# Fade endings



## ed2000 (Feb 16, 2007)

Many old songs from the 50's and 60's had fade endings. Why was that? Was it that the songs were too long for radio - the group did not have an ending - the producers decided???

When I did the cover band thing we always had a little battle coming up with an ending to an originally 'fade ending' s.o..n...g....


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Fade out endings = couldn't come up with a decent ending.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

Most songs from the 50's & 60's were under 3 minutes long - fade endings turned them into massively epic 3:23 long opuses...


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I'd say it was a bit of both, and then other people were just copying.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

I suspect that at first it was novel, having the technology to fade out the ending, then it was expedient not having to figure out an ending, and then it was just what everyone expected.

Kind of like pitch correction today... :stirpot:


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

I can think of many songs from that era that don't have fade outs. I think probably it's an artistic decision.

Back when radio ruled though, I wonder if DJ's found "automated" fade outs handy for beat matching and mixing between songs? Fade outs are also perfect for DJs to talk over before the next track.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

ed2000 said:


> Many old songs from the 50's and 60's had fade endings. Why was that? Was it that the songs were too long for radio - the group did not have an ending - the producers decided???
> 
> When I did the cover band thing we always had a little battle coming up with an ending to an originally 'fade ending' s.o..n...g....





Milkman said:


> Fade out endings = couldn't come up with a decent ending.
> 
> Just my opinion of course.





bw66 said:


> I suspect that at first it was novel, having the technology to fade out the ending, then it was expedient not having to figure out an ending, and then it was just what everyone expected.
> 
> Kind of like pitch correction today... :stirpot:





hardasmum said:


> I can think of many songs from that era that don't have fade outs. I think probably it's an artistic decision.
> 
> Back when radio ruled though, I wonder if DJ's found "automated" fade outs handy for beat matching and mixing between songs? Fade outs are also perfect for DJs to talk over before the next track.


There is likely a little bit of truth in all your comments.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

hardasmum said:


> I can think of many songs from that era that don't have fade outs. I think probably it's an artistic decision.
> 
> Back when radio ruled though, I wonder if DJ's found "automated" fade outs handy for beat matching and mixing between songs? Fade outs are also perfect for DJs to talk over before the next track.


There was never a dj who "beat mixed" in the 50's and 60's 
technology didn't exist. 

Radio DJs do a different type of fading technique. 

The exiting song will stay at near full volume at the start of the recording fade. 
The incoming song will fade in very quickly. Almost a rapid swell.

listen to a couple of wolfman jack's old radio shows, If you want to hear a radio announcer who can rock the mic. 

As for recorded fades: no clue why they were done, but they were done as early as Robert Johnson's recordings.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

back in the day when song writers knew how to write songs, in general ,
they would structure a song with an intro, verses, bridge, chorus , and a solo section...
They would then end the song with a " coda" ( another section that basicaly repeats as the song fades.)

These days the above mentioned sections would spawn 5 different songs , with a short little vocal line thats repeated at least 50 times.
I think they have figured out that if you repeat the same line ONLY 40 times, the audience wond get it.
OH...about the modern ending.....it doesnt exist.....basical at some point, the band just stops playing....

G.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

GTmaker said:


> back in the day when song writers knew how to write songs, in general ,
> they would structure a song with an intro, verses, bridge, chorus , and a solo section...
> They would then end the song with a " coda" ( another section that basicaly repeats as the song fades.)
> 
> These days the above mentioned sections would spawn 5 different songs ,* with a short little vocal line thats repeated at least 50 times.* G.


I hate that. I hate it even more when they get the band to play it on an award show. John Lennon must be turning over in his grave at the sight, or sound of it.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

djmarcelca said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> > I can think of many songs from that era that don't have fade outs. I think probably it's an artistic decision.
> ...


Even with a fixed RPM if the songs are at the same tempo why couldn't you beat match?


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Even in the big band era there were too many fade endings. They weren't done electronically, but manifested themselves in a lingering drone of a trumpet, sax or trombone.

I remember as a child listening to my father and uncle wishing how their Glenn Miller, Les Brown and Dorsey Brothers pieces would come to an end in a more pleasing manner.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

hardasmum said:


> Even with a fixed RPM if the songs are at the same tempo why couldn't you beat match?


Because, in the 50's and 60's it simply wasn't done. 
Wasn't thought of, wasn't invented yet, however you need to think of it. 
Didn't happen.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

djmarcelca said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> > Even with a fixed RPM if the songs are at the same tempo why couldn't you beat match?
> ...


Maybe they weren't beat matching on the radio but it was "invented" in the 60's by Mr. Francis Grasso.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Maybe it was something dumber and simpler. Maybe it was to afford the listener a few seconds of warning, as the music got quieter, to skootch over to the record player and lift the tone arm before it started going "cchhhhhtttt-cchhhhhtttt-cchhhhhtttt-cchhhhhtttt"?

As for me, I still can't figure out why nearly all Bollywood vocal music simply HAS to have echo on the voice.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

I do remember all the problems "fade endings" caused us as a cover band. As we couldn't fade out tunes on stage, we had to work out our own endings. I do remember that a few bands did try to use fade endings on stage which I thought was rather, dare I say it "stupid". I just hope it was none of you guys.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Guitar101 said:


> I do remember all the problems "fade endings" caused us as a cover band. As we couldn't fade out tunes on stage, we had to work out our own endings. I do remember that a few bands did try to use fade endings on stage which I thought was rather, dare I say it "stupid". I just hope it was none of you guys.


Yeah, I hated to have to deal with that too when I was playing out. And if the original band played a faded out tune live, they would have to come up with proper ending anyway, so why not put it on the original recording? Sheesh. All my life people have conspired to make my world as difficult as possible.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Guitar101 said:


> I do remember all the problems "fade endings" caused us as a cover band. As we couldn't fade out tunes on stage, we had to work out our own endings. I do remember that a few bands did try to use fade endings on stage which I thought was rather, dare I say it "stupid". I just hope it was none of you guys.


Endings are hard. It seems our band spends more time on endings than anything else.

As for the "live fade", I like the occasional well-executed (from the stage, not the mixer) live fade, but a little goes a long way.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

bw66 said:


> Endings are hard. It seems our band spends more time on endings than anything else.
> 
> *As for the "live fade", I like the occasional well-executed (from the stage, not the mixer) live fade, but a little goes a long way.*


Ah,Ha, It was you. lol


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

One group of guys I used to jam with used to do fake live fades, then we'd go back into the song.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I think that a live fade, then back into the song would be cool, but just the fade out, different.

I never got the fade ending and it's always a pita to a cover band.
If the cover band can end it, why not the originator? 8)


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Guitar101 said:


> Ah,Ha, It was you. lol


Ha! For what it's worth, I have never performed a live fade.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Guitar101 said:


> John Lennon must be turning over in his grave at the sight, or sound of it.


oh, i sure hope so


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Guitar101 said:


> I do remember all the problems "fade endings" caused us as a cover band. As we couldn't fade out tunes on stage, we had to work out our own endings. I do remember that a few bands did try to use fade endings on stage which I thought was rather, dare I say it "stupid". I just hope it was none of you guys.


Haha so true...don't feel bad, some of the orig artists do piss poor ending of their own songs live as well.
usually just a repeated pounding of the same chord with lots of crash cymbal and sometimes some cheesy solo wanking in the background. BAM! Bamaamam! BAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAAM! BAM! As if it's the epic ending to some war.


----------

