How long should it take to have a full set?

[keiththebassist]

My band Boo Radley's House has just completed a full length set after completely abandoning our old material (haven't played it since we were on stage last). We have 7 songs that in total are about 55-60 mins in length. It has taken us over a year and a half to do this. Granted, we have written and rehearsed lots of material that we later felt didn't/shouldn't make the cut.

 

[mambo4]

Am I expecting too much of the band to have 6 or so originals (not to mention any covers) down and performable by late June?

6 originals in 3 months? easy
6 GOOD originals in 3 months? not as easy
6 good covers 3 months? super duper easy.

thinking 'we're not ready' could apply to either the material or the musicianship. You should clarify which one it is.

Writing quality originals is not easy. Being creatively accountable for your music scares many into state of insatiable self criticism that prevents progress, striving so hard for perfection that they never call anything done. Creatively collaborating introduces the further complexity of dealing with clashing musical tastes, approaches and personalities. and at the end of the process there is no guarantee that the audience will be impressed.

Granted, we have written and rehearsed lots of material that we later felt didn't/shouldn't make the cut.

another reason it takes time. Every good song should leave dozens of bad ones in its wake, thrown out for not making the cut. But first you have to practice the bad songs enough to execute them with accuracy in order judge them.

Choosing covers relieves a great deal of the obstacles to having a good set of songs that an audience will enjoy, freeing the band up to focus on execution and interpretation.

If playing a gig > creating quality songs then switch gears to covers.

 

[tZer]

also everyone showing up ready to rehearse really speeds it along

Fixed it for you

Showing up should be a given, I would hope...

 

[mndean]

A 30 minute set is actually only about 6 or 7 songs.

Sometimes those between-song longueurs can make the number of songs even less. Not that I condone it, mind you. I once was in a stage production and timed each scene and act down to the second in dress rehearsal. When it opened, it was half again as long as I expected.

To the OP: Always learn more songs than you need to fill a set. You needn't play them all, just agree on which will be in the set beforehand.

 

[jungleheat]

I feel like the "BM" section of this site is almost notorious for people not fully reading the first post, and just skimming and then filling in the "blanks" in their head with whatever. Which sometimes works, but a lot of times "the devil is in the details".

People are saying stuff like a "set" is 2 hours, you should give "your" setlist to your bandmates with sheet music and everyone should be able to learn 5 songs a week. Come on, these are HS kids. And the gig in question is a 30 minute set at a party.

It sounds like the problem is the OP is a senior, and maybe the other members aren't? So while for him the summer is the last opportunity to really do anything with this band, for the other guys, they are just getting started, and don't have the same sense of urgency, because they have at least another year to get things going. Maybe that's not the case, but I sense there may be some of that involved.

But assuming everyone works reasonably hard, I see no reason why even a HS band couldn't come up with 30 minutes of music (be they all covers, all originals, or a mix) in over 3 months. That's 10 minutes of music per month, or about 2-3 songs for most bands (1 song for my band, because we play longer instrumental stuff).

I wouldn't "front load" the covers, because originals take a lot longer. Instead I would have a mix of both going at all times. Learn 1 or 2 covers a month while writing originals, but don't let yourselves get bogged down on any one song. Sometimes the best way is to just let something sit for a while and come back to it fresh.

Anyway, who says it's "not easy" to write "quality originals"? It's the easiest thing in the world if you should be doing it in the first place. Most people shouldn't (the sad truth). The hardest part is just harnessing and developing your ideas as they come. But if you don't have more ideas than you can even reasonably work on, writing music is probably not for you. Not that if you come up with a great idea you shouldn't run with it. Too many people think they can just "be" a writer, and the reality is you probably can't (and shouldn't) unless you already are.

And mambo, if you really think you need to write and practice "dozens" of songs to get 1 good one, I would HATE being in a band with you. It must take your band forever to have an albums worth of material (because you'd have to write 80-100 songs to get to that point, or just have a bunch of mediocre songs). If you can't recognize a good or bad song fairly quickly, writing music is probably not the best activity for you. As an example, my main band has been together for about 2 years. Now, we are about the slowest band ever at actually FINISHING songs. But we have about 30 minutes worth of stuff that is basically DONE (minus a bit of polishing and refining), and it's really killer if I do say so myself. That accounts for 3 songs. Then we have another 4-6 things (in terms of collective stuff) that are anywhere from slightly more than rough sketches to almost finished, for another 35-50 minutes or so maybe. That stuff is damn good too. Then we have HOURS of great jams that we've done that are just waiting for us to listen back through and pull stuff out to develop (with more coming basically every week). Our backlog now just of jams that havent even been touched is probably good for about another 2 hours of music. We just don't have the time to get together as a group and finish it. But there's no shortage of quality ideas. We could build a whole career off just using the stuff we already have.

Maybe it's different since we're a progressive instrumental band, but really, I'd say that makes it harder, not easier. A 3-5 minute pop/rock tune is like the easiest thing in the world. I could crank out 2 of those a day if I wanted to (minus lyrics). All you need is 2 or 3 solid chord progressions, maybe an arrangement trick or 2, and some decent lyrics and boom, it's off to the races. Especially the way most people write pop music these days.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I'm the best writer ever. I'm no Lennon or Gilmour or Howe or Corea. But you have to have a good grasp on what makes good music in the first place if you're going to have any hope of making it reliably yourself. And if you have to write "dozens" of bad songs to find the one "gem", you probably don't (no offense). No shame in it, just like most people will never be an astronaut or president, most people will never write a great song.

 

[DWBass]

Hmmm..............long post there ^^^^^

Here's my thing......no matter what the age.....did they or did they not make a commitment to do this gig? If so, they need to do what they need to do to make it happen! I was playing in a full and gigging funk and r&b band at 16! With other teenagers, some younger and some older! Band was well rehearsed and tight! No excuses! Either do it or don't!

 

[El Raro]

I've found that a good original song takes weeks to write, refine, re-write and settle with. Even then, chances are you're not going to be 100% happy with it. In that respect, your bandmates have a valid point...writing 30 minutes worth of decent original material in a couple months considering its not a full-time activity is a bit of a stretch.

If you're playing a party, chances are people don't really want to hear your original stuff unless you're well established or a hardcore band (because kids these days will dig anything with 6 breakdowns thrown in the mix). If you're still adamant about playing some original stuff, try to nail two or three originals and then learn some covers the patrons will enjoy.

 

[pudgychef]

Fixed it for you

Showing up should be a given, I would hope...

even better!

Yeah - my first thought was 'wait, you missed one of two practices and are concerned about band progress?'

 

[Joe Nerve]

I agree with a lot of what was just said. Especially the stuff about people not reading the OP. Some of the responses here are way out there.

I disagree about it taking longer to write quality songs. For many reasons, the first being that a quality song is completely subjective. Having someone in the band that feels the way el raro does will absolutley slow the process. Not knocking you or putting you down, it's the way you say you work, and it will take you longer to come up with material than others. You may very well come up with lots of quality songs, have a lot more commitment to the writing process, and be way more productive than someone who can just bang a song out. I haven't written anything I'm excited about in a really long time, but most of what I've written that I think is really good came out of me almost instantly.

The bands I've been in that have taken the longest to produce anything are the bands that have guys that just constantly shake their heads "no". Other bands smile at what each guy/girl comes up with, and says lets go with it. That attitude keeps the creatifve juices flowing, keeps things fun, keeps everyone feeling good, and produces lots of material. I think it's much better to keep moving forward with newer better material, than to tweak and change and rearrange and work to death the old. Admitted, if you want songs to be decent you have to put some thought, care, and time into them, but I think it's important to know what's "good enough" what works, what beating a dead horse is, and be able to move forward to the next. Perfectionism has been the #1 slayer of my muses.

Last thing I want to expand on from my last post is I think when writing material it's important to be willing to try different things, and find what works best. When collaborating that usually means bedroom rehearsals for me, with one or 2 of the other writers. Sometimes it means a guitar player working out an entire song and then one of the other mambers making it come to life. In The Nerve the singer came up with a lot of stuff that was just acoustically strummed songs. Kinda boring and lifeless. Our writing relationship worked well because the guy was completely open to me bastardizing his songs. We came up with some pretty interesting stuff, IMO, because of his willingness. I'll give 2 examples:

Television | Joe Nerve
I Feel Like Singing | Joe Nerve

What usually works quickest and best in my experience is if one person comes up with and entire song, music and lyrics, and then lets the rest of the band do their thing. I think it helps in this instance also if the writer either A. has written all parts and knows exactly what he wants, or B. lets the band do their own thing and trusts that they'll bring the song to life. When someone writes something with a vision in his head of what everyone else should be doing it in my experience usually winds up a train wreck, and a big waste of time. Not that it can't be done, but I've found it to usually be a grueling experience.

As already said a bunch of times I still the most important part of the whole thing is the willingness of everyone. If you guys are committed to doing it and everybody's willing to put in the time and work, it's totally and completely doable. Even with a minimum of talent and experience. Not saying that's the case.

 

[Zeke3elevn]

You should be able to pull together 30 songs in a month or 2.

 

[claytitan]

Hi everybody,
A bit of venting here, and a little bit of advice seeking. I've recently put together a new band of friends, which I'm hoping will get pretty serious. I haven't had a band to play bass in since I switched to drums in my one band over a year ago, and so I'm excited for this thing to get off the ground.
We've had two practices so far, one of which I was unable to attend, and the other was only semi-productive. Our guitar players have some songs which we worked on a bit at the last practice; at this rate we should have 2 original songs pretty much complete after practice this coming weekend.
This is where I start to get a bit frustrated. I brought up the idea of playing a party on June 22, and the general consensus was "I don't think we'll be ready by then". This really got me worked up. How slow of a pace do they expect us to move at?! It's only a 30 minute set, with almost 3 full months between now and the gig.
I was hoping to be booking gigs starting in the beginning of June. All of the band members are in high school (though I will be graduating in June) and thus the summer months are the primary time during which we will be able to play shows. It seems ridiculous to me that the rest of the members (particularly the singer and the two guitar players) don't think we'll be ready to play a short set in 3 month's time. I've been in bands before, and it seems to me that we would have to move at a very slow pace if we were unable to complete a solid 30 minute set of originals in 3 month's time. There is not a primary songwriter, thus far each of us has contributed pieces to the two songs we've got. Am I expecting too much of the band to have 6 or so originals (not to mention any covers) down and performable by late June, or are they setting their sights too low?

Doing 2-3 originals and back filling with covers is the way to go. It's the originals part that will slow you down. To all these people saying it is quick etc. I would ask how many songs do you have on the charts. Also I find when co-writing you need an ideas person, someone to throw out stuff to see what sticks and someone else to trying to keep the song coherent, saying something and have some structure. That second person might be the 'no' person. It takes both and quite often one person isn't good at everything.

Should be able to make all of this happen in time easily. Do the gig!! Push the guys a little. You will be glad you did.

 

[Dondoh]

It is possible they are scared. I know if I was asked to be in a band I would think it was great. If I was asked if I wanted to perform, I would be petrified.
They are young and some of them might need to get over the hump of stage fright. This may cause them to drag their feet. Ask them if they honestly want to play gigs. If they are scared, don't ridicule their fear, cure it.'

Just a thought.

 

[mambo4]

It must take your band forever to have an albums worth of material (because you'd have to write 80-100 songs to get to that point, or just have a bunch of mediocre songs).

LOL Ok, we're not locked in a basement practicing dozens of songs until we can execute them perfectly only to throw them out, refusing to gig until everything is perfect. It's aevolutionary process. In the last year we have had maybe 15 songs in constant rotation in our set, having tried out more than twice that many, in rehearsal or gigs. some never get past the first play through, some we practice and scratch record and tweak and , yes, play live , only to decide it isn't working and replace it with a newer, better song. some songs are almost perfect after 2 or 3 play troughs. Our album represents about 1 year of the process.

My essential point is a that developing good material over time requires that you be prolific, try out lots of ideas, and embrace discarding what isn't working.

If you can't recognize a good or bad song fairly quickly, writing music is probably not the best activity for you. .

It's not the difference between "good" and "bad", but the difference between "pretty good (most of the band likes most of it, but some parts need work, and audiences may not be into it)" and "awesome (we unanimously agree that the song is great and audiences clearly embrace it" ) that takes time. some times we can figure out how to get form "pretty good " to "awesome", sometimes we can't.