songwriting formulas!

  • Thread starter Thread starter brando0
  • Start date Start date
nice try......... i ain't going for it this time though. really it ain't worth the effort. even if i felt that you were being rude to begin with even if it is tempting i admit. let's just say that we ALL assumed what the other meant.

now......as far as responding to what made sense in you reply...... you can call it whatever you want....."multiple personalities so on and so forth" i call it formula or formulas.

you can laugh all you want..... but a structure is a formula, a concept....now whether you are aware of it or not it's a different thing.....after finishing a song and listening to it you can look at the structure used...whether you meant for it or not it still has a structure...hence a formula.
but honestly i am really tired to go back and forth on this....so if we are here to learn from one another regardless of what we think the songwriting process should be good and let's move forward; cuz there's really no point to keep on yapping about what and how our views differ from one another it is what we have in common and how we can learn from our differences that is going to make us grow...not arguing about them.

what happened to communicating with music.......? some of us may be trying to communicate something in particular and some of us don't even though i feel music is a mean of communication period, notes invoke feelings and emotions they have a "mystic power" kind of thing.
B
 
I think I understand a little better now about what you mean by formula. It is just a semantic problem, but it's a pretty huge one. I think it's very important (at least in this discussion) to make a distinction between the songwriting process and the structure, both of which seem to fall under your usage of the word formula.

Just for the sake of mutual understanding, I'm going to call them "process" and "structure," leaving the very loaded word "formula" out of the picture. Otherwise, it just sounds like you're looking for fail-safe recipe for a hit, which conjures up scorn from a larger percentage of board readers (myself included).

Looking at these two subjects seperately. The Beatles came up in your discussion, so let's use them for both examples.

PROCESS
What kinds of proces did the Beatles use to make music? Well, it changed dramatically over the years. Early on, there were plenty of cover songs. When the originals came, there was a lot of borrowing of ideas... riffs, chord changes, structure. What they offered new was a *sound*. The songs themselves didn't start getting terribly original until at least A Hard Day's Night or Help. By the time of Revolver, there was no turning back... they were finally THE Beatles. Their process for writing certainly wasn't the same through these years. It would be safe to bet that it began with "let's write a song about a jilted lover," and "here's a nice chord progression," and ended with "pass that joint over here, and press the record button please." Both of these methods are perfectly viable.

It might also be instructive to go watch "Let it Be," if you want to see what the process looked like in the end. It wasn't pretty at all, but the music still came.

STRUCTURE
How many Beatle's songs use the old stand-by the twelve-bar blues? Probably a good 15 or 20 of them. Several of them use I-vi-IV-V, and I can't begin to guess how many use only the I-IV-V chords. For the most part, these are early songs, but some later ones were just as simple, or used one of these structures as a starting point to expand on.

As for the later songs, they were great because the Beatles finally said "SCREW FORMULAS!... We'll do what we want!" The only reason to study their original structures, would be to either learn the song, or as an inspriational exercise. Transplanting one into your own songs doesn't seem productive to me. If it's just a matter of learning the song, it's easy enough to find find tablature on the web. Or ask me, I know most of them by ear.

If all of this rolled into one is called "formula," then I offer you this formula (for a good song, not for success, necessarily), used by many of the greats:

1. Great ears
2. Hard work
3. Fearless Experimentation
 
This is an interesting thread. Ive enjoyed all the comments and insights.
Personally I do believe there are formulas in song writing. But I also believe the formula changes from genre to genre within main stream radio to the point where a new formula is needed to break out into something new.
People get tired of predictability and want excitement..from the listeners perspective. But musical people who play instruments because of some internal force they are born with have to write whats in their head. There are also musical people who use it as a vehicle for money, sex and power so they use the formula that gets them that kinda stuff.

Ive tried to merge the genre formulas for pure entertainment. My music is long 5 minute or more per song, no real repeats in the melody, but the entire rhythm section repeat alot, so for most people its boring. Mainly my background if classical compostion and jazz...merge that with metal and you have Dream Theater.

Do what makes you happy if your a hobbiest, but if you want on the radio you sorta have to still have a formula. Its got to taste good whatever it may be. Its all about tension, release, dynamics and lyrics a drunk can sing backwards.

SoMm
 
"....Transplanting one into your own songs doesn't seem productive to me."

i couldn't agree more in fact i never mention copying from anyone, but by the same token i feel that is important to learn from the best......and given the fact that in my opinion they have been some of the best songwriters i thought i bring them to the table for analysis.... that's all.
however i don't feel that good music "has" to be in the kind of ELP or Mike Oldfield to be good.....i personally feel that it is more difficult to write a song like "Smile" by Charlie Chaplin, or " where you are" by Rashaan patterson...... i know what you guys are thinking but i don't write operas or any other score for movies..... i write songs.... songs that have hooks..... and i love pop music and R&B, and soul old and new, and just because a lot of popular music has hooks it shouldn't be discredited mind you there is alot of crap out there i am the 1st one to say it! but there's also a lot of quality stuff.
well it seems like we're getting somewhere.
B
 
My only formula is anti-formula.

So there.

My biggest problem whith your assumption BrandO is that you may think you can hear an artists formula in the end product and sometimes you may be right but in many of the most original, creative and moving peicesn you will be way off. You can try to formulate a method of writing songs if that makes it easier for you I'm all for it. Listen to my music and try to tell me my formula. I almost guarantee you will be dead wrong.

The truth is that it's not the formula that matters its the ideas and emotions the music envokes. The dullest type of songwriting procedure will create a masterpeice when the inspiration is all there.
 
Jake..... see i agree with what you just wrote but i disagree when you say that i assume...... look at it this way....if you look at a painting you will have your own way of interpretating it even though the artist him/herself might have meant something different or used a different way of thinking behind the creative process.
now my way to learn and analyse the way people write is to break it down to a way of writing that i see as a formula..... and i think that even in the most abstract music there's a concept, or flow of chords and rhythm, a reasoning behind it......hence a formula... now whether one will or can understand it is a different matter.

"The truth is that it's not the formula that matters its the ideas and emotions the music envokes. The dullest type of songwriting procedure will create a masterpeice when the inspiration is all there." tell me jake....when have i ever stated the contrary?
 
Dude, you are looking for an argument where none exists. I was making an opinion statement there.

You keep saying "hence formula" as if you can actually extrapolate the method of creation from the end product. You are wrong...sorry. Do you paint? I do. How many songs have you written? I have songs I guarrantee you would think you could understand....they are about one thing on the surface and the true meaning is only for me. Just hearing the chordal pattern will not get you any further into understanding them.

When you look at a painting and feel an emotion you may believe the artist worked hard to give you that feeling. Problem is the artist may and many times will have a totally different point than the one you're getting, especially in more artistic or abstract peices. Even if you do 'get' the painting that doesn't mean you are onto the creative process that caused the communication in the first place. Also even if you do gain insight there I feel the inspiration is far and away the most important aspect of understanding the peice's creation.

For me the most important part of being a songwriter is inventing my own way of doing things...I try to make it unique for each new song.
 
Jake,

Some things you're saying strike a chord in me. For me, my most profound experiences of art have been when I was totally unsure of the artist's emotional impetus, or when there was no obvious intended meaning to impart, but which evoke strong feelings nonetheless. Each observer ends up bringing their own meaning to that art, and it can hit them in a very personal way, or perhaps in a way that they can't even put into words.

In music, it's often the words. I tire very easily of songs that simply tell a story, or give some obvious message. I am much more interested in the sounds of words, and the *general* feelings they evoke, as opposed to *obvious* meanings.

This thread was never about lyrical content, so sorry for getting off-topic. But if you're interested at all in what I'm talking about, take a listen to any early Eno lyrics. He goes perhaps even further than I do, putting the sound of the word high above the meaning.

Or take a look at some of my lyrics here: http://www.allhands.com/redwire/lyrics.htm
 
Art is all about communication. And the best kind of communication hits you were you live.... right in your core. I think there is nothing more brilliant than an artist that can strip his message right down to some really basic, simple element of common understanding and emotion that everybody shares. Suddenly you look around and everybody is nodding because they all understand without even saying it.
I think art that lets everyone find their own meaning in it can be great too, but to me it's like song that fades out - it's an incomplete statement.

And believe me, I've written my share of fade-out songs!!

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com
 
jake...you said:

"I have songs I guarrantee you would think you could
understand....they are about one thing on the surface and the true meaning is only for me. Just hearing the chordal pattern will not get you any further into understanding them."

i have never said i would.......

you also said:

"When you look at a painting and feel an emotion you may believe the artist worked hard to give you that feeling. Problem is the artist may and many times will have a totally different point than the one you're getting, especially in more artistic or abstract peices. Even if you do 'get' the painting that doesn't mean you are onto the creative process that caused the communication in the first place."

i didn't say that i would be onto the creative process.....nor onto what the artist meant in the first place cuz art and especially paintings have different meanings to different people.....we interpret art based on who we are as individuals and nothing else. what the painting meant to the painter it is exclusively personal...some people may relate to it the same way he does and some may not.

this is what i said :

"if you look at a painting you will have your own way of interpretating it even though the artist him/herself might have meant something different or used a different way of thinking behind the creative process.
now "my" way to learn and analyse the way people write is to break it down to a way of writing that i see as a formula."

so i really think that you are the one being argumentative here..... not me.

so you paint......woopee!!!! it doesn't mean you're an artist nor that you understand art. 5 year old kids paint too.

it seems that you have too much too prove.

please stop trying to read what you would like to read and start looking at the letters that placed together form words that in turn make up sentences thus expressing the opinion/s of the writer.
 
Last edited:
Ok why don't we look at words for a second? Lets try Webster's.


Main Entry: 1for·mu·la
Pronunciation: 'for-my&-l&
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -las or for·mu·lae /-"lE, -"lI/
Etymology: Latin, diminutive of forma form
Date: 1618
1 a : a set form of words for use in a ceremony or ritual b : a conventionalized statement intended to express some fundamental truth or principle especially as a basis for negotiation or action
2 a (1) : RECIPE (2) : PRESCRIPTION b : a milk mixture or substitute for feeding an infant
3 a : a general fact, rule, or principle expressed in usually mathematical symbols b : a symbolic expression of the chemical composition or constitution of a substance c : a group of symbols (as letters and numbers) associated to express concisely facts or data (as the number and kinds of teeth in the jaw) d : a combination of signs in a logical calculus
4 : a customary or set form or method allowing little room for originality
- for·mu·la·ic /"for-my&-'lA-ik/ adjective
- for·mu·la·ical·ly /-'lA-&-k(&-)lE/ adverb



I asked you a question...please answer it: Have you ever written any music?
I would like to add a question if you don't mind: if you say you can deduce a formula from an artists work then please fill us all in...you used the Police as an example so tell me, what is the "police formula" for writing hits?
 
Skysaw said:
Jake,

Some things you're saying strike a chord in me. For me, my most profound experiences of art have been when I was totally unsure of the artist's emotional impetus, or when there was no obvious intended meaning to impart, but which evoke strong feelings nonetheless. Each observer ends up bringing their own meaning to that art, and it can hit them in a very personal way, or perhaps in a way that they can't even put into words.

In music, it's often the words. I tire very easily of songs that simply tell a story, or give some obvious message. I am much more interested in the sounds of words, and the *general* feelings they evoke, as opposed to *obvious* meanings.

Agreed

This thread was never about lyrical content, so sorry for getting off-topic.

Isn't lyrical content an integral part of writing music?

But if you're interested at all in what I'm talking about, take a listen to any early Eno lyrics. He goes perhaps even further than I do, putting the sound of the word high above the meaning.

Listen to my music so do I.

Or take a look at some of my lyrics here: http://www.allhands.com/redwire/lyrics.htm
Click to expand...
 
Hold on... the Police are drinking Similac now??

I know I put that number for the Enquirer around here somewhere...
 
No they WERE...they broke up over the similac problem from what I heard.

Nasty addictions...
 
To get us back onto the topic of formulas and songwriting, I have certainly found this to be a rather mystical concept. You see, you can identify what you feel to be a formula, duplicate it, and you still end up with a lousy song.

There seems to be something intangible about songwriting. I certainly have followed and developed formulas (in terms of approach, melody, form, etc.) and I have had inconsistent results from these formulas. To my mind, the one thing that my good songs have in common is that they start with a mood. Once you establish the mood, then make sure that everything else follows that, and you may find that you are more pleased with your results.
 
dude all i said was that I and only ME interpret and put it into a formula. and for instance they used to have a set chord progression and use it throughout the song like in roxanne....all the bridges and chorus and verse have all the same chords....it's the melody that changes.
as far as telling you how many songs i have written or how many publishing and record deal i have signed...... that's my personal business...... i told you have too much too prove......
 
you know jake........ at first i thought that you were doing it on purpose .....then i looked at your profile and i saw what your occupation is....and then all of a sudden it all made sense.
 
ted88 said:
I have certainly found this to be a rather mystical concept. You see, you can identify what you feel to be a formula, duplicate it, and you still end up with a lousy song. There seems to be something intangible about songwriting.
Click to expand...
Well sheesh...


even the newbies have this figured oat. :p



you guys are really wasting your breath arguing over meaningless semantics. Hell.. half the time you're saying the exact same thing while still contending that you "disagree"... :rolleyes:


There are formulas for songwriting... there's nothing wrong with trying to explore those different formulas... but you'll never find a guaranteed "formula" for writing great music,... because great songs are very elusive things.

Trust me... if a formula for great songs existed, it would already be getting packaged up and sold to the highest bidder.



(why on earth does everyone get their panties all up in a wad every time someone brings up songwriting formulas or hooks or wildcards.... lighten up already... )


WATYF
 
Far as I'm concerned everyone writes a song differently/in their own way.

As long as you're writing songs and you are hapy with the results thats all that matters. There are probably always steps you can take to improve your songwriting but write in whatever way seems to work for you.

Do what you do.

BTW - WATYF bring back the old avatar!! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top