Good Friend
New member
here we go again
BEAGLE
The person asking about writing bridges wanted to know how to make the song take on a new feeling and sonic territory. And nothing is more exciting than a bridge that modulates well. I never claimed that a song had to modulate or that it had to modulate during the bridge. The original poster seemed eager to learn what will make a bridge stand out. Modulation stands out. There are many, many great songs that dont modulate, or use chromatic chords. Go back and read the original posters question.
You will also not find in my posts any comment on right or wrong way to do anything. Shift modulations are garden variety and are really no different than pulling chords out of a hat. Of course they do occur, but in music i have found that if one element fits "out", there is always another element pulling it "in" to make it work.
Id like to end all debates about the technical side of music creation if i could, but it is impossible. Because people who are quick to judge method over mayhem always have the same complaint, and the same reasoning. They always say "music has no rules" then they cite some song or band who they believe doesnt play by the rules. Is there a beat in your song? Then you are complying to rules. Does your song have even one chord or note in it? Then you are setting in motion rules. Is your song anywhere from 1 second to a half hour long? Then you are working within the confines of rules.
I have also found that most people who claim that technical side has no value just dont understand music at the compositional level enough, and that leads to a sort of bitter feeling when things like "modulation types" or "tonality" is discussed. Anyone who knows psychology of man knows that the first thing a displeased human mind does when a confusing or contrasting logic comes around is "shoot the messenger".
But the most hilarious thing of all is that music theory has gotten such a bad name because people dont know what it is. Its not even a theory really. The word "theory" makes it seem like alleged quality. There is no "theory" in songwriting technique. It is as solid as you can be in reality. And thats because songwriting technique should start at the biological level of the human brain. Humans dont have infinite short term memory. In fact most humans short term memory is the same from race to race, age to age, generation to generation. Now that is scientific fact. If you want to claim that all the research into the human brain have been lies than go right ahead. But you are arguing on the losing side.
You cite the beatles "Happiness is a Warm Gun" as an example of a song without regard to music theory or technique. But if you knew songwriting technique you would know not to bring the beatles into an anti technique argument because their huge volume of successful songs is in all actuality a huge argument for the side of songwriting technique over random playing. Happiness is a Warm Gun is riddled, RIDDLED, with songwriting technique and various elements of parallel construction.
Im going to say this one last thing and you can either believe me or not. When i started in music i saw all these people memorizing scales and technique and theory and nothing seemed more cold and lame. I thought there could be no true expression in numbers or logic. I swore it would never be me. But i have in time slowly taught myself things about music that are real and concrete. There is a difference between real practical technique and scale memorization. In technique there really isnt a call for memorization of scales other than the diatonic scale. To me, true technique has been more about categorization. Also, many times people have gotten all upset at the thought of technique because the associate it in their minds as a set of rules. FOR THE LAST TIME: TRUE MUSICAL TECHNIQUE IS NOT ABOUT RULES. IT IS ABOUT KNOWING WHEN TO MEET OR VIOLATE THE BIOLOGICAL EXPECTATIONS THAT ALL HUMAN BRAINS SHARE. And in true technique you will never EVER hear about something being "wrong". You will only hear what result you will get from what you do. Nothing is set in stone until you set it there. Technique, when properly applied, will allow you more creative freedom than you ever imagined possible. It will also end writers block permanently. And if you are a real songwriter youll know how invaluable something like that can be. With technique there is never a moment to waste. Never a song idea too far away. There is no "writing half a tune then losing interest". Because technique allows you to look inside of what you do have in order to finish the song so that it matches itself in a distinct, original, and 3 dimensional way. It wont matter how much your recording setup costs or how perfect your voice or playing is, if you are a great writer. And to me, there is no lengths i wont go to be the best possible writer i can. Even if it means embracinig what i once shunned.
BEAGLE
The person asking about writing bridges wanted to know how to make the song take on a new feeling and sonic territory. And nothing is more exciting than a bridge that modulates well. I never claimed that a song had to modulate or that it had to modulate during the bridge. The original poster seemed eager to learn what will make a bridge stand out. Modulation stands out. There are many, many great songs that dont modulate, or use chromatic chords. Go back and read the original posters question.
You will also not find in my posts any comment on right or wrong way to do anything. Shift modulations are garden variety and are really no different than pulling chords out of a hat. Of course they do occur, but in music i have found that if one element fits "out", there is always another element pulling it "in" to make it work.
Id like to end all debates about the technical side of music creation if i could, but it is impossible. Because people who are quick to judge method over mayhem always have the same complaint, and the same reasoning. They always say "music has no rules" then they cite some song or band who they believe doesnt play by the rules. Is there a beat in your song? Then you are complying to rules. Does your song have even one chord or note in it? Then you are setting in motion rules. Is your song anywhere from 1 second to a half hour long? Then you are working within the confines of rules.
I have also found that most people who claim that technical side has no value just dont understand music at the compositional level enough, and that leads to a sort of bitter feeling when things like "modulation types" or "tonality" is discussed. Anyone who knows psychology of man knows that the first thing a displeased human mind does when a confusing or contrasting logic comes around is "shoot the messenger".
But the most hilarious thing of all is that music theory has gotten such a bad name because people dont know what it is. Its not even a theory really. The word "theory" makes it seem like alleged quality. There is no "theory" in songwriting technique. It is as solid as you can be in reality. And thats because songwriting technique should start at the biological level of the human brain. Humans dont have infinite short term memory. In fact most humans short term memory is the same from race to race, age to age, generation to generation. Now that is scientific fact. If you want to claim that all the research into the human brain have been lies than go right ahead. But you are arguing on the losing side.
You cite the beatles "Happiness is a Warm Gun" as an example of a song without regard to music theory or technique. But if you knew songwriting technique you would know not to bring the beatles into an anti technique argument because their huge volume of successful songs is in all actuality a huge argument for the side of songwriting technique over random playing. Happiness is a Warm Gun is riddled, RIDDLED, with songwriting technique and various elements of parallel construction.
Im going to say this one last thing and you can either believe me or not. When i started in music i saw all these people memorizing scales and technique and theory and nothing seemed more cold and lame. I thought there could be no true expression in numbers or logic. I swore it would never be me. But i have in time slowly taught myself things about music that are real and concrete. There is a difference between real practical technique and scale memorization. In technique there really isnt a call for memorization of scales other than the diatonic scale. To me, true technique has been more about categorization. Also, many times people have gotten all upset at the thought of technique because the associate it in their minds as a set of rules. FOR THE LAST TIME: TRUE MUSICAL TECHNIQUE IS NOT ABOUT RULES. IT IS ABOUT KNOWING WHEN TO MEET OR VIOLATE THE BIOLOGICAL EXPECTATIONS THAT ALL HUMAN BRAINS SHARE. And in true technique you will never EVER hear about something being "wrong". You will only hear what result you will get from what you do. Nothing is set in stone until you set it there. Technique, when properly applied, will allow you more creative freedom than you ever imagined possible. It will also end writers block permanently. And if you are a real songwriter youll know how invaluable something like that can be. With technique there is never a moment to waste. Never a song idea too far away. There is no "writing half a tune then losing interest". Because technique allows you to look inside of what you do have in order to finish the song so that it matches itself in a distinct, original, and 3 dimensional way. It wont matter how much your recording setup costs or how perfect your voice or playing is, if you are a great writer. And to me, there is no lengths i wont go to be the best possible writer i can. Even if it means embracinig what i once shunned.