Take it to the bridge

[kip4]

I've heard that some new songwriters are arranging songs with no chorus, the chorus is replaced with the bridge.
Anybody here done this ? Heard of it?
Got any advice on how it's done?
Thanks
Rich

 

[mjbphotos]

Song structure is what it is - however you do it. Did Beethoven's 5th have a chorus or bridge?
'Stairway to Heaven' has an A section, a B section, then the final (rocking) C section.

Lots of Bob Dylan songs have no chorus or bridge, but each verse has an ending refrain line.

 

[fat_fleet]

I've heard that some new songwriters are arranging songs with no chorus, the chorus is replaced with the bridge.
Anybody here done this ? Heard of it?
Got any advice on how it's done?
Thanks
Rich

Step 1- Write a song with a chorus.

Step 2- When discussing the chorus with others, say "Oh no, that's actually the bridge."

Step 3- Watch in awe as your songwriting friends take to the internet with questions like "How do I make the chorus a bridge?"

 

[Bob Ross]

'Stairway to Heaven' has an A section, a B section, then the final (rocking) C section.

Or, depending on how you look at it/hear it, it has an A section, a B section, an escalating sequence of A' and B' sections (e.g., ABA'B'A''B''A'''B''' ad infinitum), a C section, a D section, an escalating sequence of C' and D' sections, an E section, and then an F section. Possibly follwed by F'

And we're still both listening to the exact same song! You can call sections anything you want. I played in a band that used to refer to the bridge of any particular piece "Harry".

But not every piece has a Harry.

This whole notion that pop songs need choruses or bridges or C sections or Harry went out the window forty-something years ago. Write tunes that sound good and that take the listener on a journey. Engage them and they'll keep coming back...even if the refrain never does.

 

[Robus]

You can do anything you want. If you want others to listen, you'll need to reach out to them. A chorus is a proven way of doing that. The advantage of a chorus over a bridge is repetition--unless you are repeating the bridge, in which case you might as well call it a chorus. In my writing the bridge comes later in the song, after a chorus or two. Its purpose is to introduce variety or extend the song in some new direction, musically or lyrically. I tend to follow the bridge with a chorus to reestablish the recurring themes.

But there are no rules. Just make it sound good.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Or, depending on how you look at it/hear it, it has an A section, a B section, an escalating sequence of A' and B' sections (e.g., ABA'B'A''B''A'''B''' ad infinitum), a C section, a D section, an escalating sequence of C' and D' sections, an E section, and then an F section. Possibly follwed by F'

And we're still both listening to the exact same song! You can call sections anything you want. I played in a band that used to refer to the bridge of any particular piece "Harry".

But not every piece has a Harry.

This whole notion that pop songs need choruses or bridges or C sections or Harry went out the window forty-something years ago. Write tunes that sound good and that take the listener on a journey. Engage them and they'll keep coming back...even if the refrain never does.

The Harry brings you back?

 

[Steenamaroo]

Lots of Bob Dylan songs have no chorus or bridge, but each verse has an ending refrain line.

I love that when it's done well! My buddy's a hell of a song writer (you know him Rich) and a hell of a chorus writer but he often talks about having a line like "It's all over now, baby blue." or "come in she said, I'll give you shelter from the storm".
He's a pretty wordy verse writer just like Dylan or Cohen, so it'd work well for him I think.

 

[fat_fleet]

he often talks about having a line like "It's all over now, baby blue." or "come in she said, I'll give you shelter from the storm".
He's a pretty wordy verse writer just like Dylan or Cohen, so it'd work well for him I think.

There's nothing special about either of those lines, it's Dylan's fame that causes us to even give them a second glance. Listener perception.

 

[rayc]

Yeah, those Dylan lines are famous because they are Dylan and the way they are delivered.
Truth be told I think the Baby Blue line is a dud same as tangled up in blue.
However, I do like wordy wordsmiths - particularly Declan McManus/Elvis Costello.
I also like wordy wordies because I, too, am wordy and strive to be a wordie.
Not word worthy or withb worthy words, but just plain wordy.
Structure.
The brain likes musical resolution and verse chorus m8/bridge delivers the goods and sometimes sneakily plays with expectations particularly mucking about with cadence (& Cascade).
Even Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire has repeated sections that fit into a structure for the song cycle.

I recently co-wrote a song that is V C V C V 1/2C BRIDGE V C V C where the verses and choruses uses the same chords ( C & G) but reversed the order and the bridge was much more complex (not hard after V & C).
Lyricists search for for a signature line.
I almost have a couple
"Napalm lovers kiss without lips in someone else's war"
&
"Thanatogenous, what know you of wine & roses?"
But both are too wordy to be catch phrased even if they'd been heard by more than 5 people in a lifetime.

 

[fat_fleet]

Well, I didn't really mean to poo poo on Dylan either. I love all that stuff.. but I guess I'm trying to say that "great" lines are often simple lines delivered with confidence... but willingness to hear it as "great" has alot to do with the way we perceive artists.

It was more a response to Steen's songwriter buddy who might be holding his own stuff up to Dylan's thinking "Wow, that Dylan was so great, I'll never write something like baby blue".. But I think he could find a mystos in his own ordinary words if he could make himself believe he has just as much a right a Dylan to do so.. instead of thinking cyclically "Well Dylan was a master because he came up with baby blue, and baby blue is classic because Dylan is a master"

No matter how much cyperspace we jam up with sentiments like "Well I just play for fun" and "Popularity doesn't equal quality", most of our other rhetoric betrays the fact that we do, in fact, kneel at the shrine of famous people and their fortunes and are terrified to deviate from their script. The only difference between us and must innovators is that they are not afraid to forge their own path.

 

[andrushkiwt]

... but willingness to hear it as "great" has alot to do with the way we perceive artists.

exactly. i could say "what do you think of my friend's garage band?" then play you a demo cd...or i could say "my friend got signed to a big label and is touring Europe this summer", then play the same demo cd.... guess which one ppl will give more credit to and "think" sounds better?

 

[fat_fleet]

exactly. i could say "what do you think of my friend's garage band?" then play you a demo cd...or i could say "my friend got signed to a big label and is touring Europe this summer", then play the same demo cd.... guess which one ppl will give more credit to and "think" sounds better?

Right? But even being aware of those biases, I still catch myself doing it with other peoples music all the time.