Epics easily loved

My answer to this will be along the same lines as those that I have given for the various perfect song length threads. A song/track/composition (take your pick, for a 20 minute composition, "song" just doesnt fit right) should only ever be as long as it takes for the band to fully realise the idea(s). Too often bands arent capable of making their ideas work in a full epic (15 minutes+ in my book) and this isnt a new phenomenan, classic bands of the 70's strugled at times as well. The results would either be a song full of padding or a disjointed mass that fails to work as a whole. A good example would be the longer songs off of Disillusions Back to Times of Splender, the title track at nearly 15 minutes is amazing, and wouldnt benefit from either being extended or shortened, but the longer Sleep of Restless Hours (17 minutes) is probably about 5 minutes too long, each section is extended beyond the point of the ideas life.

Epics, however, will always grab my attention at first because I want to hear whether the band is capable of sustaining its ideas coherently and without padding for the duration, but with several albums it will be the shorter songs that I remember best after I've had the album for a while.

crimson87 wrote: I don't know if epics are a easy way out , but in the 70's they were supposed to be something unique. Now you have The Flower Kings that write two epics at least per album , but none of them has the quality of one from the golden era.

Yes I get your point and agree with you, I definitely think that epics are being overused these days, and that albums may get a higher rating just for having a long epic. A good example I can think of is Beardfish albums sleeping in traffic part 1 and 2: part 2 has a little bit higher rating and I think it is because of the epic, don't get me wrong i love that epic and think it is the best song of that album, but I think sleeping in traffic part 1 has much better songs and flow even better as an album.

Many artists in the prog scene today tend to write long epics just because they are supposed to - but very often there is a lack of relevance. In my opinion the attitude concerning "epics" were different back in the seventies. In those days songs were long when they needed to be.

Matte wrote: Many artists in the prog scene today tend to write long epics just because they are supposed to - but very often there is a lack of relevance. In my opinion the attitude concerning "epics" were different back in the seventies. In those days songs were long when they needed to be. A good example is the song Baker St Muse (from Jethro Tull on the album Minstrel In The Gallery). In this well written piece Ian Anderson has an interesting story to tell and it goes on for 16 + minutes without losing focus - despite all the variation in mood and tempo that it contents. And in my opinion modern prog-bands sometimes has to learn from these old giants that the keyword is "focus". Even if a song is multilayered and rich in complexity it can never reach masterpiece status if it can´t keep the listener focused all the way to the end.   Quality will allways win over quantity, but when quality AND quantity goes hand in hand there will be footprints in prog-heaven.

Ah aha ha, man Baker St. Muse goes on waaaay too long. It loses focus by the half way point.....in my opinion of course...........

Also, 70's prog never really had that much focus. If you notice, Supper's Ready, Lizard, A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers, Karn Evil 9, and all sorts of other so called "ESSENTIAL" prog epics ALL lose their focus after 5 minutes, (except Karn Evil 9, but that's an epic in 3 unrelated parts anyway). They're basically a hodgepodge of ideas glued together.

I guess the concept I'm putting across is that: even back in the 70's, prog was making longer songs because they thought they had to, not because they necessarily needed that time to make a song.


Edited by DJPuffyLemon - April 18 2009 at 21:28

DJPuffyLemon wrote:   I guess the concept I'm putting across is that: even back in the 70's, prog was making longer songs because they thought they had to, not because they necessarily needed that time to make a song.

As long as it takes to get the musical idea across is as long as the song needs to be. I'll use TFTO as an example. When I first listened to the album I was drawn to The Revealing of the Science of the God. Everything after that seemed to be fluff, an excuse for a four song double album...how wrong I was. Somehow, I'm engaged for the full 80+ minutes of music. Then there is a song like 'Im So Tired' or 'For No One' by The Beatles; both two minute numbers and I'm always asking myself for more! But in their two minutes they say all they need to, much like in its 80+ minutes Yes says all they need to

NaturalScience wrote:  Gentle Giant didn't think so either - try attacking their prog credentials.

Edited by rogerthat - April 19 2009 at 20:10

As a consumer of Epics (Lighthouse Keepers, Supper's Ready, Abbey Road Side 2, We're Only In It For The Money, Gates Of Delerium, Grendel) I will say I love them.  However, when they are bad, they are WELL BAD (A Guy Named Sid, That,That Is, In A Gadda Da Vida -- just kidding that's a classic).

I think there are often multiple songs ganged together and reprised and variated.  That is certainly NOT possible in a 3 minute Beatle song (although they managed to do EVERYTHING ELSE HUMANLY POSSIBLE within the context of pop/experimental music up to that point).  A 6 minute song (Gentle Giant, Crimson) allows for variation and restating of themes, but you can't thread too many multiple themes through without it becoming too dissipated. 

As a consumer, it is so satisfying when I know a long form song very well and we start to come in for the landing.  The last "song" of both Lighthouse and Gates are so beautiful, you almost feel that you had to go through the journey to get there.

A song like Dogs by Floyd works because you have the opportunity to REALLY spend time in the minutae of the music.  The sheer slow growing detail is exotic and intoxicating.

When the horns restate the "You never give me your money" theme at the end of Abbey Road suite, it's like a regal fanfare and a welcome nod back to the original theme.

I am also a creator of long form compositions.  I love my short songs and especially songs in the 6 - 8 minute range, but to have the option of stretching out is very fun.  Obviously a lot of us make music for the sheer hell of it.  The song is 26 minutes because it can be!  There is the danger of having too many epics.  Up until now we have had one (Chupacabras) which broke the 20 minute mark.  On our upcoming album there is another called "Waiting For The Axe" however, we will be breaking it up into shorter "tracks" in order to conceal that fact.  But the album after that already has an "epic" 78% in the can.  That song came out of nowhere and is called "Star Of Light".  It was never intended to be a long form, but it's been growing and there are certain elements that the song is calling for and we are obeying its call.  That will bring us up to 3, which is dangerously close to Flower Kings level  :-)

The even worse thing is that we are resisting the recording of an album that is already written which consists soley of two 26 minute songs "Infernal" and "Eternal".  I didn't want to undertake those songs just yet because they are too detailed and complicated for me to have the stamina just now... 

Soon I will need Epics Anonymous...

prog4evr wrote: lazland wrote: I've never worried about the length of a song, just whether it's good, and Awaken, for example, is DAMNED good DAMN RIGHT!  Probably the best epic Yes ever composed - and it one of their shorter ones, just under 16 minutes...

That and "Gates Of Delerium," certainly.

And who doesn't love "Karn Evil 9"?

I must admit, I got into "epics" early, if you count Tangerine Dream's side-length pieces, which they did all the way up through Poland.