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

"...the textbook example of the old cliche..."
Is this an oxymoron, tautology, a cliche or is the use merely an example of "irony" in the Morriset form?
"Those who can't - teach" is often used by "those who refuse to learn" but more often by "those who resort to cliche rather than express themselves directly".
All of which ignores the reality that practitioners aren't always the best teachers. Often are but not always. Much can be achieved by scholarly abstraction and indeed disinterest. A practitioner often has difficulty comprehending let alone externalizing & communicating the internal codes, short cuts, intuition, experience, knowledge, context and GIFT they use to DO.
That said some level, if not artisan/artist/adept,of experience in the skill is essential to understand the difficulties of the DOing.
Let's face it we learn by a) experience b) abstraction & c) guided experience. The former requires luck and/or errors to teach & the latter tries to remove as many of the luck & error elements as possible. The middle one is , well, abstract.
 
oh boy

Seriously, people are crazy. I have never been so discouraged by my fellow man.

I feel like i must say a few things. One is that if you all think that an F sharp in the key of G is not an oddball chord than the music theory you are learning is complete and total bullshit and i dont care how many people know it or teach it. When i say ATONAL i guess it throws some off. What i mean is that in the key of G and in that progression that all the chords used are pretty straightforward harmonically. But the F sharp isnt. IT IS NOT. It is an attention grabbing spike in the progression. Which is followed by the overly smooth and predictable chords that follow. Which i think anyone could understand, but seemingly, only if they wanted to.

Secondly, if you are unaware of the harmonic scale and how it works, than youre at a disadvantage. Period. Youd think that people would be eager to learn about something new or a different angle, but i guess not.

Thirdly, i have never even burned a cd in my life. Ive never converted an mp3 or anything. I dont make songs then "release them" to some shitty site where they are to rot in obscurity forever. All i do is work on tunes in my room and make things up and try to learn how things are done and try to do them my own way. What i personally do has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the wundt curve in analyzing composition. Even if i never made any albums what would that have to do with Beagles inability to parallel construct? Its two different things.

And that quote about people who cant do things end up teaching them or whatever... well that is just one of those quotes that make people feel better about something that they want to feel better about. Quotes sell any idea because they "sound" correct. The wording makes them sound authoritative and slick, and people like to use them to prove points. I think using a quote to prove points is a little dim. Every argument is different. And while that quote may be true in some lights, it is by no means the answer to all confusion and all arguments. Who would actually think that a "quote" or a saying knows best? Thats too funny.

Also on that subject, i most certainly CAN "do". Especially in music. And the fact that you say "you probably cant write a good song" sort of proves you have no real grasp on songwriting or art. ANYONE can write a song. A child can write a "song". OK here i go lets try G, then C, then D over and over and ill say "yeah baby, hey baby" over the top of it for two and a half minutes. Theres a "song". Are you happy? Or does it still not count because i havent uploaded it to some shitty mp3 hosting site?


And BEAGLE, you think the wundt curve sucks and is emotionless crap? Well you are once again making the mistake of thinking of it as a way to guage art. The wundt curve doesnt depict your emotions or your passion. And i never claimed it did. It is merely an effective COMPOSITIONAL TOOL. Fuck how many times does the distinction between "art" and "technique" need to be made before people realize they are two different things?

And lastly, BEAGLE, you ask what would make your songs better? Well ill tell you but youll no doubt rage over the reasoning. Try using less "unique" elements and try repeating things more. And im sure that ive fucked myself by using the word "unique" because everyone will think i mean "new" as in "never been done before". But actually in songwriting technique the word "unique" means unique to what has been already experienced thus far in the song. You need to take advantage of ostinatos. You need to make shorter melody lines. You need to hold back and stop trying to show the entire song in the first 20 seconds. You need to use higher connotive meaning words. You need to step outside of your influences just a little. You need to play it less safe in your instrumentation and vocal qualities. You need to unbury the vocals in the mix. You need to use more sequence based melody. You need to use more parallel construction at all levels. You may think thats my "opinion", but i can hear the songs, and they lack the sound of "intent" and have more of a casual approach to composition feel. Those things i have listed above are not "magic". They are concrete things that can be found in songs. If they are there then they are there, if not you know the writer doesnt know how to use them. Parallel contruction is NEVER wrong to use. Opinions dont matter.
 
proving it

I have more to say. And if anyone who is reading this wants to really understand the effectiveness of the Wundt curve as a compositional tool please read on. Anyone who wants to think they already know everything or if you are stuck in your ways please just go take a music class at the local college where they will read you the musical phonebook and make you memorize it and then you can spend the rest of your life paying off your student loan.

Music is not magic. It is not voodoo like God or the easter bunny. It is frequencies set to elapsed counted time. It is a language of counting and pitches just like how writing is a system of nouns and adjectives (etc). How is it that people can accept grammatical rules, and yet deny musical ones? Probably because of the euphoric emotions that music causes. There is a universal human rule, and that if something is too complex to be explained, it must be mythical or magical. Thats why there are things like "god". Dont believe that? Well show a light bulb to a caveman and see if he thinks its an invention or magic.

And in music the brain gets enjoyment out of experieces that are predictable and unpredictable at once. Thats why beat and meter is so crucial. Because thats the way the brain can follow along. Just tapping a toe is pleasureable. Your brain is anticipating each "count". But rarely is "music" enjoyable as just a tapping sound. The brain wants variation and unpredictability WHILE it is experiencing predictability. It is the combined effect that gives the emotion. Dont believe it? Then why are polyrhythms and syncopation so likeable and so exciting? Because its combining the best of predictable and unpredictable at once. Suspending the brain in between in a state of what a caveman would probably call "magic".

Now the wundt curve applies to all this in music. Deny it if you want, but its a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Since i dont

Since i dont have any mp3s available, i guess the next best thing i could do is say some writers and songs i think are great examples of songwriting technique.

Greg Watson of The Orange Alabaster Mushroom- the song "Ethel Tripped a Mean Gloss" available on myspace. This is a perfect example of how to bend the rules of songwriting pleasantly. This is also a perfect example of how to write a bridge and how to parallel construct. I could go on and on about this writer, but it would go on too long. Brilliant. An example for all.

Sara Quin of Tegan and Sara- the song "Walking With a Ghost" available on myspace. Brilliant parallel construction and sequential devices. Notice how the non chord tones in the verses further distinguish the verse from the chorus and breathe life into the bridgeless, two part song. Sara Quin is a songwriting genius already at the age of 25. And female. And a lesbian.

the band Antique Doll- the song "Geraldine" available on myspace. This one has all the tricks that are in the above songs, but this one has exceptional variation in melodic rhythms. Meaning the metric position of the melody notes are creatively done. I cant recall for sure but i think there are some good uses of "feminine" melodic accents on that tune.
 
GOOD FRIEND

Your analogy comparing grammar to music is not complete at all.

Grammar is an agreed upon set of "rules" for which to standardize our written and spoken language. However, grammar has hardly anything to do with actaully writing a good story. Someone could know grammar back and forth, front to back, but still not be able to "write" their way out of a paper bag.

Grammar is only partially analogous to music theory. They are not the same, though, but that's the subject of another debate. The point is that you're drawing a correlation between grammar and songwriting, and this is just simply way off. Because, obviously, somebody could read up on all the songwriting "theory" they want to and still not be able to write their way out of a paper bag. Sure they could write a "song," (as you so eloquently demonstrated with the "hey baby" line), but, I think you know what I mean.

And, again, because I guess you missed it the first time, your infamous "harmonic scale" is very well known to me and millions of other musicians. It's just called a circle of fifths progression. But if you want to keep reinventing the wheel, be my guest.

No one said the F# chord didn't have a jarring quality or that it didn't stick out in the key of G. Your use of the word "atonality" didn't "throw people off." It was just the wrong word, period. "Atonality" has a very clear and well-established meaning, and most educated musicians wouldn't use that word when they're talking about a secondary dominant.

Here's the real thing FRIEND. I'll wager you a challenge. I'll bet that for any songwriting "rule" or "technique" you can show demonstrated effectively in one song, I can name another song that will contradict that (other than something ridiculous like .... "a song should have a melody and lyrics"). I'm talking about all your terms like "parallel construction" and things like that.

All of those things are RETROSPECTIVE. I'd wager that 99% of celebrated songwriters are not thinking about that crap when they write. It's all "seen" and inferred after the fact, from other people.

And you know what? Those "rules" and conventions are changing all the time. And this is because people are willing to do their own thing.

Let me ask you this. What do you think would happen if EVERYONE followed your songwriting rules? Music would stagnate. Their would be no Beatles. If everyone always made sure they stuck to these strict prescribed rules, how can music change and grow?

My whole point is this. Yeah, feel free to read up and learn all this stuff you want, but when it comes time to write your own songs, say what YOU want to say---not what some book says you should say. Otherwise, what's the point of creating something of your own?


Look. You seem like a fairly nice person. And I'm not trying to be an ass. And I honestly don't think we're on totally opposite sides of the fence. I studied music theory at UNT, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on it. And I actually read several songwriting books, but then I realized something. I didn't like very many of the songs that the writers of these books had written. So why would I want to learn a method for which I didn't like the results? The writers that I like were the type of people that didn't study songwriting formally (which seems to be your method, and if that floats your boat, then so be it).

When it comes to my writing, I use an amalgamation of eveything I've learned. And I think that this is probably what most writers like Lennon, McCartney, Tweedy, Cobain, etc. do/did. I do NOT believe that there's one "proven" method for writing a "good" song. And if you want to believe that, you're free to do that. Let's just simply agree to disagree.

I like my songs, and I like the way I write. I don't care if you don't like them. It's nothing against you personally; I just really don't care. Of course I don't mind hearing people say they like my songwriting (which most people do, by the way, when I post them---of course, there's no way to tell if they're just "being nice" or if they're really sincere, but that's the same with any type of criticism). But I care more about whether I like my songs than if someone else does. I write songs to express and enjoy myself. And I would NOT enjoy writing if I was constantly worrying about parallel constructions or if I had the right amount of sequencing in my melodies.
 
Good Friend said:
Since i dont have any mp3s available, i guess the next best thing i could do is say some writers and songs i think are great examples of songwriting technique.

Greg Watson of The Orange Alabaster Mushroom- the song "Ethel Tripped a Mean Gloss" available on myspace. This is a perfect example of how to bend the rules of songwriting pleasantly. This is also a perfect example of how to write a bridge and how to parallel construct. I could go on and on about this writer, but it would go on too long. Brilliant. An example for all.

Sara Quin of Tegan and Sara- the song "Walking With a Ghost" available on myspace. Brilliant parallel construction and sequential devices. Notice how the non chord tones in the verses further distinguish the verse from the chorus and breathe life into the bridgeless, two part song. Sara Quin is a songwriting genius already at the age of 25. And female. And a lesbian.

the band Antique Doll- the song "Geraldine" available on myspace. This one has all the tricks that are in the above songs, but this one has exceptional variation in melodic rhythms. Meaning the metric position of the melody notes are creatively done. I cant recall for sure but i think there are some good uses of "feminine" melodic accents on that tune.
Click to expand...

Ok, great. Perfect! I'm glad you did this, because I think it will make this whole debate pretty much moot.

I listened to "Ethel" and I thought it was ok. Just ok. I liked a few melodies; I didn't care much for the lyrics.

And this is a great example of how one of your songwriting "rules" is contradicted. You talked about how MY songs let off too much with harmony at the beginning? This song is harmonically complex right from the get-go (and I think this is actually the effect the writer is going for, which is fine. I don't think of it as "incorrect" songwriting technique).

Some people love Metallica. I hate Metallica. Some people hate the Black Crowes. I love the Black Crowes. Like I said earlier, music is subjective. Songwriting is subjective. You can talk to someone until you're blue in the face about how this song has all these great, proven traits of "good songwriting," but they could still just say, "that's great and all, but it just doesn't do it for me."

Anyway, this is the bottom line: If this guy were giving a songwriting lecture, I wouldn't care to go. I don't think he's bad at all, but it's just not really my thing.
 
Last edited:
jesus

Hey look, i have to end this argument cause i cant believe how stupid this has gotten. Everything you say proves that you didnt learn anything at music school. Seriously, everything they taught you was a waste or your time and money. What did they teach you? Chord names? Terms? If they didnt teach you how to use elements of music then you learned NOTHING. And it shows in the songs you have written, which lack any memorable or unique elements and dont sound any different than every other home recorded tune. END OF ARGUMENT.

Man, quit citing the Beatles as rule breakers and innovators. The Beatles use more technique than almost anyone else. I know they do because i have actual proof. ITS IN THE RECORDED MATERIAL. Your proof you try to use to prove your points is all guessing and hypothetical. You werent there when they wrote. You cant speculate on what they did or didnt do. But i can. Because the points i am proving are in the songs themselves. Parallel construction doesnt happen by accident on the macro and micro levels that it occurs in EVERY SINGLE BEATLES AND HIT SONG EVER WRITTEN. If you cant see the devices being used in those songs then it only proves they dont teach shit at music school. Besides, my friend went to music college and he told me they didnt teach him shit. Just a bunch of memorization. Basically the things you preach are the things you seemingly condemn in what im saying. For the last time the Beatles are the greatest proof that things like parallel construction and the wundt curve WORK. Whether they called it those words as they made their songs or not, their songs are riddled with PC and wundt curve balances. Even when they were just starting out. Beagle when are you going to realize that wrong is just wrong and you need to rethink what you thought you had figured out? Your songs are forgettable and break no ground. They dont even try to break ground. Time to rethink id say, but then again i always try to do as much as possible to be as good as i can. Thousands and thousands of people graduate music school each year and none of them hardly ever make anything worth anything. Going through school means nothing except that you are willing to show up. At the end of my friends music course he said everyone still sucked and they were making shitty bland versions of the kind of music that matched their haircuts. Actually, the music techniques i have learned from always comment on how inept formally taught musicians are at actual practical song composition. Basically they dont teach you how to fish, they teach you all the different kinds of fish there are. The proof is in how many shitty forgettable songs trained musicians still turn out, year after year. Who could deny that?

And Beagle if you dont like the style of Ethel thats fine, but youd think that a great musician would know how to listen to something with a "composition" ear and not a genre or stylistic ear. Im mean seriously, thats a pretty standard ability that anyone that calls themselves a songwriter should have. If you cant hear the genius use of PC, chord substitutions, VM suspensions and anticipations, true modulation, sequential modulation, and so on than you must not even know it exists or what any of that is. And if you dont know what any of that is, then what did they teach you in that school? Cause that shit MAKES tunes. Dont believe me? Pull a few great songs apart and youll find all that stuff with obvious intent throughout. How fucking dare you shrug off Ethel while you attempt NOTHING in your own songwriting. It is the equivalent of a master chef pulling off a beautiful masterpiece of a meal and then someone going "oh i dont like fish". Well it doesnt matter if you like fish or not. We are not talking "taste". At the compositional level Ethel is BRILLIANT. And its also a catchy ass song that almost everyone i know instantly loves and is asking me to burn them. Ive even had dudes who are heavy into rap only ask me who it is and to burn it for them. Cross over appeal proves talent in songwriting. I remember when i first learned how to play that song i lost my shit. I was incredibly embarrassed at what i thought i knew. And i sought to improve. And i did. When someone has me beat i try to figure out how and why so i can get better. I dont shrug it off and say "its not my thing" and go back to my lame garbage. Thats why people like me continue to improve and find new and better ways. Thats why when i hear a Beatles song or any song i can instantly hear not only what musical devices are being exploited, but which ones are being refrained from. And that ability has greatly improved my songwriting. Exponentially. And i know because i know what i used to write compared to now.

This will be my last post because this is just retarded. I cant seem to break through. Even if my points hold complete and total water i am mocked because i used a music school term quasi-incorrectly. Well thats when i lose interest in caring what people think. I strongly urge anyone who wants to write better songs to learn some real techniques such as how to parallel construct at all levels from beat and meter to lyrics. I also urge anyone who really cares about making something unique and that stands out to try using the wundt curve as a way of analyzing great songs that have stood the test of time, and in their own songs. Try it before you knock it. Once i thought it was just mumbo jumbo until i did it myself and realized that 99 percent of all music teaching is BS and 99 percent of songwriters are trying to get water from a stone in the standard methods. And everyone ive taught it to from the guy i learned it from has made HUGE leaps and has commented time and time again "why doesnt anyone ever say this?" "why dont they teach this?" "how come so many bands suck if people know this?" And i swear all of this is true.
 
Good grief.

This thread now reads as a competition interspersed with ad hominems.

There are some interesting ideas, and to a non-combatant that is fine. It's a shame they can't be explored.

The Wundt curve, from what I understand of it, looks at complexity of stimuli. Some things are too simple to be interesting. In music, let's take a constant drumbeat as an example. After a while I just get a headache, and I get bored.

However, some things are too complex for me to appreciate. Some forms of modern jazz fall into that bracket, or some experimental music.

In between is something sufficiently complex to be interesting, but not so complex as to be overwhelming. This is as far as Wundt goes really.

Of course, we each have our own scale to measure what is "too simple" or "too complex" - I will call this scale "preference".

It may not just be the music that affects our preference either - any stimulus will play a part and it could depend on where we hear it.

Listening to a piece of music somewhere with a lot of movement and flashing lights will make me react differently to the way I would if sitting in a comfy chair on my own in my own room, while listening to the same music.

I have to say that I don't see how this, on its own, helps me to write songs.

We all want to create something that is pleasing in some way, and we all have a finely tuned measurement instrument to determine "pleasingness" (I invented a word, yay!). For the sake of argument I will call this instrument a "person".

Now, if we were to discuss how the use of an unexpected word or phrase can be pleasing, I can understand that.

If we were to say that a good song will pay attention to the "emotional line" that builds and relaxes at appropriate points, I can see that too.

Arguably, both of these aspects could be related to the Wundt curve.

However, the less theoretically (and more practically) disposed among us (like me) need these things spelled out - preferably without the theory.

These are tools that can be applied, but the decisions remain with the writer, and the success of those decisions is in the ear of the beholder (if "beholder" works :) ).

As to any "need" to build slowly, I don't believe that it is always necessary to do so.

Some of the songs that make people leap to their feet and take to the dance floor start at a high intensity and maintain it, though they will ring out the changes at some point. And if all songs were like that, they would have less impact.

In order to maintain interest, there HAS to be variety. That normally requires someone to break the current mold (or break the "rules").
 
Good Friend said:
Hey look, i have to end this argument cause i cant believe how stupid this has gotten. Everything you say proves that you didnt learn anything at music school. Seriously, everything they taught you was a waste or your time and money. What did they teach you? Chord names? Terms? If they didnt teach you how to use elements of music then you learned NOTHING. And it shows in the songs you have written, which lack any memorable or unique elements and dont sound any different than every other home recorded tune. END OF ARGUMENT.

Man, quit citing the Beatles as rule breakers and innovators. The Beatles use more technique than almost anyone else. I know they do because i have actual proof. ITS IN THE RECORDED MATERIAL. Your proof you try to use to prove your points is all guessing and hypothetical. You werent there when they wrote. You cant speculate on what they did or didnt do. But i can. Because the points i am proving are in the songs themselves. Parallel construction doesnt happen by accident on the macro and micro levels that it occurs in EVERY SINGLE BEATLES AND HIT SONG EVER WRITTEN. If you cant see the devices being used in those songs then it only proves they dont teach shit at music school. Besides, my friend went to music college and he told me they didnt teach him shit. Just a bunch of memorization. Basically the things you preach are the things you seemingly condemn in what im saying. For the last time the Beatles are the greatest proof that things like parallel construction and the wundt curve WORK. Whether they called it those words as they made their songs or not, their songs are riddled with PC and wundt curve balances. Even when they were just starting out. Beagle when are you going to realize that wrong is just wrong and you need to rethink what you thought you had figured out? Your songs are forgettable and break no ground. They dont even try to break ground. Time to rethink id say, but then again i always try to do as much as possible to be as good as i can. Thousands and thousands of people graduate music school each year and none of them hardly ever make anything worth anything. Going through school means nothing except that you are willing to show up. At the end of my friends music course he said everyone still sucked and they were making shitty bland versions of the kind of music that matched their haircuts. Actually, the music techniques i have learned from always comment on how inept formally taught musicians are at actual practical song composition. Basically they dont teach you how to fish, they teach you all the different kinds of fish there are. The proof is in how many shitty forgettable songs trained musicians still turn out, year after year. Who could deny that?

And Beagle if you dont like the style of Ethel thats fine, but youd think that a great musician would know how to listen to something with a "composition" ear and not a genre or stylistic ear. Im mean seriously, thats a pretty standard ability that anyone that calls themselves a songwriter should have. If you cant hear the genius use of PC, chord substitutions, VM suspensions and anticipations, true modulation, sequential modulation, and so on than you must not even know it exists or what any of that is. And if you dont know what any of that is, then what did they teach you in that school? Cause that shit MAKES tunes. Dont believe me? Pull a few great songs apart and youll find all that stuff with obvious intent throughout. How fucking dare you shrug off Ethel while you attempt NOTHING in your own songwriting. It is the equivalent of a master chef pulling off a beautiful masterpiece of a meal and then someone going "oh i dont like fish". Well it doesnt matter if you like fish or not. We are not talking "taste". At the compositional level Ethel is BRILLIANT. And its also a catchy ass song that almost everyone i know instantly loves and is asking me to burn them. Ive even had dudes who are heavy into rap only ask me who it is and to burn it for them. Cross over appeal proves talent in songwriting. I remember when i first learned how to play that song i lost my shit. I was incredibly embarrassed at what i thought i knew. And i sought to improve. And i did. When someone has me beat i try to figure out how and why so i can get better. I dont shrug it off and say "its not my thing" and go back to my lame garbage. Thats why people like me continue to improve and find new and better ways. Thats why when i hear a Beatles song or any song i can instantly hear not only what musical devices are being exploited, but which ones are being refrained from. And that ability has greatly improved my songwriting. Exponentially. And i know because i know what i used to write compared to now.

This will be my last post because this is just retarded. I cant seem to break through. Even if my points hold complete and total water i am mocked because i used a music school term quasi-incorrectly. Well thats when i lose interest in caring what people think. I strongly urge anyone who wants to write better songs to learn some real techniques such as how to parallel construct at all levels from beat and meter to lyrics. I also urge anyone who really cares about making something unique and that stands out to try using the wundt curve as a way of analyzing great songs that have stood the test of time, and in their own songs. Try it before you knock it. Once i thought it was just mumbo jumbo until i did it myself and realized that 99 percent of all music teaching is BS and 99 percent of songwriters are trying to get water from a stone in the standard methods. And everyone ive taught it to from the guy i learned it from has made HUGE leaps and has commented time and time again "why doesnt anyone ever say this?" "why dont they teach this?" "how come so many bands suck if people know this?" And i swear all of this is true.
Click to expand...

You know why this is so funny? Because you yourself are admittedly just an average writer! (Though since you're too chicken ass to post anything, we'll have to take your word for it.)

So, gather round everyone! I am the great Songdini! I have ALL the secrets to great songwriting! Yessiree, step right up. Just three easy payments of $19.95 and you'll learn all about parallel constructions, sequences, and other musical terms that I misuse and don't understand. And with all this newfound knowledge and expertise, you too can be ... AVERAGE like me!

Give me a break. This is laughable.

I'll say it again, because you obviously didn't hear the first time. I couldn't care less if you don't like my songs. I write because I enjoy it, and I like what I write. I'm not trying to be Lennon or the OAM guy. It's that simple. I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. Geez, how dim do you have to be?
 
Good Friend said:
Hey look, i have to end this argument cause i cant believe how stupid this has gotten. Everything you say proves that you didnt learn anything at music school. Seriously, everything they taught you was a waste or your time and money. What did they teach you? Chord names? Terms? If they didnt teach you how to use elements of music then you learned NOTHING. And it shows in the songs you have written, which lack any memorable or unique elements and dont sound any different than every other home recorded tune. END OF ARGUMENT.

Man, quit citing the Beatles as rule breakers and innovators. The Beatles use more technique than almost anyone else. I know they do because i have actual proof. ITS IN THE RECORDED MATERIAL. Your proof you try to use to prove your points is all guessing and hypothetical. You werent there when they wrote. You cant speculate on what they did or didnt do. But i can.

etc....
Click to expand...

I'm just curious if you could cite some books/websites that detail the musical principles of the wundt curve and the types of bridges you mentioned? In fact, any resources that you learned songwriting concepts from?
 
The Beatles and Technique

If you don't think the song needs it, just skip the bridge.

The Beatles, well, just read Allan Pollacks Notes on those songs. They are nice and detailed. Beatles music is actually very structured. Beatles used their famous way of building up a song, adding a new instrument every 8 or 16counts. Adding new instruments will keep a song fresh I gues. Listen closely to I Am The Walrus and Strawberry Fields. Question is, were they formulatic in creation songs? I dont think so.

Some songs have weird forms most have a variation of the classic blues strucure. Some songs lack a bridge other have a middle eight that was created from an idea of another band member. I don't think they calculated everything. It would depend on the song. If every song had the let it be buildup it would be strange (I used that buildup as reference for a song once though ;)).

Sidenote: 2 of lennons best works have an intro that comes back in the middle of the song (Straberry Fields, Help). :D

Hapiness Is A Warm Gun was the result of ideas brought together with amazing result. They put thought into the way to make them work together. They might have just figured "Hey these ideas work together well". Brian Wilson actually worked with tons of fragments, wich only found their final place much later.


I am not sure why the person talking about theory gets bashed. I think theory can come in handy. If you have the ability to come up with a good melody, you can write songs. The thing is, you can know all the theory you want if you lack that feel you won't write good songs.

But what abut three chord classics?
 
Last edited:
Too funny

Its funny to come back here now and find this thread being dug up. I have to admit, i think its even more funny now that i reread the arguments against me.

I feel like adding to this, but i am directing my comments to people who are tired of writing average or amateurish material and want truly to move up a notch. There will be no rewards for sticking to your guns about what is song "is" or "isnt". Neither will anyone care whether you wrote your song by accident or if you studied 20 years to write just one. So make up your mind about how you feel. Are you jsut in it to feel good about yourself? Or are you in it to actually write the types of things youve always looked up to or wanted to write? Cause there IS a wall. If you are creative, which if you arent get out of music business, then youll have it way easier. Learning technique is nothing compared to learning to have imagination. So youll have it easy.

People who had said the Beatles broke rules dont be stupid. The Beatles are ruliest rule players there are. Thats because "breaking" the rules is actually "bending" the rules. And what most people dont realize is that when rules are bent they are usually bent in categorized ways. Meaning, there are ways to challenge tonality. There are ways to pull weird tricks. And those ways are just as much rules as the straight rules.

This is what i find in most songwriting by people who havent really looked into what actually compositional technique consists of:

Their songs either "give" too much (lots of predictable 5th down progressions and no unconventional cadences or melodic unrest)

or they dont give at all (near random chords in near random patterns, without a doubt pulled from the context of their influences songs yet those elements are out of context of the actual compositions being immitated so doomed to be weak)

And here are the BIGGEST and most major problems with songwriters who havent learned solid technique:

1. Tension goes unresolved within the songs elements

2. Attempts to resolve tension that wasnt there to begin with

Now those two may sound small and if you are male you are probably mad that i have an opinion that i seemingly know to be true. But those things are very very true and 95 percent of songwriters are writing weaker material than they have to be. You may say "these are my feelings and thoughts, so how can they be wrong if its art?" Well no one is saying its wrong. But wouldnt you WANT to build a better building? Wouldnt you WANT to design a faster car? Well then show me where in life that simple desire without technical know how and practice trumps experience and focus on facts. Show me where because it would be a miracle cause it doesnt exist. Im sure we are all men here, so we will all know that nothing comes for free you have to work for it, sometimes alot of work for just a little gain.

I feel like Beagle and most people have the mindset that theory is math and cold and sterile. But its not. Theory alone will give you nothing. It will lead you nowhere in fact just writing random things will at least produce somewhat empassioned things occasionally. But thats just it. I can tell Beagle has no grasp of actual technique because a huge part of strong technique is the fact that you have to WEAR BOTH HATS. Be in both trenches. You have to be very imaginative AND know what youre doing.

Cause heres the deal, like i said above, most people are sabotaging their own songs without knowing it. They are relieving unneeded tensions, or letting tension just go and go. Those are mistakes. And it doesnt matter what type of music you play. It shows. They are MISTAKES because its a lost opportunity to put a hook or to reinforce the likability of your idea.

So dont listen to the likes of people like Beagle, the dude didnt even have the tremolo on his guitar set to the tempo of his song. Think about that. Are you really gonna take advice on songs from a guy who ALLOWS the adjustment of a knob to go unchecked so that his song has this constant rhythmic retardation? I mean, we were like 15 and knew better than that in the fcking garage. Now i dont WANT to pick on him, but hes always been a bitch to me and insulted my attempts to REALLY help people learn something and get out of the rut and lie that music is all make believe when really its not. So when you insult me then yes YES i will point out that you messed up. But i am humble as well. I mean, when i started out i sucked pretty bad. My imagination was great but i had ZERO control of the language of music. Its no different then asking a 3 year old to write a proper understandable book. They cant. Because they are unaware of how punctuation for effect works etc. And music is the language of tones and pulses. You will not find a song that doesnt unfold in time. And you wont find a song that doesnt have a pitch or note. They are the laws and rules you say ARENT THERE.

Try this btches. Take a G chord. Thats your "words" in the sentence. The feeling you will get, we ALL will get, when you incorporate C chord in the key of G is the musical equivalent of the COMMA. The comma lets the reader know that more is to come. The thought isnt done when the comma is there. Now in the key of G the D chord is the "period" when going from D to G. The period marks the end of a thought in a sentence. So right there you have the musical equivalent of basic language. Universal. Everyone knows this about language. So how to use that basic beginner trick? Well theres your creativity coming into play. You could always try manipulating that trick with a pattern or a time based pattern. Even in my own writing above this there are times when i made creative use of periods by putting them after short phrases over and over. And over. And over. And over. See? See how that works? See how how you use periods within the contect of writing it changes everything? So why not music? Thats just it, YES it is in music. All of it. It just gets more difficult from there.

Now that you know a touch of language/musical equivalent, try remembering all the other things you know. Like those three chords G/ C/ D. Well each one of those has a relative minor made of nearly the same notes, just a darker feeling and a slightly different relationship to other chords, and to the chords within that key of G. So not only do you right there have infinite solid possibilities, you can actually start GIVING and TAKING in music consciously. Not regurgitating variations of your favorite songs. Now people may say well those chords have been used. Well all chords have been used. But sometimes same chords and the song sucks. Sometimes brilliant. Thats where knowing the other language equivalents comes in as well as creativity in lyrics etc. The BIG difference now is that you KNOW what you are doing based on fact, not letting your hands fall wherever and calling it a song just cause you were in a creative mood.

One step further, now that you know those few simple things, go back into all those songs you love that use those tricks. Dig up everything. Look at how the greats used those simple tricks to actually create the contours of tension and release within their tunes. Then check out the ones that have slight variation on that simple trick. Try to grasp what the variation is is LANGUAGE EQUIVALENT value, not just chord name. Look for relation, not name. Name is nothing. The longer you go about this way of composing the more you will know that name means nothing. Only relationship matters because thats where the magic of emotional conveyance lies.

So this is way too long, but if you really think about all this, and really take it in, then youll see that even the most simple things you take for granted have great value when you realize what you are really doing in your songs, meaning, what the factual emotional and expectational value they have in the human brain UNIVERSALLY, not in "taste" in music. You can build with emotional intent and pattern, rather than just playing chords that feel passable and calling it a day because thats all you know. The more you do this the more it becomes second nature and the idea of it as "theory" is gone. No more math. No more memorization. It becomes habitual like tying shoes or driving. Dont listen to beagle. Listen to the hundreds of and hundreds of CONSECUTIVE great sounding John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan etc songs that exist that follow these exact logics to the T.

Dont let people tell you music is a fairy that lands on your pillow and blesses you with talent or ideas. Its this shet.
 
Alright, Alright

Alright nerdgins, failed seekers, metalheads, deadheads, ex hal leonard employees, stoners etc... i have decided to spread unto you the greatest informative book ever written in the history of compositional technique. But i do so with a few warnings. 1. If you look upon this, see a few familiar terms and decide you "already know all this sht", then you have failed. And likely will always fail. At everything. Until some poor wench makes a husband out of you and makes you sht out two kids and sell your music equipment on ebay for diaper money. 2. Do not expect overnight improvement after reading this book. It teaches you how to fish for your own genius, it isnt an instant fix and if you lack imagination this cant help you gain it.

Alright you naysayers, exhippies, messenger shooters, country music songwriters trying to make it big in nashville by slowly incorporating more and more hip hop influence into your country songs youre trying to sell....

here it is:

http://www.roedyblack.com/PGS_Products_Books/How_Music_REALLY_Works.htm

Do not take it lightly betches, this is for real. You will forever remember this day that the great wide consciousness of man came together in this tiny corner of existence so taht you could stop writing garbage tunes and finally create something that makes your friends jealous and your girlfriends encouragement genuine at last.

BEHOLD!

BUT REMEMBER THE RULES! REMEMBER THE 2 RULES!
 
chapters

Oh yeah one last thing, read the entire thing. Dont skip. Reread. But that being said, chapters 6 through 10 are where you are really going to need to focus. This guy has a way of explaing it. Its not typical like it seems just because some terms from traditional msuci theory are the same. Seriously, i helpd out on this for 2 years so you better get good and read this front to back. Ive read it like 25 times. All musicians i know bought it instantly and improved greatly. GREATLY.

You get what you give, so give alot and make this your bible. Some parts will seem weird at first, but in time every line of this book is genius and you WILL understand even the most odd parts. It jsut takes some sinking in and application. GOOD LUCK HIPPIES
 
Still burning...

I have to put in my $.02. Having exhausted my own song writing potential long ago, I'm amazed at the longevity of this thread. Songwriting for me has become spontaneous expression. Creative processes progress so rapidly I can't keep up and I forget what I just created before I can capture it. Only the most memorable fragments make it to long term memory. For me it's a process of reduction. You have a palate of sounds, timbers, pitches and rhythms. The composers job is to limit the scope of possibilities selecting only one or two variations to a theme and weaving the remaining elements into an interesting piece. You can't put it all into one song. The term less is more applies. Within simplicity complexity lives. Ultimately nothing new is ever created, only recycled and repackaged. Flame on!
 
dogonjon said:
For me it's a process of reduction. You have a palate of sounds, timbers, pitches and rhythms. The composers job is to limit the scope of possibilities selecting only one or two variations to a theme and weaving the remaining elements into an interesting piece. !
Click to expand...


couldn't agree with you more... incedently that's also the way stravinski saw composition... so we're in good company...
 
Good Friend said:
Its funny to come back here now and find this thread being dug up. I have to admit, i think its even more funny now that i reread the arguments against me.

I feel like adding to this, but i am directing my comments to people who are tired of writing average or amateurish material and want truly to move up a notch. There will be no rewards for sticking to your guns about what is song "is" or "isnt". Neither will anyone care whether you wrote your song by accident or if you studied 20 years to write just one. So make up your mind about how you feel. Are you jsut in it to feel good about yourself? Or are you in it to actually write the types of things youve always looked up to or wanted to write? Cause there IS a wall. If you are creative, which if you arent get out of music business, then youll have it way easier. Learning technique is nothing compared to learning to have imagination. So youll have it easy.

People who had said the Beatles broke rules dont be stupid. The Beatles are ruliest rule players there are. Thats because "breaking" the rules is actually "bending" the rules. And what most people dont realize is that when rules are bent they are usually bent in categorized ways. Meaning, there are ways to challenge tonality. There are ways to pull weird tricks. And those ways are just as much rules as the straight rules.

This is what i find in most songwriting by people who havent really looked into what actually compositional technique consists of:

Their songs either "give" too much (lots of predictable 5th down progressions and no unconventional cadences or melodic unrest)

or they dont give at all (near random chords in near random patterns, without a doubt pulled from the context of their influences songs yet those elements are out of context of the actual compositions being immitated so doomed to be weak)

And here are the BIGGEST and most major problems with songwriters who havent learned solid technique:

1. Tension goes unresolved within the songs elements

2. Attempts to resolve tension that wasnt there to begin with

Now those two may sound small and if you are male you are probably mad that i have an opinion that i seemingly know to be true. But those things are very very true and 95 percent of songwriters are writing weaker material than they have to be. You may say "these are my feelings and thoughts, so how can they be wrong if its art?" Well no one is saying its wrong. But wouldnt you WANT to build a better building? Wouldnt you WANT to design a faster car? Well then show me where in life that simple desire without technical know how and practice trumps experience and focus on facts. Show me where because it would be a miracle cause it doesnt exist. Im sure we are all men here, so we will all know that nothing comes for free you have to work for it, sometimes alot of work for just a little gain.

I feel like Beagle and most people have the mindset that theory is math and cold and sterile. But its not. Theory alone will give you nothing. It will lead you nowhere in fact just writing random things will at least produce somewhat empassioned things occasionally. But thats just it. I can tell Beagle has no grasp of actual technique because a huge part of strong technique is the fact that you have to WEAR BOTH HATS. Be in both trenches. You have to be very imaginative AND know what youre doing.

Cause heres the deal, like i said above, most people are sabotaging their own songs without knowing it. They are relieving unneeded tensions, or letting tension just go and go. Those are mistakes. And it doesnt matter what type of music you play. It shows. They are MISTAKES because its a lost opportunity to put a hook or to reinforce the likability of your idea.

So dont listen to the likes of people like Beagle, the dude didnt even have the tremolo on his guitar set to the tempo of his song. Think about that. Are you really gonna take advice on songs from a guy who ALLOWS the adjustment of a knob to go unchecked so that his song has this constant rhythmic retardation? I mean, we were like 15 and knew better than that in the fcking garage. Now i dont WANT to pick on him, but hes always been a bitch to me and insulted my attempts to REALLY help people learn something and get out of the rut and lie that music is all make believe when really its not. So when you insult me then yes YES i will point out that you messed up. But i am humble as well. I mean, when i started out i sucked pretty bad. My imagination was great but i had ZERO control of the language of music. Its no different then asking a 3 year old to write a proper understandable book. They cant. Because they are unaware of how punctuation for effect works etc. And music is the language of tones and pulses. You will not find a song that doesnt unfold in time. And you wont find a song that doesnt have a pitch or note. They are the laws and rules you say ARENT THERE.

Try this btches. Take a G chord. Thats your "words" in the sentence. The feeling you will get, we ALL will get, when you incorporate C chord in the key of G is the musical equivalent of the COMMA. The comma lets the reader know that more is to come. The thought isnt done when the comma is there. Now in the key of G the D chord is the "period" when going from D to G. The period marks the end of a thought in a sentence. So right there you have the musical equivalent of basic language. Universal. Everyone knows this about language. So how to use that basic beginner trick? Well theres your creativity coming into play. You could always try manipulating that trick with a pattern or a time based pattern. Even in my own writing above this there are times when i made creative use of periods by putting them after short phrases over and over. And over. And over. And over. See? See how that works? See how how you use periods within the contect of writing it changes everything? So why not music? Thats just it, YES it is in music. All of it. It just gets more difficult from there.

Now that you know a touch of language/musical equivalent, try remembering all the other things you know. Like those three chords G/ C/ D. Well each one of those has a relative minor made of nearly the same notes, just a darker feeling and a slightly different relationship to other chords, and to the chords within that key of G. So not only do you right there have infinite solid possibilities, you can actually start GIVING and TAKING in music consciously. Not regurgitating variations of your favorite songs. Now people may say well those chords have been used. Well all chords have been used. But sometimes same chords and the song sucks. Sometimes brilliant. Thats where knowing the other language equivalents comes in as well as creativity in lyrics etc. The BIG difference now is that you KNOW what you are doing based on fact, not letting your hands fall wherever and calling it a song just cause you were in a creative mood.

One step further, now that you know those few simple things, go back into all those songs you love that use those tricks. Dig up everything. Look at how the greats used those simple tricks to actually create the contours of tension and release within their tunes. Then check out the ones that have slight variation on that simple trick. Try to grasp what the variation is is LANGUAGE EQUIVALENT value, not just chord name. Look for relation, not name. Name is nothing. The longer you go about this way of composing the more you will know that name means nothing. Only relationship matters because thats where the magic of emotional conveyance lies.

So this is way too long, but if you really think about all this, and really take it in, then youll see that even the most simple things you take for granted have great value when you realize what you are really doing in your songs, meaning, what the factual emotional and expectational value they have in the human brain UNIVERSALLY, not in "taste" in music. You can build with emotional intent and pattern, rather than just playing chords that feel passable and calling it a day because thats all you know. The more you do this the more it becomes second nature and the idea of it as "theory" is gone. No more math. No more memorization. It becomes habitual like tying shoes or driving. Dont listen to beagle. Listen to the hundreds of and hundreds of CONSECUTIVE great sounding John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan etc songs that exist that follow these exact logics to the T.

Dont let people tell you music is a fairy that lands on your pillow and blesses you with talent or ideas. Its this shet.
Click to expand...

lol ... I'll only comment on one thing here, because the rest of it only applies to your self-absorbed world.

Who said there was a law that said a tremolo had to be set to the same tempo as the song? I don't always like that effect (I usually don't actually), so I wanted it to be closer to a triplet feel.

Sue me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top