Rock music has many lengths for songs. (Staying only with rock/hard rock/metal because it has the most variety in length) Short songs like
Motorhead - Ace of Spades 2:49
Sublime - What I got 2:51
average, medium song lengths (easily the most common)
Velvet Revolver - Slither 4:09
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - All along the Watchtower 4:00
and long songs like
Band of Gypsys - Machine Gun (different lengths but most common) 12:36
Guns N' Roses - Coma 10:14
Short songs generally being 2-3 1/2 minutes and less, average songs about 4-6 1/2 minutes long. And long songs being about 7 minutes and longer.
What do you guys think are better? I think lengthy songs are better, usually because of the endurance and skill needed to play a song with such longevity. Not only must the musician memorize his or her notes, but the timing and not become tired or run out of stamina. For these reasons long songs are generally not played live often.
Long songs are also hard to write, as you must keep the song interesting through the whole song, so people don't lose interest. But writing lyrics, different riffs, bridges and solos can be very difficult.
Short songs can also be challenging as the musician must produce a very rich and interesting sound through the whole song, with not much room for error.
Average song lengths can also be challenging reproducing, and being consistent as the musician writes multiple songs for an album or EP.
And aestecially, what do you guys think are the best? Short and sweet, average, or long and challenging?