an experiment: no chorus, no hook, still catchy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grn
  • Start date Start date
grn

grn

Well-known member
I have written at least 300 songs... so I figured I knew the basics... so I wanted to break the rules and write a song that just kept moving forward. No chorus, no hook, not repetitive, not much organization. I get bored writing the same old stuff, so I try to make everything completely different. I still wanted it to be *good* though. I think I accomplished it, this is just a demo, but listen and tell me what you think.



any suggestions? criticism? flames?
 
I think this idea equates to a "suite" of sorts, no? I do like the song and the various parts, but unfortunately (for your experiment's sake), some revisiting of of the catchier parts would make for a more enjoyable song. For me.
And maybe make the different parts more different, which maybe is the plan for a non-demo version, with more instruments, etc.
 
what are the catchier parts? if I do go through with a non-demo there will definitely be more instrumentation and different arrangements for the various parts. a suite? hmm. never thought about that. thanks!

also, I *could* repeat, but that was not the intent of the experiment. maybe for the final song I could actually repeat the whole thing and just consider what I have now just one verse. who knows?
 
The idea seems nice :) but learn to mix. This is a no-brainer, and even though I know it's just a sketch, you still gotta draw my attention, and that's not happening too much.
 
I... uhh... hmm. I had a random condensor two feet away from me... and I played guitar and it was mostly aimed at my voice... did it all at once. =\

I guess I failed.
 
You didn't fail, but you could've know you won't get a "wow" from anyone that way ;)
 
Well, this is a songwriting forum so I think we can let him off on the production :) (Not that you are wrong Halion)

I don't see anything wrong with the absence of a conventional structure - and anyway, what you've written strikes me as a very "conventional" song - it puts me in mind of something you'd hear in a musical (sorry if that's the wrong thing to say :))

Thinking about it, the absence of a hook is bothering me; perhaps I don't mean a hook per se but something to make it "fly" a little more - perhaps a little more range in the melody, I'm not sure. Hmmm...I'm not being much help here....but in answer to your original point I don't think the absence of verses and choruses is a problem in any way.

Have a penguin...
 
I like that musical idea. I think I'll write a whole play-type concept album and use this song as an interlude or transition into another song. You guys are too used to hearing hooks and choruses in every song... lazy listeners! ;) There is a pretty large range in melody over the entire song, from the beginning to the end. It goes from very to low to ... about as high as I can sing. I think most people are just bothered there is no chorus/hook. I must say that I too thought it was quite a conventional song when listening to it, but then upon further analysis, there is not much conventional structure to it.
 
well sir, I thought that was a fan-fucking-tastic song. :)

I really like the melody - it's naturally catchy without a chorus. I think the song is actually quite repetitive in the way that the melody kinda stays within the same harmonic range and that you keep repeating the word Breanne - the word Breanne almosts acts AS the "hook", so it doesn't require a verse chorus structure.

I'd agree that that it sounds kinda like a 'suite'. Like Lennon's 'Happiness is a Warm Gun' (in structure, not content :) ).

I really liked the song though. It's got a lovely melody and nice chord progression, and you've got a really nice voice too.

I would also agree with Halion that it would sound great with full-on production, but clearly that's not your goal at this point so I won't comment on that (I'm not very qualified in the mixing stakes anyway :o )

One thing I would say is that the repetition of 'Breanne' does grate on me a bit and the last line 'you are Breanne' sounds a bit cheesey after you do that great build up. just my opinion though :)

overall, I thought it was fucking great and the lack of a hook didn't bother me at all.
 
glad people are putting "suite" in inverted commas. 'cos it's got absolutely nothing to do with a suite! :mad:

it's a good song, grn. i do really like it. reminds me a bit of pavement. do you know them?

i think all this talk of 'conventional' songwriting etc. (I don't like it) is driven by people who are

1) trying really hard to break into the art. (but as with all art, conventions are bound (if not meant) to be broken. there are no rules, there is only what has come before. they are only other peoples ideas.)
OR
2) trying to pursue a proven formula in order to gain money or fame. (i really mean this.)
OR
3) talking about music instead of listening to and really creating it.
OR
4) several/all of the above

look, i don't think the "no chorus/hook" idea is by any means ground breaking. besides, in your song your hook is the guitar rhythm, I think, which is consistent through the song (even if the tempo shifts, and the meter moves from 4/4 to 6/8).

no chorus: so what? lots of songs don't have them.
no hook: it would be 'boring' if there was nothing to hold on to, or to expect. and your song isn't 'boring'.

i really like your voice. very nice :) i wouldn't do the ornament on the 'breanne' at the end.

right... there you have my two cents. ciao.
 
Thanks (last two posts)! I think you really "get it". I will look at the ending. I'm not sure what I could build up to really, but I could build up and go into a completely different song if I do use this as a transitional piece.

I'll definitely look at the ending. (And yes I know of Pavement)
 
i like the build-up, and i don't mind the 'you are breanne'. what you could do is move to a different chord at the end. so instead of going back to the tonic, go to the relative minor. or maybe even just play the last chord as a minor instead. (are you familiar with chord theory? i'd work out the song and give you actual chords, but i don't have the time, sorry). basically, don't let the build up drop us squarely in place, rather take us somewhere else.

pavement (and steven malkmus' solo stuff) kicks ass... i really dig it.
 
grn - glad you liked the musical idea - was nervous about saying that as some people hate musicals :eek:

I think that the combination of ideas in your and National S's last posts could create something very interesting indeed, with National S's "somewhere else" being a new song.

For some reason, and it might just be me, I sense that Breanne has a higher capacity to tell a story than most songs, which also fits in well with this idea. It will be very interesting to see what you do with it.

Cheers

Garry
 
Oh gosh, now I won't be able to live up to these expectations. Personally, I really don't like musicals (I can still appreciate the work behind them)...but because it takes away from the music and from the acting. I am fond of opera's however... or musicals where it's ALL song and no dialogue. Having been in numerous plays over the past 5 years... I feel pretty confident saying it's easier to act when music doesn't get in the way and you have to break in to song and out of character and likewise it's easier to play and feel music without acting getting in the way.

I am thinking about telling a story with music on an album though. And NationalS, I do know a bit of chord theory, so I'll try out what you said.
 
I don't like musicals either, for the same reason, they're neither one thing nor the other, except for some reason I loved Evita, both on the stage and the film - maybe because it was all music. And there were some great songs in it.

Anyway, you've had some high quality feedback (I don't mean my meanderings :)) on a very promising song - this is the forum at its best, I think.
 
NationalSandwic said:
glad people are putting "suite" in inverted commas. 'cos it's got absolutely nothing to do with a suite! :mad:
Click to expand...

From Dictionary.com:

Suite:
4. Music.
A. An instrumental composition, especially of the 17th or 18th century, consisting of a succession of dances in the same or related keys.
B. An instrumental composition consisting of a series of varying movements or pieces.

Sure seems like the song is quite like definition 4B. How am I wrong? Just trying to learn.
 
digitcallous said:
Stream of consciousness songwriting? Cool, I like it.

DC
Click to expand...

yeah, me too. also, national sandwic seems to always have something good to say, and seems to always say it well. a handy fellow to have around. furthermore, this whole thread has been good.

and of course, the song is good too, I like it's unusualness
 
aw shucks ,topolino, i just got a big mouth :D i like your handle, are you italian in anyway?

andy: phew, well, i don't want to make a thing about this... but, your definitions are good, and against them,
1) It's a song, not an instrumental piece.
2) It's a single piece, not a series of movements or pieces. (Note: a 'compostition' doesn't necessarily mean a single piece. A symphony is a composition, although it is made up of 3, 4, 5, even 6 movements.)

If you really wanted to draw some comparison with classical forms (don't know why), your best bet would be a theme & variations composition. imho.

right...time for food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top