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

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.
 
GOOD FRIEND

I don't know what gave you the idea that I don't know any music theory.

Regardless, regarding "Happiness," I think I see where the problem was. I said "formal analysis." I think you thought I meant "analysis in a formal way," when I actually meant "analysis of the form." Regarding the song's form, it doesn't follow any well-established verse/chorus/verse/chorus/etc. format. It's pretty much "through-composed." That's what I meant.

good friend said:
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.

And this statement is just flat-out untrue. Just because I understand the subject of music theory and know my borrowed chords, secondary dominants, diminshed, Neapolitans, Augmented 6ths, inversions, etc. does NOT mean that a "song will never go unfinished." Sure, it can help you to know what you want instead of having to hunt and peck around for things, but it's not going to compose for you.
 
As Robert Plant so succinctly put it

Where's the bridge?

Has anyone seen the bridge?

Can someone help me find the bridge?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D


Sorry, I thought this thread needed a change in rhythm, and feel.
 
hey im sorry

Im sorry, i guess i was just trying to help the poster out with some descriptions of how he could start to learn something. Then somebody started in with picking apart everything i said, as usual. No one can ever just live and learn, its always a fight and an argument. Two men will kill each other over whether something is blue, or dark blue. Oh well.
 
Good Friend said:
Im sorry, i guess i was just trying to help the poster out with some descriptions of how he could start to learn something. Then somebody started in with picking apart everything i said, as usual. No one can ever just live and learn, its always a fight and an argument. Two men will kill each other over whether something is blue, or dark blue. Oh well.

I didn't mean to offend you, as I stated in my post. I just really don't like it when people talk about songwriting in a "textbook" type of way. I'm not at all against educating yourself on music theory. But that's just analysis. It's demonstrating why things sound the way they sound and giving us names and labels for these things.

Songwriting to me is very different. I've read some songwriting books as well, and I usually don't like the songwriting of the people who write those books. The writers I like are ones that don't seem to take such an academic approach to such a creative process.

I have no idea what kind of songs you write. I'd be interested to hear them. If you'd like to hear my stuff, you're more than welcome. Some of it's here:

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=328768

I'd recommend "That's What I'd Say," "Feeling Tired," "Not That Bad," or "Nobody Showers" for fairly typical examples of my writing.

And Bradley, I'm sincerely sorry for hijacking your thread.
 
ok ok

I actually believe that technique once learned can help you bend and break rules in a pleasing way. Thats what i look for when im writing and its what i notice in other writers that makes me respect them.

To me, technique has helped me learn where "zero" is in song elements. Like say in harmony the harmonic scale helped me know where the starting point is. The most tonal. The most predictable and smooth. I learned only songs in straight up harmonic scale harmony for a long time just so i would know how it works. WORKS. Only then could i truly understand how non harmonic scale chords could work, or chord substitutions (like an A7 taking the place of an Am in the harmonic scale). Seriously, for me personally i had to learn the basics before i could really understand how to break rules or bend rules.

I am 26 years old. I havent done much else other than learn music in my bedroom. I have no desire to be known or to get paid or get credit. I dont want to start a band and when i meet women i dont even tell them i can play any instruments. I really couldnt care less about capitalizing. To me, once you start to over capitalize you lose the desperation that fuels the inspiration. That may not be true for everybody, but it most certainly is for me.

And as far as your songs go BEAGLE, you arent bad. But if (and i mean IF) you asked any advice i would give you (which i know you didnt) i would tell you that you should hold back a little more in your changes. Some of those songs start and hit high points a little too quickly (in my opinion). It is better to deny more often than to give in songwriting (i believe). You are doing nothing "wrong" by any means. But i think if you took those same songs and held back a little more, meaning more half closes and less lifts within the first two or three structural phrases youd leave room for the high points to seem higher. But of course that is just my opinion. You may want those things exactly the way they are. But thanks for sharing your tunes and i respect your dedication to music.- Christopher J
 
For some reason, everytime I think about bridges, I think of Ozzy's Crazy Train. I guess it was the first song on which the concept clicked with me. It's that A major down to F# minor thing. Actually, that's a very old, yet super good trick. It's like...one and a half step down key change for a verse. Very common.
 
Good Friend said:
I actually believe that technique once learned can help you bend and break rules in a pleasing way. Thats what i look for when im writing and its what i notice in other writers that makes me respect them.

To me, technique has helped me learn where "zero" is in song elements. Like say in harmony the harmonic scale helped me know where the starting point is. The most tonal. The most predictable and smooth. I learned only songs in straight up harmonic scale harmony for a long time just so i would know how it works. WORKS. Only then could i truly understand how non harmonic scale chords could work, or chord substitutions (like an A7 taking the place of an Am in the harmonic scale). Seriously, for me personally i had to learn the basics before i could really understand how to break rules or bend rules.

I am 26 years old. I havent done much else other than learn music in my bedroom. I have no desire to be known or to get paid or get credit. I dont want to start a band and when i meet women i dont even tell them i can play any instruments. I really couldnt care less about capitalizing. To me, once you start to over capitalize you lose the desperation that fuels the inspiration. That may not be true for everybody, but it most certainly is for me.

And as far as your songs go BEAGLE, you arent bad. But if (and i mean IF) you asked any advice i would give you (which i know you didnt) i would tell you that you should hold back a little more in your changes. Some of those songs start and hit high points a little too quickly (in my opinion). It is better to deny more often than to give in songwriting (i believe). You are doing nothing "wrong" by any means. But i think if you took those same songs and held back a little more, meaning more half closes and less lifts within the first two or three structural phrases youd leave room for the high points to seem higher. But of course that is just my opinion. You may want those things exactly the way they are. But thanks for sharing your tunes and i respect your dedication to music.- Christopher J

I'm guessing that when you say "harmonic scale" you're meaning "diatonic scale," correct? You're just meaning the notes that are normally found in the scale I guess, correct? The term for this is diatonic, just FYI.

Anyway, I agree that learning the "rules" can help you "break them" in creative ways. I just really, REALLY hate when people refer to theory as rules, because it's not. It's just a system of analysis based on what composers have tended to do in the past. That's my big beef. There seems to be this perpetuation of people being turned off from theory because there's this misconception that it is "rules." And a lot of people don't want to learn it because they're afraid they'll end up sounding like everyone else or sounding stale and bland. Obviously, this isn't true. But that's why I get on a soapbox when I hear theory referred to as "rules" at all. It's a kneejerk reaction, and I apologize. I'm kind of on a mission to dispell that misconception.

Anyway, sorry for the rant. Just wanted to clarify my reaction. And thanks for the comments on my writing.

I'd still be interested to hear some of your songs, if you'd like to share them.
 
The Harmonic Scale

The harmonic scale goes as follows:

I - IV - VIIdim - III7 - VIm - IIm - V7 and then circles back to I

The diatonic scale is a melodic term. The harmonic scale refers to harmony (chords)
 
Harmonic scale again

This is how you interpret the harmonic scale in fast quick terms:

The two tonic chords (I and VI) each have the chords that give them their identity as the tonic chords on either side of them. The rootless diminished chord seperates the two little 3 chord families. Now remember, in songwriting it is normal to chord substitute namesake chords at any of the positions along the harmonic scale. But in doing so you change the harmony and you change the direction being implied.

I do agree that people dont want to sound similar so sometimes they avoid music technique, but that is a mistake because until you can identify the non facetious working elements in songwriters techniques you dont really know what they are doing anyways. All youll know are the facetious elements, strumming patterns, guitar tones, loud to soft cliches, on and on. With song writing technique you can tell a Ray Davies tune from a John Lennon tune and so on (for the most part).

Only an arrogant or uninformed person would assume they could run before crawling.
 
my songs

I have no songs available for download. Ive never uploaded any music.

But if you care to know i can write pretty much any kind of music to a degree. Its almost all the same anyways.

Some of the things i personally strive for when writing tunes are as follows:

clever use of the relative minor and majors WITHIN a key (other than the tonic relatives)

interesting augmentation and diminution of vocal melodic rhythms

using 7ths or other alterations to chords when moving harmony in thirds

and basically i could go on but there are some things i have taught myself that i havent found in any books only through playing that id like to keep for myself

as far as song subject matters and lyrics i am a firm believer that you have to walk the line between what means something and what sounds good. I try to write for my voice and i try to be aware of what types of sounds sound charismatic from my mouth. Like i have a slightly crooked tooth on the side of my mouth that make my "S" sounds a little characterized. So i try to use that as much as i can in order to set myself apart and let the character of my voice sound natural, not "put on".

I have a million tricks and things i try to work with that appeal to me, some borrowed, some i dont know where they came from, but i try to do my best.

My favorite songwriters that have taught me alot personally are Ray Davies (great at knowing when to move in 3rds and when to avoid 3rds), John Lennon and Paul McCartney (great melodies and chord substitutions), Chris White from the zombies (great use of chromatic melody), The Bee Gees (letting the melody lead the harmony in interesting ways), and so on. I dig too many to list, but i learn from everyone, either what to do, or what not to do.
 
Last edited:
Good Friend said:
The harmonic scale goes as follows:

I - IV - VIIdim - III7 - VIm - IIm - V7 and then circles back to I

The diatonic scale is a melodic term. The harmonic scale refers to harmony (chords)

I know this simply as a circle of fiths (or "cycle of fifths") progression. I've never heard it called a "harmonic scale." I wonder where you heard this? I did a search on the internet for the term, and I didn't really find anything. For example, wikipedia has only this to say on the subject:

"Harmonic scale is a vague and ambiguous musical term, describing a particular group of notes dependent on key, that may refer to the:
Harmonic minor scale;
Harmonic major scale."

Of course, I've heard of the harmonized scale, but that's just simply turning each scale step into triads (or seventh chords) by stacking 3rds.
 
Good Friend said:
This is how you interpret the harmonic scale in fast quick terms:

The two tonic chords (I and VI) each have the chords that give them their identity as the tonic chords on either side of them. The rootless diminished chord seperates the two little 3 chord families. Now remember, in songwriting it is normal to chord substitute namesake chords at any of the positions along the harmonic scale. But in doing so you change the harmony and you change the direction being implied.

I do agree that people dont want to sound similar so sometimes they avoid music technique, but that is a mistake because until you can identify the non facetious working elements in songwriters techniques you dont really know what they are doing anyways. All youll know are the facetious elements, strumming patterns, guitar tones, loud to soft cliches, on and on. With song writing technique you can tell a Ray Davies tune from a John Lennon tune and so on (for the most part).

Only an arrogant or uninformed person would assume they could run before crawling.

And this strikes me as very odd as well.

The I chord is the only tonic chord in a key.

The IV chord is the sub dominant---not a tonic.

In fact, each scale step has its own name:

I - tonic
ii - supertonic
iii - mediant
IV - sub dominant
V - dominant
vi - sub mediant
vii - sub tonic (or leading tone)

I'm curious to know where you're learning your terms for things, because they're certainly not standard.
 
tonic

If your song is in Am then Am would be the tonic.

Also, you will probably not find all the "terms" i use to describe things to be perfect with what is in musical textbooks (for the most part). I am learning things in a practical way, not a dictionary way.

But for how i use music technique the "harmonic" scale has two possible tonic chords. If the song is in a major key than I is the tonic (C for example), and if it is in its relative mnor key than VI is the tonic (Am in C).

Its really not hard to understand, and it works brilliantly. I dont know what the confusion is.
 
Tonic

Maybe there is technical confusion going on, but for me, i just call the key of the song, or the home chord, the tonic. Which could very well be incorrect in music school terms. But in my mind, when im working on something, i just mentally say "tonic" and then i use whatever i know to depart the tonic and then return.

So maybe thats where the confusion is coming from.
 
Good Friend said:
No, actually it is called the harmonic scale, the diatonic scale is a totally different thing.

Hmm, I think I am with beagle on this one...I don't think I've ever heard of this as a harmonic scale. Sounds more like the circle of fifths to me.
 
yes

Im pretty sure if i spoke or wrote for awhile about music there would be quite a few words or terms that i would be substituting for each other, but i can guarantee you that it would merely be a facetious name change.

i have seen "circle of 5ths" charts and they are not what the harmonic scale is. Maybe there are two "circles of 5ths" out there.

You listed the names of the positions of your circle of fifths, but there were no 7s or dim or minor notations. Maybe thats the difference that is confusing us.
 
Last edited:
Good Friend said:
Im pretty sure if i spoke or wrote for awhile about music there would be quite a few words or terms that i would be substituting for each other, but i can guarantee you that it would merely be a facetious name change.

i have seen "circle of 5ths" charts and they are not what the harmonic scale is. Maybe there are two "circles of 5ths" out there.

You listed the names of the positions of your circle of fifths, but there were no 7s or dim or minor notations. Maybe thats the difference that is confusing us.

The circle of 5ths is simply a tool that we use to learn key signatures mostly. It's a circle with C at the top (no sharps or flats) and moving down around the right side (the sharp keys) you have G (1 sharp), D (2), A (3), E (4), and B(5) . Moving down around the left side (the flat keys) you have F (one flat), Bb (2), Eb (3), Ab (4), and Db (5). At the bottom is F# or Gb (which has either 6 sharps or six flats).

When people say a "Circle of 5ths" progression, they mean one in which the roots of the chords follow a down-a-5th movement. This could be only four or five chords (like E7-A7-D7-G7-Cmaj7), or it could move through the entire diatonic key (like C-F-Bdim-Em-Am-Dm-G-C).

It has nothing to do with 7th chords. You can make any triad a 7th chord by simply stacking another 3rd on top from the diatonic scale.

I think what's confusing us is how you said this:

good friend said:
The two tonic chords (I and VI) each have the chords that give them their identity as the tonic chords on either side of them. The rootless diminished chord seperates the two little 3 chord families. Now remember, in songwriting it is normal to chord substitute namesake chords at any of the positions along the harmonic scale. But in doing so you change the harmony and you change the direction being implied.

Again, there aren't two tonic chords in a key. There's only one. And you're right about if a song is in the key of C, then C is the tonic.

I misread your original post above to say "IV" instead of "VI." I thought you were saying that I and IV were the tonic chords. Now I see you're talking about the relative minor concept. Still, though, it's either in one key or the other. It's not both.

C and Am are relative because they share the same key sig. G and Em are relative also, as are D and Bm, A and F#m, F and Dm, Bb and Gm, etc.

If a song is in Am, it'll usually have an E major chord (or E7) as its V chord. That's sometimes a hint that the song is in Am, but not always. (The E7 could just simply be a secondary dominant, and the song could still be in C major.) Usually though, if the song ends on a Am chord, and the melody seems to be at rest on the note A, then it's in A minor.

For instance, this progression is in the key of C:

C G F C Am G7 C

And this one is in the key of Am:

Am Dm E7 Am F G E7 Am


Anyway, each chord has its own unique quality to me, so I don't really like the whole sub-idea when it comes to chords. It seems more like a shortcut that you can think of until you learn to really hear the subtleties of each chord on its own. I think of it as more applicable to jazz sololing. For instance, using an Em7 (iii) arpeggio over a C (I) chord will get you a Cmaj9 sound, etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top