasion.

Look at the entire catalog of the Beatles. With several exceptions, the average Beatles #1 hit was under the three-minute mark in duration, as with just about every single Beach Boys hit or Motown recording.

*

Thus, while I will agree that the average #1 now is shorter than the more epic hits that permeated the arena-leaning 1970's and the dance-heavy, theatrical 1980's, this era decidedly still produces singles greater in length than the two-minute ditty heavy 1950's and 1960's.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

100% True. The average pop song was only between about two to two and a half minutes long during the early rock and roll era all the way up until the late 1960's when they started getting longer instrumental breaks and therefore got longer in length.

There were always exceptions however, for instance the shortest number one song ever on the Hot 100 is "Stay" by Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs which clocks in at a mere one minute and 39 seconds!

In 1967, radio stations balked at playing the full length, over six minutes long version of "Light My Fire" by the Doors, so they issued an "edited" version of it that was just over three minutes long. But a year later, in 1968, radio stations accepted and played the full, just over seven minutes long "Hey Jude" by the Beatles which still holds the record for the longest song to hit #1 on the Hot 100.

Why did it happen? probably because instrumentation became more important by the mid to late 1960's as rock musicians became more mature and able to play their instruments better. The instrumental breaks in betweens verses in songs became longer around that time, and with just a very few exceptions, they've never shortened again.

[EmersonDrive13Rocks]

Yeah when I'm listening to songs on my Ipod I'll hear part of the song and just tune out other parts of the song even when I really like the song. Choruses and hooks are most likely to catch my attention while listening to a song.

[4 Minutes to be a Legend]

filestoragebox said:

I believe it has to do with rotation a lot too. Songs will get more airplay if they are shorter because PDs will include them more in their playlists so more songs can be played in a set. Choruses are also getting shorter and less verbose for ringtones, thus making the song shorter and more instrumental.

Perfecting album tracks to be released as singles are being focused on more these days because of poor album sales and rising internet downloads. Tracks with an emphasis on catchier, shorter choruses, complemented with shorter verses (The Way I Are, Gimme More, Big Girls Don't Cry, Apologize) are more formidable for success on the radio.

It's funny that you mention 'Gimme More' because i always thought that song DRAGGED on after the second verse/second chorus repeat. The song so could've clocked in at 3:00 as the last minute and whatever seconds were really unnecessary.

[Juanca]

Cool topic. SURE, 50s, 60s typical songs were arpund 2:30 minutes.
In the 80s, average was around 4minutes... although there were always exceptions, such as the Jim Steinman's epic songs (Making love out of nothing at all, Total eclipse of the heart). He also repeated his signature stylish songs in the 90s (I'd do anything for love, It's all coming back to me now). Curiously, all of those long songs were at the same time edited versions of songs that could last more than 10 minutes :o
In the 90s there were pretty much of everything. Guns N Roses, Aerosmith had pretty long songs, too. Average were also in the 4mins. However, one of the BIGGEST songs of the decade was one of the shortest one of the decade, too: Ace Of Base's "The Sign".

About radio edits. I agree with Disco Cowboy. Hung Up LOST A lot with that edit. Killed one of the best parts, growing from the silence into the last chorus. Of course, that silence could NOT work in radio, but still it felt like it was cut in the middle without having a real climax. BAD!! >:(

[Marv]

Motown Records founder Berry Gordy was adamant that all of Motown's singles stayed under 3:00 minutes in length; 11 of the 12 #1 singles by Diana Ross & The Supremes (most #1 singles by any American group, BTW) were under 3:00 in length.

Even in a year such as 1970 where Motown/African-American artists absolutely owned the #1 slot on BBs Hot 100 (22 out of 52 weeks), it wasn't until then that numerous singles from various Motown artists routinely went over 3:00 minutes, yet still breezed to #1.

Many of those 3:00+ smashes from 1970 remain staples at Oldies radio, including 'War' by Edwin Starr, 'I'll Be There' by the Jackson Five (their first four singles all went to #1, a record which stood until Mariah Carey came along), 'The Tears Of A Clown' by Smokey Robinson & the Miracles, and 'Ain't No Mountain High Enough' by Diana Ross.

Heck, the folks at Columbia Records were so terrified that radio wouldn't play Marty Robbins's 'El Paso' due to it's length (4:39) that they dodn't even put the length of the song on the single, yet it still hit #1 back in 1959!!!

And yes, the Beatles cranked out super-short single like everybody else until 1967, when 'Penny Lane' & 'All You Need Is Love' hit #1.

And another honorable mention has to go to 1982's #1 single of the year, and the third biggest single of the eighties, the arena-rock classic 'I Love Rock And Roll' by Joan Jett & The Blackhearts, which spent seven weeks at #1, and clocked in at a very tidy 2:40.

[grammyman]

filestoragebox said:

I believe it has to do with rotation a lot too. Songs will get more airplay if they are shorter because PDs will include them more in their playlists so more songs can be played in a set. Choruses are also getting shorter and less verbose for ringtones, thus making the song shorter and more instrumental.

Perfecting album tracks to be released as singles are being focused on more these days because of poor album sales and rising internet downloads. Tracks with an emphasis on catchier, shorter choruses, complemented with shorter verses (The Way I Are, Gimme More, Big Girls Don't Cry, Apologize) are more formidable for success on the radio.

i think its funny that you mentioned bgdc, bc the chorus seems long to me, and people complained how the verses were boring, and how the second verse especially dragged on and could be taken out of the song. to me, the bridge goes on the longest.

[Deleted]

I'm glad some some songs are shorter. I hate it when a song goes over 4:59, especially when there is no singing through alot of it, just instrumental. Waste of time.

[johnm1120]

Back in the 60's and 70's the idea was to fit as many verses into a song in the shortest amount of time.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

aaront said:

I'm glad some some songs are shorter. I hate it when a song goes over 4:59, especially when there is no singing through alot of it, just instrumental. Waste of time.

?

There's more to music than just vocals? I say add more music and instrumentals!