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

As to the original question

Bradley, regarding your original post, I'll say this:

There's nothing wrong with the form you're writing in. It's a well-established pop song "formula" that's been used by everyone from country writers to Nirvana. (Cobain actually was one of the most formulaic writers--in terms of song form that is--that I've seen in a long time.)

Here are some other common forms:

verse/bridge form - the Beatle's "Yesterday" is a great example of this.

verse/chorus/verse/chorus (or start with chorus) - Dylan's "Tambourine Man" and "Like a Rolling Stone" are examples.

verse/verse/verse/verse/etc. - Paul Simon's "The Sound of Silence" uses this old folksong form.

The short of it is, as has been said by others, don't worry too much about it, and let the song suggest to you where it wants to go. If you want to make money from your songs, then a good chorus or hook that returns certainly doesn't hurt, so a "through-composed" method (like "Happiness is a Warm Gun") might not be the first choice. But that's not set in stone!

Regarding bridges, if you think the song needs one, then yes moving away from the tonic is a standard practice. You might start a bridge on a IV chord, V chord, vi chord, or maybe a ii chord. Or you could modulate (as Good Friend pointed out).

Alternatively, you could stay in the same key but use some borrowed chords (borrowed from the parallel minor mode). This could be like this: if you were in the key of C major, you might use an Fm chord (minor iv).

Or, you could modulate to the parallel minor key. So, if the song were in A major, you could modulate to A minor. "Every Breath You Take" is a perfect example of this. The song uses mainly a I - vi - IV - V progression for the verses. But the bridge modulates to the parallel minor and uses bVI - bVII -bVI - bVII - bVI - I progression.

All of the modulation techniques Good Friend listed are great. (I'm aware that he listed the parallel one, but I just wanted to elaborate on it a little bit.)

But I just want to end with saying this: Don't let anyone tell you what you "should" or "shouldn't" do. There's nothing wrong with learning all you can, but just don't ever think of it as a set of rules. Music is an art more than it is a science (in my mind, anyway). MANY of the great writers throughout history, such as the Beatles, are the ones who broke some "rules" along the way. A bridge doesn't "have" to be anything. If it works for the song, it works. Period.
 
rules

While i do agree that there should be no set rules in art, i think it should be stated that there is such thing as "consonance" and "dissonance", and that those things are universal. So i dont think it would be completely untrue to say that it is a rule that consonance is more consonant than dissonance. And if you are to agree with that semi obvious statement, than youd have to eventually agree that there are times when dissonance will not do the job of consonance and vice versa. A retarded and unjust rule would be that dissonance is better than consonance or vice versa, but songwriting technique when properly described and taught, would never suggest such a thing. What it will suggest is what song elements do a better job than others at violating or establishing listener expectations.
 
let me ask off topic question

BEAGLE

I know this may be off topic somewhat, but i still think its interesting.

Do you think i was wrong in my assessment of your songwriting technique based on the songs you had posted? Please note that i did not comment on your expression, merely on the songwriting technique alone. I cannot judge personal expression with any real footing.

So was my constructive criticism valid or no?
 
Good Friend said:
While i do agree that there should be no set rules in art, i think it should be stated that there is such thing as "consonance" and "dissonance", and that those things are universal. So i dont think it would be completely untrue to say that it is a rule that consonance is more consonant than dissonance. And if you are to agree with that semi obvious statement, than youd have to eventually agree that there are times when dissonance will not do the job of consonance and vice versa. A retarded and unjust rule would be that dissonance is better than consonance or vice versa, but songwriting technique when properly described and taught, would never suggest such a thing. What it will suggest is what song elements do a better job than others at violating or establishing listener expectations.

I suppose in the macro view, but when it comes down to practical application in musical context, I think all bets are off. You may think that an Ab7 or an F# major chord would have no business being in a song that's in the key of G major, but there actually is such a song, and it's a well-known Beatles song.

This brings me back to my original point. There are certainly conventions and traditions, but there are no rules.
 
ah but

Yes maybe so, but those chords would be considered chromatic chords and chromatic chords are part of the rules of songwriting. Chromatic chords grab listener attention because they dont belong. But too many too often will strain tonality and bring on early listener fatigue in almost everyone who doesnt WANT to like your song.

So wouldnt it be somewhat of a rule that too many chromatics blur tonality? And wouldnt it also be somewhat of a rule that blurred tonality is less desireable than established tonality? I mean, every great song establishes tonality well.
 
Good Friend said:
Yes maybe so, but those chords would be considered chromatic chords and chromatic chords are part of the rules of songwriting. Chromatic chords grab listener attention because they dont belong. But too many too often will strain tonality and bring on early listener fatigue in almost everyone who doesnt WANT to like your song.

So wouldnt it be somewhat of a rule that too many chromatics blur tonality? And wouldnt it also be somewhat of a rule that blurred tonality is less desireable than established tonality? I mean, every great song establishes tonality well.

I really, honestly believe that the only "rule" is if it sounds good, it is good.

And no I don't believe that firmly establishing tonality is more desirable than not. There's a Radiohead song called "Karma Police" that does a BEAUTIFUL job specifically of blurring the tonality between Am and Em, and I certainly wouldn't change a thing about that song.
 
Good Friend said:
BEAGLE

I know this may be off topic somewhat, but i still think its interesting.

Do you think i was wrong in my assessment of your songwriting technique based on the songs you had posted? Please note that i did not comment on your expression, merely on the songwriting technique alone. I cannot judge personal expression with any real footing.

So was my constructive criticism valid or no?

I appreciate your comments, but they strike me as pretty much just personal preference and not really tips on how to make the song "better." See, that's such a subjective thing, which is my whole point. Now if you're trying to make my songs more marketable, that's one thing. But I really don't care about that. I'm not going to change the way I write in the hopes that more people will like them. I write the way I do because of the writers that have influcenced me (Beatles, Wilco, Counting Crows, Ryan Adams, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Radiohead, etc.) and because I like the way it sounds.

I feel that there was actually a fairly broad range in the songs I listed.

"Feeling Tired" was very simple, harmonically speaking, using mainly I, IV, and V and the occasional vi and ii chord.

"Nobody Showers" was fairly simple and had a few secondary dominants and borrowed chords.

"That's What I'd Say" was a little more complicated with an adventurous chorus and an even more so bridge, and it releases the tension with a simple coda (in my opinion).

"Not That Bad" is a colorful song all around with a very nice modulation going into the chorus (which supports the lyrics well in my opinion).


If you'd like to give me specific examples I could perhaps give you a more definitive answer on whether or not I agree with your criticism.
 
beautiful job

Even if karma police does have good use of blurred tonality, it works only because the leading tones of the harmony move almost exclusively in seconds which gives the composition a stabilized sense of unity. Complex harmony is undone by coherent melody. And 2nds are the essential stabilizers of melody. It also repeats often also insuring unity by making the unexpected expected. So it would prove a different rule of songwriting correct and that is that one element undone, must be redone by another element or more. The more the better.

Also, a few examples of bent rules scattered throughout the musical careers of longtime established successful songwriters is not the best place to start a beginner learning how music structure works, or someone asking what a bridge is.
 
Good Friend said:
Even if karma police does have good use of blurred tonality, it works only because the leading tones of the harmony move almost exclusively in seconds which gives the composition a stabilized sense of unity. Complex harmony is undone by coherent melody. And 2nds are the essential stabilizers of melody. It also repeats often also insuring unity by making the unexpected expected. So it would prove a different rule of songwriting correct and that is that one element undone, must be redone by another element or more. The more the better.

Also, a few examples of bent rules scattered throughout the musical careers of longtime established successful songwriters is not the best place to start a beginner learning how music structure works, or someone asking what a bridge is.

I think your point of "learning the rules" may be a little more valid if there weren't SO MANY great writers in the past that didn't know diddly squat about theory, like the Beatles or Cobain. They learned by a combination of what sounded good and listening to others and assimilating what they did. I can (almost) gaurantee you that Lennon couldn't tell you what a pivot chord modulation was, even if he may have used one at some point.

If you had listed Sting or Paul Simon or someone a little more learned on the subject it would make a little more sense. (I still wouldn't agree, but the argument would make more sense to me.)

At what point do you stop going to tremendous lengths to make your "rules" all encompassing? Sometimes people are just writing something because they like the way it sounds. Analysis is just that: it's after the fact. Theory didn't come first; MUSIC did!
 
the wundt curve

Hey Beagle, have you ever heard of the "Wundt Curve" and its uses in songwriting technique?

It may be the difference between your technique and mine. The wundt curve was designed by some pychologist to define the effects of habituation in the human brain. Meaning this, anything you experience will be exciting until you get used to it, or "habitualize" it. Then the euphoria fades. Pleasure is biological in nature and nature designed pleasure to be fleeting.

The wundt curve in music has a left, middle and right side. The left side of the curve represents technical mastery and perfect predictable method. So in a way, skill without creativity. The right side of the curve represents the opposite, which is intense creativity without much skill. The middle (or top) represents the ideal. Skill married to creativity. Predictability mixed with originality. Now each song should strive for the middle or top. And how is that done? By using the same curve when composing the elements of your songs, or at least in analyzing them.

See if you start a song with all the tricks instantly, then it has no where to go later. It becomes habitualized and listener excitement fades. In arrangement/composition, that would be too far to one side of the curve. The opposite would be no tricks, or no high points, which would be boring.

So lets say you are writing a song that has alot of complex chords and extended chords. That would be alot for the listener to take in. Harmony overload. Too far to one side of the curve. So one method of pulling the song up to the top is to then use very consonant melody over the complex chords. Now this works the other way too. Complex melody with use of non chord tones on accented beats set against simple triads in harmony. See, one element balances the other. I know that most people would read this and want to buck and say its a "theory" and its wrong or its rules. STUDY GREAT SONGS. You will find elements doing EXACTLY this almost without exception. And this is not your enemy as a songwriter, it is your best friend. This will point you in the right direction when trying to finish ideas. It wont write the song for you of course, but it will without a doubt point you in the right direction of what to try. If it doesnt pan out right away well at least thats better than just giving up and watching tv.

Now knowing what elements undo others IS songwriting technique in its truest form. Forget theory. Forget scale memorization and "terminology". This is the method of methods. I know some of you will riot over this and say im lame and you will still try to claim these are rules of some kind, but if you truly look at how this method works, youll see that not only is this not a set of rules, its actually a rule bending machine. Because you will consistently be able to put awkwardness straight, allowing for new and exciting musical experiences.

The rules are those that dictate what is left side of curve, and what is right side of curve for all elements from beat to meter to melody to harmony to lyrics and on and on.

You cant claim that the beatles and kurt cobain didnt know songwriting technique. They did. Mostly the beatles. Because its IN THE MUSIC NOTATION. Its in the music itself. What you are using to prove your point is that john lennon didnt know "terminology". He didnt. But he most certainly knew musical devices that make songs likeable and he no doubt learned them from his years of playing great songs that already worked for other writers. The beatles played for years and years man. They absorbed technique. Who cares about terms like "pivot chord"? Terms are nothing. Terms can be read and memorized. The beatles learned technique through playing and performance. Thats the way to do it.

Look at the music man, its in the songs themselves.
 
one more thing

Heres something that you can think about if you are still doubting the genius of this method. Now you are getting all this from me for free, and it could be useful to you if you let it, or you can dismiss me as a moron and continue to misunderstand me.

In the song Sexy Sadie, a john lennon song, you will find that the harmony moves in very interesting ways when considering the wundt curve.

The first way that the harmony makes use of the wundt curve it this:the progression is a variation of the classic and much used and overused I-IIIm-IV-V. But John uses a chromatic chord at the onset to throw off the predictability that ensues after the second chord. This is an example of a chord progression that would otherwise be predictable being offset by atonality at the onset. Another variation of this found in other songs would be predictability at the onset follwed by dissonance at the end of the progression. So right there, Dissonance to the rescue of predictability. The progression starts harmonically "ugly" then ends harmonically soft. The middle of the curve.

Now further than that, the bridge of the song then shifts to the same progression but this time no chromatic chord. The wundt curve is balanced again. Instead of using the predictable progression at the onset for verses, he saves it for the bridge and leaves the variation of the progression for verses. If you were to invert the progression where the predictable variant was in the verse positions and the unpredictable at the bridge this particular song would lose much charm.

Even further, having a verse and bridge so similar yet charmingly different balances the curve again, variety is in chromatic variation, unity is in the similarity.

All this and i havent even mentioned any of the other elements in the song.
 
Atonality?

GOOD FRIEND;

You certainly talk a lot of talk for someone who refuses to post their work. I would LOVE to see your master of songwriting technique demonstrated in all its glory. Care to share?

As for your analysis of Sexy Sadie, you should get your facts straight before you try to enlighten other people. There is NO "atonality" present in Sexy Sadie AT ALL. The F# chord in the verse is actually a very simple device known as a secondary dominant (in this case, the V of iii, which is Bm). The Ab7 that appears later in the song is simply a tritone sub.

Again, your comments would hold much more weight if you would back them up with examples in your own songwriting. What is the practical use in learning all this songwriting "technique" if you're not able to apply it in your own songs? It is very easy to sit back and tear down other people's work; it's another thing to set an example with your own work. I'm proud of my songs, and I consider myself a strong songwriter.
 
got mad quick

Ok a couple of things. First. The F# in sexy sadie is very much chromatic sounding and also not very typical of this type of progression for the most part. I mean if you were to look at all the other famous songs that use this basic harmony movement, youll see it 9 out of ten times without the F# (or its key equivalent). Maybe since i say atonal it gives you some ammo to mock me but i feel, with no doubt in my mind, that my structural analysis of Sexy Sadie has something to it. I find it strange that i have repeatedly given decent structural analysis of several songs as well as song writing in general and you have misquoted me to death, and also raged over my lack of proper terminology, all the while telling people that there are no rules.

It seems like the only rules you respect and follow are "terminology" rules.

F# in the key of G is undisputably chromatic sounding. It is not part of the harmonic scale, and therefore is surprising harmonically. End of argument.

Also, you act like i say i am the greatest or whatever. I have not once mentioned my personal ability as compared to others. If you want, feel free to find where in my posts i have claimed to be better than anyone. There really is no "better". The minute you think you are good you lose the will to learn new things and you lose the passion that fuels you to dig as deeply aspossible to find a way to make great art. I will never count out personal expression, but this is not PERSONAL EXPRESSION forum. This is songwriting and songwriting techniques forum and i believe that there should be no stone unturned when trying to find a way to more deeply understand the techniques used in creating great art. In fact, i think i am average. I am as good as the average person should be. A student willing to learn. Thats it. There may not be much glory in that but i think ill stick with it because there are countless amounts of "songwriters" in this world with all this experience and terminology who still cant write a decent song.

You may insult my method and you may insult my crude mixmatched terms, but theres no way in fuck youll hear me ever writing a song where all the high points come within the first couple structural phrases then there is some no name lift into a whole second part of the song with no elements other than meter recurring MINUTES into the song.

I dont see what the big deal is. I dont understand the big hangup. Actually i see quite clearly what the big hangup is, i just dont want to think that people are so miserable in themselves and their art that they are willing to shut out useable logical things for the sake of maintaining what they want to continue to know. Man, for someone who believes in no rules you rage pretty quickly if a new idea comes along.
 
the Wundt Curve

OK Beagle let me ask you this, do you understand the logic of using the Wundt Curve when analyzing or composing songs? Or does that seem like bullshit to you? What is it exactly that pisses you off about composing with regard to habituation? Cause to me its ten times more effective than just writing blindly and hoping things sound good.

I am not trying to claim i am any more talented or that i am smarter than anyone else. But when i talk music with other people, even twice my age who are musicians, they always are in the complete dark about several key elements of composing and it really surprises me. But i dont hold it against them. Everyone advances at their own pace. Besides, i didnt invent this thinking, this logic, i merely use it or try to use it. I am not selling "ME" here. I was actually hoping a few people would get inspired by this. Who knew it was such a travesty to say "listen to your songs as you write them".

And another thing, you say you are a strong songwriter, Beagle. No one is disputing your dedication to music. I really didnt think i was. I had some constructive criticism that i acknowleged as being unasked for. But i thought that that was sound advice. You may feel like your job is done, but i wouldnt be able to tell those songs from any other i found out in the world of home recording songwriters. The voice wasnt bad, but it lacked character. It did not move me. Signature vocal style is KEY in developing likable songs. And history has proven that even bad singing voices can be lovable as long as they have distinct character. The lyrics were all over the place without many strong connotive words and hardly any repetition using sequencing or otherwise. How is the person supposed to remember your song Beagle? There was almost no parallel construction in lyrics or in music beyond the default. I dont want to say these things and i dont want to sound like a jerk, but you pissed me off by now with your constant insulting of my attempts to offer advice to people who are learnign to write. Now you may sit and shit on me and ask where my songs are and all this, but i would be more concerned about where YOUR songs are. I mean, seriously, no sequencing, no parallel construction, hardly any repetitions of song elements either varied or identical... what exactly is it that you are "writing"?
 
Last edited:
That's it for me.

GOOD FRIEND;

Yes, I think the Wundt Curve is bullshit (by the way, when you are quoting "a psychologist" it may be helpful to cite whose work you are quoting--in this case Wilhelm Wundt). I think you have one of the most heartless and soulless ways of looking at music I have ever heard, and I think your songwriting analysis techniques are laughable at best.

I'll say it again: it is very easy to tear other people's work down when you don't have the guts to show yours. Who in the HELL are you to judge my songs like that? Songwriting is a purely subjective art and you've contradicted yourself rediculously because YOU YOURSELF said there is no "better". So, what are your tips on my songwriting supposed to do if not make the songs "better"?

I guess you're trying to tailor my songs to your personal preferences, and I really couldn't care less about your personal preferences. So I am bowing out now; I've heard more than I can stand.

Best of luck with your songs in the future.
 
famous beagle said:
GOOD FRIEND;

You certainly talk a lot of talk for someone who refuses to post their work. I would LOVE to see your master of songwriting technique demonstrated in all its glory. Care to share?

As for your analysis of Sexy Sadie, you should get your facts straight before you try to enlighten other people. There is NO "atonality" present in Sexy Sadie AT ALL. The F# chord in the verse is actually a very simple device known as a secondary dominant (in this case, the V of iii, which is Bm). The Ab7 that appears later in the song is simply a tritone sub.

Again, your comments would hold much more weight if you would back them up with examples in your own songwriting. What is the practical use in learning all this songwriting "technique" if you're not able to apply it in your own songs? It is very easy to sit back and tear down other people's work; it's another thing to set an example with your own work. I'm proud of my songs, and I consider myself a strong songwriter.

Wow, what a debate this has become. Almost as interesting as the one we had not so long ago. Well, couple of things I'd like to add to here as well. First of all, beagle, I thought your composition was very well thought out and quite nice.

I do find it a bit humorous when people ask for proof of your compositions to see if your advice is fit...I mean, what do people expect to hear? haha. After all, it can only be that same tonal crap everyone else has been making for the past 600 years. (That was a joke by the way.)

Beagle certainly does have a point though...there have been many misuses of terminology (or lack of understanding) by good friend. Maybe it's accidental, I'm not sure, but the lennon example is all tonal...certainly no atonality, just that secondary dominant in there...which might be unusual for a pop song, but is hardly unusual in general. It just strikes me as very weird that you would have all this advanced information about song construction, but then get the very basic stuff wrong, as far as keys, and progressions (including secondaries.) And that harmonic scale thing?

Well, in any case, it is good to hear others critiques of your compositions, and I wouldn't take it so harshly. I rather enjoyed them, and would have to listen more thoroughly to make any kind of comment. Although we stand on opposite sides of the fence about the whole "rule" thing, I think you (beagle) have a lot of excellent points you made on this thread.
 
amethyst_fan said:
Wow, what a debate this has become. Almost as interesting as the one we had not so long ago. Well, couple of things I'd like to add to here as well. First of all, beagle, I thought your composition was very well thought out and quite nice.

I do find it a bit humorous when people ask for proof of your compositions to see if your advice is fit...I mean, what do people expect to hear? haha. After all, it can only be that same tonal crap everyone else has been making for the past 600 years. (That was a joke by the way.)

Beagle certainly does have a point though...there have been many misuses of terminology (or lack of understanding) by good friend. Maybe it's accidental, I'm not sure, but the lennon example is all tonal...certainly no atonality, just that secondary dominant in there...which might be unusual for a pop song, but is hardly unusual in general. It just strikes me as very weird that you would have all this advanced information about song construction, but then get the very basic stuff wrong, as far as keys, and progressions (including secondaries.) And that harmonic scale thing?

Well, in any case, it is good to hear others critiques of your compositions, and I wouldn't take it so harshly. I rather enjoyed them, and would have to listen more thoroughly to make any kind of comment. Although we stand on opposite sides of the fence about the whole "rule" thing, I think you (beagle) have a lot of excellent points you made on this thread.

Thanks Amethyst.

Of course I wasn't expecting to hear the greatest song in the world from FRIEND, but I thought it would at least support his argument better. He's arguing that learning all of this songwriting technique is the only way to write great songs, yet he doesn't have anything to back that up---you know? I mean, sure, maybe he has found the secret of songwriting (of course I don't believe this, but I suppose ANYTHING is possible), but what good is all his knowledge if it hasn't helped him write good songs? So, to me, he's just coming off as some know-it-all: the textbook example of the old cliche, "those who can't do, teach."
 
What's the best way to 'unbump' a thread gone bad? :rolleyes: I'm recording all day today. I hope that some of the rest of you will be as lucky as I am. The "Best Way to Write a Bridge" is to start rolling tape, bits, or whatever until you get something that you like. Then smile. :D If someone else likes it then smile even more. :D :D :D Try and remember how lucky we are to be able to do what we do. We actually create something that never was :eek: and that seems pretty incredible to me.
 
up-fiddler said:
What's the best way to 'unbump' a thread gone bad? :rolleyes: I'm recording all day today. I hope that some of the rest of you will be as lucky as I am. The "Best Way to Write a Bridge" is to start rolling tape, bits, or whatever until you get something that you like. Then smile. :D If someone else likes it then smile even more. :D :D :D Try and remember how lucky we are to be able to do what we do. We actually create something that never was :eek: and that seems pretty incredible to me.

Amen to that :)
 
Back
Top