how do you write a bridge? Song structure in general?

Oy

Oancient1 said:
Isn't he the guy who made violins?
Click to expand...

Stradivarius made the original Stratocaster that was stolen by Freddy Fender. Stravinsky wrote rite of spring.
Wikipedia sez-
The music is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest, most influential, and reproduced compositions in history. It is iconic for 20th century classical or avant garde European music, with innovative complex rhythmic structures, timbres, and use of dissonance. The scandal of a riot at its 1913 premier, caused by its innovative technique and content, made it one of the most internationally well known and controversial works in performance history.

Give it a listen.
 
Interested?

Anyone interested in music should be curious about what makes it tick. Yeah, the autistic savant probably wouldn't bother or need to know theory to perform their miracles. Some of us still want to know as for century's music was recorded on paper and musicians were the reproduction device. In those days if you didn't know how to read music you were in the audience. It's a hell of a lot easier now and music has gotten a lot simpler. You don't really need to have musical intellect anymore. Maybe I'm old fashioned and spending all those years in music school were a waste of time when these days a guy can get a laptop and put out an album using monotone gibberish, squeeks and samples of demolition sounds while never touching an instrument.
 
You can all take the piss if you want, i have actually got asperger's syndrom. those of you that are not interested in learning how other people write music but only in fighting your own corner get yourself to f*ck - you know who you are. I've decided to learn theory again as i've learned that it can be used as a method of communicating you ideas. I'm all for that. It's a pitty you tossers arent so open minded about the way i write. I'd like to do a comparison of compositions with some of you and actually get down to the meat of things, but i'm not going to waste my time. i still wont change my method of writing until i find that i *personally* can actually do it better another way, and those of you that commented on infinite vocabulary, really it's obvious you haven't read the previous posts and i'm not going to explain again and again, it's all about context. Seems people are only interested in one thing, being correct, not finding the solution to a problem or a conclusion to a debate. I've taken on board something new because i've actually listened to other people. My method does work as my profession requires listening to feedback, and most of it is more than good. Where's your respect for my methods?:rolleyes:
 
graham

ive read your posts and although you could have said things a little more impartially i dont think you deserved some of the replies made by some.

if you have been sent a pm thats abusive then contact a moderator but i wouldnt post what has been said publicly as theyll just find it funny.

this songwriting forum does have lots of members asking for a method for writing and advice on lyrics etc, if everyone used your method of writing there wouldnt be a songwriting forum. :D so youre pretty much outnumbered :eek:

most members disagree and will not change their point of veiw so i wouldnt waste anymore time on here :cool:

pm l8r
 
_brian_ said:
i have actually got asperger's syndrom.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it shows.

_brian_ said:
It's a pitty you tossers arent so open minded about the way i write.
Click to expand...

How does this statement reconcile with: "Where's your respect for my methods?"

I'll restate what I said earlier, and add a bit more.

1 Some theorists replicate formulaic song constructions; some theorists are brilliantly creative. Being a theorist is not a limiting factor to creativity.

2 Some intuitives create rubbish, some intuitives are brilliantly creative. Being intuitive is not a limiting factor to creativity.

3 There is no intrinsic advantage in being highly educated, nor is there an intrinisic advantage in not being so as far as being able to create great music.

I have a musical acquaintance who has no musical education at all. He has no knowledge of chords or musical structure, but he is a great keyboard player . . . his fingers seem to know where to go on the keyboard to get really interesting, dynamic chord progressions, and he creates great melodies. But (there had to be one, didn't there?), he has some problems:
1 his songs are crap. Though he is melodically good, his lyrics truly suck.
2 he can never play keyboard in a band, because though he can create really well, he can't follow well, and can't read a chart.

In Burt's (fictitious name) case, his innate brilliance was not sufficient for him to either recognise a progression someone else was playing, nor to compensate for his inability to read a chart of that progression.

It is musical brilliance that is the key: it will get you over the hurdles of not having theory. On the other hand, it will prevent you from being locked into the conventions that sometimes come with theory. In both cases, though, you need heaps of it.
 
gecko zzed said:
Sorry, but it shows.



How does this statement reconcile with: "Where's your respect for my methods?"

I'll restate what I said earlier, and add a bit more.

1 Some theorists replicate formulaic song constructions; some theorists are brilliantly creative. Being a theorist is not a limiting factor to creativity.

2 Some intuitives create rubbish, some intuitives are brilliantly creative. Being intuitive is not a limiting factor to creativity.

3 There is no intrinsic advantage in being highly educated, nor is there an intrinisic advantage in not being so as far as being able to create great music.

I have a musical acquaintance who has no musical education at all. He has no knowledge of chords or musical structure, but he is a great keyboard player . . . his fingers seem to know where to go on the keyboard to get really interesting, dynamic chord progressions, and he creates great melodies. But (there had to be one, didn't there?), he has some problems:
1 his songs are crap. Though he is melodically good, his lyrics truly suck.
2 he can never play keyboard in a band, because though he can create really well, he can't follow well, and can't read a chart.

In Burt's (fictitious name) case, his innate brilliance was not sufficient for him to either recognise a progression someone else was playing, nor to compensate for his inability to read a chart of that progression.

It is musical brilliance that is the key: it will get you over the hurdles of not having theory. On the other hand, it will prevent you from being locked into the conventions that sometimes come with theory. In both cases, though, you need heaps of it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for boosting my paranoia, again nothing seems to have been noted of the personal attacks I've recieved, but hey it's easy to pick on me isn't it? :eek:

I have already stated that I do see the merit in knowing musical theory, and if I have the time I'll learn it. But I have a problem with the people that are posting with the assumption that musical theory is always used as a passive device that will in all cases help musical creativity. This is false, I've seen it first hand. If used correctly it is a great help. But I've seen it used wrongly so often.
 
_brian_ said:
I have already stated that I do see the merit in knowing musical theory, and if I have the time I'll learn it. But I have a problem with the people that are posting with the assumption that musical theory is always used as a passive device that will in all cases help musical creativity. This is false, I've seen it first hand. If used correctly it is a great help. But I've seen it used wrongly so often.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone will deny this. Of course there are those people. I would add to that though by saying I've seen many "ear" players that are stuck in the same old rut they were 10, 15, or 20 years ago. It goes both ways.

Some people feel stifled by structure and they feel in inhibits their creativity. This is the typical "ear" player that has a great imagination and willingness to try and discover new things.

Some people need some structure and guidance to unlock their creativity. This is the typical "ear" player that's stuck in a rut and just needs a different point of view to make them realize it's a great big musical world out there.

And some people are a mixture of both types.

No one is better than the other.
 
_brian_ said:
comment left by demented chord "back at ya cheese dick... demented..."

You're a pathetic little person :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you really are pathetic... you didn't realize i guess that i positive repped ya... i think yopur a wanker but at least ya had the balls to defend yourself that i appreciated... and ya didnt tell them you negged me first asshole...:cool:
 
Intellectualism

dogonjon said:
Yeah, the autistic savant probably wouldn't bother or need to know theory to perform their miracles.
Click to expand...

_brian_ said:
i have actually got asperger's syndrom.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to step on a sensitive issue. I'm sorry if there were any hard feelings. Over time I've concluded that musicians as a general population are more willing to do without certain things to facilitate their art than the average person. It's like the 'tortured artist syndrome' and the public doesn't comprehend the sacrifices artists make in the name of their art. While we can have a spirited debate about how we create our art, we each have a unique view and experiences that sculpt what we create. Some are compelled to create and don't try to be in control while some are very deliberate and create with intent. What we desire is that we can connect with some one who can appreciate our work. The problem is that with our eccentricity, musicians tend to avoid the opportunities that will move them forward. We increase the struggle and torture ourselves with substances furthering our self imposed alienation from society.
 
dogonjon said:
I didn't mean to step on a sensitive issue. I'm sorry if there were any hard feelings. Over time I've concluded that musicians as a general population are more willing to do without certain things to facilitate their art than the average person. It's like the 'tortured artist syndrome' and the public doesn't comprehend the sacrifices artists make in the name of their art. While we can have a spirited debate about how we create our art, we each have a unique view and experiences that sculpt what we create. Some are compelled to create and don't try to be in control while some are very deliberate and create with intent. What we desire is that we can connect with some one who can appreciate our work. The problem is that with our eccentricity, musicians tend to avoid the opportunities that will move them forward. We increase the struggle and torture ourselves with substances furthering our self imposed alienation from society.
Click to expand...

A post that is as correct as it is nice :)

You didn't create any hard feelings, i just am passionate about what I believe... and a little over passionate when it comes to music, but we all are on here! It's just a little sad when someone's passionate views can come across as arrogance or ignorance when they're not that at all. The other sad thing is that autism rarely is accompanied with savant like abilities. The media through documentaries and films seem to insinuate that autistic people must have some great ability to counteract their deficiancies when in most cases it is just a disability that impacts on loads of things. I'm ok though, Asperger's is a very mild autism.

Anyway :D
 
If it's not... then

I've worked with autistic children and what fascinates me is how the brain copes. I know there is a range of ability each person has and there are some that seem to over compensate in one area and develop skills beyond what they would seem capable of. If we could learn from them and figure out how their brains rewire themselves it would go a long way to understanding neurology. Meanwhile I think that many musicians to some degree have mildly autistic traits and music is one method to cope and communicate. Substances serve to either self-medicate or exacerbate the condition sometimes to destructive ends but occasionally the result is art. There is a fine line between being a genius and being... vegetative.
 
great bridge writers

John Denver was a great bridge writer
Gilbert O' Sullivan was even better; go to utube and check out his songs
for example; 'No Matter how I Try' or "Who Was It" In the latter, he actually starts the bridge with the word "you" on the last note of the previous verse!
As for the late great JD, "Take me home Country roads" comes to mind
as does the song "Mathew" and "Shangai Breezes" , "Perhaps Love"
"Back Home Again", "Like a Sad Song", and.....well, you get the idea.
John's Bridges seemed to go very naturally with the melodies, Gilbert's were
great cause they were less natual by design, to get your attention. In other words
John's bridges were almost easy to miss as bridges because they flowed to and from the verses so well while Gilbert's sounded like little songs within a song, which is my fave definition of a bridge; he changed the rhythm of the song often in the bridge as well as the key. I'm not a music expert, but I love bridges. Sigh, I miss.....real songs....If you take offense at that and are "GAGA about today's music...then..uh..I guess "You were born that way" lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top