Dubstepforum.com

is it the same 6-8 minute limit as drum and bass?

I should really get out and buy some records..

About 4-6 minutes.

6.45 mins.


On average.



Hehe, I jest!

Generally its just limited by the amount you can fit on vinyl, so I spose 8 mins or so at 45.

Highland spring is about 2 and a half mins tho.

Depends really.

6-8 minute limit in drumnbass??!!!?!!

As a rule dance floor oriented tracks are longer, but as i rarlly go out this bores the shit out of me and would prefure tracks to be no longer than 6 mins max. I reckon a track should be as long as the producer can maintain the interest of the listener. Like i say when i'm producing tracks i try to maintian my own interest for the duration of the said track. If it gets boring chop it. But , having said that , you can easly listen to a ten minuite minimal track and not get bored. It' all about the mind set you aproach each track with. You don't listen to a d&b track with the same ears as you listen to Scarlatti.
I like to contradict my self half way through a sentence

Like the man said if you can make a ten minute track interesting do that. Didn't Villalobos [not dubstep i know] do a fifty minute track lately. Correct me if i'm wrong, heard it over the counter somewhere, but i'd love for someone to take dubstep to that level and be able to keep it involving...

yep....dnb are usually 6 to 8 minutes...and i noticed,that the dubstep track get at his fullest at about 3rd min...
Less phrenetic stuff thought .....




tanx dubstep

does it even matter?

the 6-8 minute rule for dnb is mainly because it's build for mixing, not for 'stand alone listening'
because of the length and the repeatness (correct english?) of the track (mainly in the beginning and end), it's easier to make some fluid mixes and you have enough space to start in mixing the next one..

this is for vinyl mixing only, since you can loop the shit out of songs with the modern digital techniques.

but for dubstep, i don't know, and don't bother.
could be that it will stick to the longer mixing purpose length.

as for the still making it interesting on such a lenght, i totally agree.
one of my favourite (non-digital) music are one-track-albums (about 45 min) without any (exactly) repeated sounds.

and i'm still waiting for digital dance music to do so, but i think i can wait 'till i do it myself.
since the digital dance scene is focussed on single releases, and mainly on constantly producing one song at a time.
in contradiction to for example rock, where bands focus on their studio till they get their full, cohered album, which tells a story or has a whole thing around it (and sometimes could be seen as one track, with lots of breakdowns )

and in that perspective you can see mixes as a very long track. i don't know how that Villalobos 50 minute thing sounds, but i reckon it's very diverse

so that for now, i forgot the rest i wanted to say, hope you can dig trough my bad spelling

piece of string??

forensix wrote:piece of string??

forensix wrote:piece of string??

init, down to the producers discretion obveously....

i know that i dont have any set method for track length or arangement,
i beleive that as soon as you begin to write beats folowing a set method the oportunity to be creative has already been reduced...

Thomas Edison wrote:does it even matter?

init... as long as it needs to be

Any length. Drum N Bass ain't six minutes usually!!! Five minutes for a dubstep tune is about as much as you wanna hear of one thing if you know what I mean, usually one mood anyway.

i find it highly amusing that it's been suggested that dnb tracks are made not (!) to be listened to by themselves (wonder how any serious producer feels about this haha), but esp. that 6-8 minutes is standard for dnb tracklength to ensure ease of mixing..... even though most upfront dnb mixes out there cram 20 or more tracks into an hour, which actually comes out to about 3 minutes per track.... ??? i may not like math, but that doesn't add up, does it now?

The 6-7 min "limit" is not really a limit at all. There is an inverse relationship between the length of a tune and how loud the record is. The longer the tune the quiter the record. 6-7 minuted is considered optimum for a loud press.

I had the thankless task of editing some d&b tunes so that they were under 5 minutes (part of my job - don't ask!). The vast majority of tracks consisted of a 1 min intro followed by 6 mins of the SAME bloddy loop. Blatently there are a number of producers that feel they must use the WHOLE of the 12" at "optimum loudness" as a matter of principle, which is just a bit silly if you ask me. As has been said, a track should be long as it needs to be, not as long as it can be. I edited most of them down to 3 min or so - even then a lot of them bored me to tears. But its all about context - listening to a tune at home and FEELING a tune on a good soundsystem are two completely different things. Also, you have a higher tolerence for repetition when you're off your face.

dnb mixes out there cram 20 or more tracks into an hour, which actually comes out to about 3 minutes per track.... ??? i may not like math, but that doesn't add up, does it now?

Damn Straight! If a DJ takes 6min to beatmatch, he's got serious problems

i978 wrote: There is an inverse relationship between the length of a tune and how loud the record is.

wow! you learn something new every day. i always wondered why certain dnb & hiphop records are discernably quieter than others... it is very annoying for mixing! everything should be at a similar level, ideally

No longer than 6 mins please.

Paulie wrote:No longer than 6 mins please.

haha. Are you sure?

Please.