I’m in the middle of a dilemma: I can’t decide whether I should make ‘Into Winter’ longer or not.
At the moment, it’s about 3 minutes long, and it has a clearly-defined introduction, middle, and climax. As always with epic music, though, the middle and climax feel too short—this genre of music is all about giving the listener an energy rush which makes him go hunting for the replay button. It’s why there are one-hour versions of epic-music tracks on YouTube; everyone wants more of the middle and the climax. Epic-music introductions are only functional.
I know that if I was a stranger listening to ‘Into Winter’, I’d listen to it from start to finish the first time and repeat just the middle and climax the second time round. I’m an impatient listener, and I don’t see the point in abstaining from replaying or moving on once the fun part is over. But something—probably the meager composer’s instinct I’ve developed over the past half-year—tells me that ‘Into Winter’ is best left as it is. The three-part structure is in place, and it works; dragging out the piece even further would be in bad taste.
But how much taste do you really need when you’re trying to make musical adrenaline? It seems silly to worry about over-repetition and poor composing when I’m making epic music, yet I know that my favourite epic pieces are the ones that have at least a modicum of structure. I don’t like the under-revised pieces, like the ones by E.S. Posthumus.
Of course, I could just leave my second composition as it is, and if any epic-music fan liked it enough to replay it, they’d make a one-hour version of it and put it on YouTube. That would make the question of adding another minute to ‘Into Winter’ moot, since the one-hour version would be all that people want to listen to, anyway.
In any case, the most important task at hand is to make the arrangement spectacular. Nobody will care if it’s three or four minutes long if it isn’t actually good.