Structuring an EP

[UnattendedGolfcart]

I'm writing the debut EP of my band this summer and I'm not entirely sure how to structure it/how much is too much for an EP. So far I have two full songs and a short instrumental done. I'm getting a bit ambitious and want to write something like this:

1. Intro/Short Song, but feels just like a song (write something between 1-2 minutes)
2. Finished Song
3. New Song
4. Finished Song
5. Short Instrumental
6. New Song

As of right now I have between 10 and 11 minutes of music written and fully completed. If I had two tracks that were "purposefully short", like the intro song and the instrumental, would that be too much for a first EP? From how writing is going I'm guessing this EP is going to turn out to be around 20 minutes or just above that.

I think the length would be fine, but do you guys think this would be a good way to go about structuring a first EP? Is it too indirect? Should I only put full songs on the EP?

 

[Demiurge]

Structurally, that seems fine to me. One of my favorite EPs, NIN's Broken, has an intro and a short instrumental and it flows just fine- in that case it was intro > two full tracks > instrumental > two full tracks.

Beyond that, any matters of sequencing would come down to the songs themselves and how they flow; for instance, consider how well the intro leads into the first track, or if the instrumental affects the momentum between tracks 4 & 6. Maybe the best advice is to not be "married" to anything until it's all done.

 

[pkgitar]

For me, when albums or EP's open with really mellow sounds or electronic stuff I just feel it's completely unnecessary. So I skip it, and every time the album comes on, or maybe it's in a shuffle list I get annoyed because I want to get to the actual bands music and not just some stuff one guy put together because it would be cool to open with.

I think the important part is to not make the instrumentals sound like fillers just "because" and to have more music on the EP.

So if both your intro and your fifth tune are well thought out (even if short) songs and just not filler material, you should be ok!

 

[Rev2010]

In my opinion, you should skip the short filler track as the opener for your EP. It's an EP and it's your debut. You want the first song to make an impression. I'd even say you'd probably be best putting what you, or friends/fans, consider to be the best song as the first one. Typically I don't like putting what I consider to be the best first, but it's your first release so go for the gold straight away, you want to grab people's attention, not make them think, "What's this??? This isn't even a real song". I do short tracks too, so that's not to say I think they aren't songs, but the average listener will think that. Many such tracks I often delete if I don't find them musically impressive or touching - just as mentioned with NIN's broken, I don't have the first track as I deleted it.

Only other thing I'll say is don't rush it. It's your debut so take the time to make it perfect! If there's anything you're not 100% happy with then keeping working on it. You'll be much happier overall if you do.


Rev.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

15-20 minutes is about right. I believe way back when in the 80s, Trevor Horn said the difference between a single and an EP is a single has one strong song and some b-sides and/or remixes (paraphrasing, obviously), whereas an EP has four strong songs on it.

Notice Broken folllows this rule.

And yes, you should come out of the gate strong, especially if this is your debut. Personally, I love those little instrumental interludes, whether they're really short as on Broken, or if they're that psychedelic stuff on the old My Bloody Valentine recordings and godhead's Nothingness. So I guess it's just a matter of whether or not you think your target audience will enjoy it.

 

[Emperor Guillotine]

One of my favorite EPs (or more of a mini-album) that I've been listening to an unhealthy amount of times in the past few weeks is Kodou by A Ghost of Flare. (Japanese metalcore band that probably no one has remotely heard of.)

The structure of their mini-album is spot-on with the flow of the songs and each song's composition. The structure and flow helped the songs hit harder for me when I listened to the mini-album all the way through (as opposed to the old "pick n' choose" method that we all know all too well).

I'll map the structure below (without the song titles).

1.) Intro (ambient, cinematic, sets the mood)
2.) Full song (heavy)
3.) Full song (heavier)
4.) Full song (really heavy)
5.) Full song (gets progressively more melodic)
6.) Interlude (very ambient and reflective of what's coming up in the last song)
7.) Full song (very melodic and has the sound of the just ultimately being a "finale")

 

[UnattendedGolfcart]

Thanks for all of the input guys. I wanted to add, I didn't want the intro track of the EP to sound like something out of left field genre wise. I'm writing death metal, and wha I had in mind was something akin to Prelude to the Apocalypse from Decrepit Birth's first album And Time Begins. It's heavy as hell and it's just short, it's under two minutes. In my opinion it sets the mood for the album but it doesn't have any "this is an intro" vibe beyond being the first track.

If I were to have this Intro sort of song then I know what would be the second track and it's the heaviest one we have. If I didn't have an intro then this would be the first track.
My idea for how the songs will go, with the intro, would be like this:

1. Intro Short Song (really heavy and fast)
2. Full Track (brutal tech death, think Deeds of Flesh)
3. Full Track (more technical but not stupid heavy)
4. Full Track (heavy but catchier deathcore, think Fit For An Autopsy)
5. Instrumental (vibey delay heavy guitar progression with a bass solo through the whole song)
6. Full Track (more progressive, flow in from Instrumental with chorus and solos)

This is my ambitious goal, so things are subject to change. As I write more I may end up going for slightly different ideas.

 

[UnattendedGolfcart]

New idea, I might just not have us record the instrumental. It would then make sure there's no unnecessary genre shift, and eliminate the possibility of people skipping the track. It would be fun to make it into something we only do live, so that it will feel new and unexpected.

This way I will only have 4 or 5 tracks on the EP and all of them will be straight up full songs, which I think matters the most for a debut like this.

 

[QuantumCybin]

New idea, I might just not have us record the instrumental. It would then make sure there's no unnecessary genre shift, and elementary the possibility of people skipping the track. It would be fun to make it into something we only do live, so that it will feel new and unexpected.

This way I will only have 4 or 5 tracks on the EP and all of them will be straight up full songs, which I think matters the most for a debut like this.

That would be a good idea. I know both times when I've seen Periphery they have an intro and interludes between songs that you only hear live; it's a cool treat for the audience.

 

[Rizzo]

IMHO, you're plainly overthinking.
An EP is just a label that indicates a work that is longer than a single and shorter than the typycal LP (conventionally under 30 minutes).
Thinking "how should I structure it \ how much is too much" seems a tad over-analyzing to me.

Make it condensed and meaningful, even more if it's a debut. You don't have to "use all the minutes" (hell, does it even make sense to think it that way?)

Slap your 4 best tracks to date on it and that's it, don't go mad overthinking! No fillers and stuff, it has to go straight to the point. It has to be a good representation of its underlying idea in a nutshell.
LPs are there to expand the argument.

Obviously that's my personal opinion.

 

[UnattendedGolfcart]

IMHO, you're plainly overthinking.

I think it's beneficial to hear this every once in a while, since I'm an overthinker.

Most likely gonna just go with 4 songs, maybe 5 if we get more writing done.