Tips on arranging songs

T

talk show host

New member
I was wondering if anyone would like to share ideas on how they personally arrange music..from structure to how they build an emotional rollercoaster through a song from start to finish..by changing which instruments are heard etc through different pieces of the song.
 
Hi ts-host!
I usually put my songs this way:
verse1-chorus-verse2-chorus-bridge-chorus
in my opinion two verses are really enough, a third one often bores the listeners. if it fits the song, I also use a pre-chorus in front of every chorus to raise tension.
I also try to stay under 3 minutes, 3 and a half being the absolute maximum.
in some cases a double-verse at the beginning could be just fine, however I prefer getting to the chorus faster.
my weak point is somehow the bridge, so I often keep it instrumental (e.g. a guitar-solo over the verse progressions)

a mistake I used to make in my early songs was that the chorus was often similar to the verses (regarding the rythm and the duration of the notes) now I try to make it more different, withouth creating a gap - it should always flow...

cu, smirky
 
Hey, Hi, Howdy, (choose the appropriate greeting for your particular demographic)
That is a great question! For me there are several factors to deal with. First and probably most important is the mood one wishes to express in the song, that kind of names it's own genre. ie a song about driving would typically be country or a moving rock & roller, thus it would probably exclude blues and jazz progressions. (in truth, as the creator of my music I can mix it all up if I wish) Actually I like to be very creative with my music and throw out the rules. Listen to some Frank Zappa music sometime a great example of throwing out the rules. So the question to ask is, what "is" the song going to be sad, happy, frantic, exciting, droll or other. It is what one wishes to create. After I pick the mood things kind of fall in place. Generally there are standard pattern that are followed, intro, verse, chorus, verse, bridge, chorus, but those rules can get one stuck in the format and hinder creativity.
I have been playing with structure changes of late. The basic 1 4 5 is old and fails to satisfy me much. I have used it but it is something I attempt to avoid. I am using tempo changes in the structure rather than just the verse, chorus theme. That kind of makes the naming of parts different because it is not the typical verse chorus pattern, but is more like part one, part two, part three, or more if I choose. With this pattern I sometimes come back to one of the previous parts and use it like a chorus. I usually alter the phrasing structure between the parts. That is the cadence in the phrases. It adds diversity and helps keep it interesting. Musical themes can be carried through many changes. Changes in tempo, cadence and keys are legitimate, although sometimes difficult to pull off.
As far as song duration, again the mood and message dictate the length, as can how long it takes to express yourself. Complex topic themes can sometimes demand many words (phrases) to clearly express. Now if you are striving for instant fame better throw out all that I said above and hence forth and get back to the "in the box of regular stuff" format. But if you want to be creative, express yourself however you need to. The Dave Matthews Band's song "Crash into Me" is 5:16, Garth Brooks' "Friends in Low Places" is 4:18, Yes has done songs ranging in duration from 0:35 "Five Per Cent For Nothing" to 21:35 "Ritual", Beethoven's symphony 5 in C minor Op. 67 first movement, is 7:36. Creativity should be your ruler. I have written songs from 1:30, "Hungry" to 13:21 "If Dreams Come True".
As for instrumentation, well the availability of players is your limit if you actually wish to record your stuff. If you just want to write it in score the number of instruments available to you is your limit. I think a key to creating music is desired mood. The song writer sets the mood. The players create the mood that the song writer wants. Let the players have the freedom to express themselves as it fits the mood the the writer wants. Then on the other hand some think they know what they want, thus casting aside the opinion and creativity of their companions in the musical endeavor. That is not me but is valid. Again ones ability to be creative and experiment with the art of music is the goal, some think it is fame. Choosing instrumentation is like choosing the cloths you put on this morning. It is all in what works for "your song".
Remember that self judging and being hard on yourself as an artist can block your ability. Go for it.
Good luck,
Tom
 
I've always found that it's my desire to get the chorus in under 1 minute..preferably by :45..but it's tough! You've gotta be so concise..and I always have this problem of wanting to lengthen some things out too much.

I love lyrics too. If I had it my way, I'd write 4 different verses, but no one wants to hear that much, from what I can tell. I have to force myself to write 2 verses, and then maybe repeat a bit of a verse to make a half-length third verse.

One thing I've read is quite difficult, which I've tried to tackle with a few of my songs, is having the chords in the verse and chorus the same. It's a pretty tough art to master, from what I can tell, especially to make a *strong* song out of. I've found some things you can do are:

- add instruments. This increases the emotion and complexity, which takes a listen away from the fact that they're listening to the same progression. Volume swells are a personal favourite :)

- try different chord structures. By inverting chords, adding minor 7's and 9's..everything sounds more colourful.

- falsetto. Adds emotion. At the very least, a distinctly different vocal line.

- syncopation. Puzzles the listener in the sense that they often can't pick that they're hearing a similar thing.

Trying to write verse/chorus with the same basic chords can be really rewarding, because it really racks your brains to think of new ways to make songs sound good, and you can use those techniques in other songs as well!
 
The problem I have with getting a formula, keeping to a time restriction etc is that you will become a boring, predictable and all your songs will sound alike, if that's for you then go ahead, I deal with each song as I see fit. The rules are to be kept in the back of your mind, knowing them but stretching them.
 
i have always thought of it as....

The chorus is what you wish to say and the verse is why you want to say it. If there is a third verse it is usualy because you are adding and extra thought at the end that sums up the previous two verses.

Sometimes it's a good idea to start with a chorus because it's the hook and then go into the verses but only certain choruses lend themselves to that approach.

yo birdsong - Zappa broke every rule didn't he - but his songs weren't hit songs, just good songs. ;)

Cheers
John :)
 
Krystof: I don't think that sticking to the rules makes yours songs boring or predictable, but it will make it easier for the listener to hear, remind and understand your songs.
Of course it's necessary to stretch the rules or change your formula if suitable! However, if you are no professional songwriter, this is a very dangerous step...
smirky
 
Verse Chorus Verse Chorus...STAAALE BOOORING.
Well, that's a bit zealous, but i get tired of that same old formula. You don't take a road trip and return home at 30, 60, 90 miles. You pass a Burger King, Mcdonalds, and Wendy's. Similar, not the same. But harder to write, lest the dreaded Burger King, Mcdonalds, and SEARS?!?! I'm no genious songwriter, but I try to paint pictures not paterns. In the immortal words of Rush, "Life in two dimentions is a mass production scheme"
 
Everybody is used to thinking of verses and choruses.But it is the bridge that "makes" a popular song.Typically 8 bars long,the bridge should be different enough in style and tone from the rest of the tune to be noticed as such.Then,when you go back to verse or chorus its a homecoming back to something familiar for the listener.
Read the book "All You Need Is Ears" by George Martin of Beatles fame.Not only does it give writing and arranging advise,but the details of how he tracked some of the most innovative pop music ever recorded.
Tom
 
I'm with John Sayers.

A lot of times, the chorus is the first part of the song that I'll write, and then I'll write the verses afterwards.
 
I like to come up with surprise or unexpected, but pleasing to my ears, song structures, chord progressions and arrangements. For example, I wrote a song in 1993 that began with the chorus, which merges into the first verse, which consists of a subsection or mini-bridge- for the lack of a better label. Musically, the song structure goes something like this:

Chorus/Verse1/mini bridge(a)/Verse2/mini bridge(a)/mini bridge(b)/chorus/Verse3/mini bridge(a)/mini bridge(b)/chorus fade out...
 
Hittin um with the chorus upfront

I was actually looking into this myself a few weeks ago. I was driving my mother around on the weekend, and nach we had *her* station on (read Golden Oldies, sorry to you more mature folk out there). Anyway, I noticed that a lot of those 60's pop songs had the chorus first - not something you hear a lot of today. I've heard that you need the right kind of song to do that. Personally, I feel that if I write a really strong chorus, it's going to lose any listener interest into the verses. I like to come up with strong, simple verse melodies first..or a riff..to immediately catch the listeners attention...but yeah, it's much harder doing it that way.

btw..I bought the latest Collective Soul CD - Blender. Anyone have any opinions on it? I noticed they're using ProTools this time.
 
as far as the formula goes, i try to stay away that, unless of course the objective is a "pop" song. i think one thing that hasnt been mentioned is how key changes can help- i find it effective to change keys, not in such a way thats dissonant or changes the mood of the song too drastically, but in a way to catch your attention going into the bridge or to lead you into a pre-chorus or new idea. i like to write songs which dont follow the normal formula but are still structured to a point. introducing new ideas at unexpected points of the song doesnt change the song drastically, but gives the listener an unexpected twist. i also like to do a chorus then an outtro chorus but in double time at the end of the song.

as far as timbre, i usually only record with drums, bass, and two guitars, and i like using octaves to produce different voicings in conjuction with power chords (ie one guitar plays F#5, the other plays a G# octave..which produces an F#add9 i think?)..sounds simple but this is usually what determines the mood of the song (minor 3rd or major 3rd? etc) whew..i just rambled on forever...i hope i helped instead of just running my mouth (or fingers, i should say.)

oh yeah..one thing i forgot to mention...a favorite of mine is having a verse thats bass and drums or clean guitar strumming, and building into the chorus with a swell of feedback..weezer does that effectively (as in say it aint so, for example.)

ok thats all. i promise!
 
NO RULES!!!

I have to agree with grandma & roktuk-
many of the coolest songs have been with no formula- or perhaps an anti-formula- in mind.
lucinda williams- changed the locks
talking heads- the overload
king crimson- requiem
lucinda's song is verse- verse- verse- verse- verse
(no chorus, no bridge)
the overload is centered around one droning electronic note
with the melody/ lyrics formulated
requiem is a frenetic instrumental that overall shows form in some kind of bizzare alternate universe framework, but each mode seems to be shapeless and wild- haphazard.

i think it is important to let the desired feel to dictate the overall shape of the song & if you begin with any particular formula in mind then i am sure the backstreet boys will have a place for you :D

BTW- BIRDSONG, TRY DECAF
 
There was also a good thread on this when the forum first came on and that wasnt long ago you should be able to search
it out for more info.
 
defender of the rules :-)

I can't understand why some of you treat rules as if they'd make songs either boring or suitable for the Backstreet Boys.
there are thousands of great songs that follow rules, and none is similar to the other (take the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Don McLean, for instance).
however, the coolest song with no formula is IMO "Bohemian Rhapsody", a masterpiece that shows you it's sometimes better to leave the usual path in songwriting.

I agree with all of you, one should not ´stick to rules by all means, but a good structure makes a song more popular among the audience (in a positive sense, not regaarding BSboys and Co.), and a songwriter should want his songs to be liked by the listeners and not try to write highly artistic or "cool" (how I hate this word) stuff that's just successful if produced in a perfect way
cu, smirky
 
i think it takes a good writer to stay in the "normal" formula and still write good songs..there's nothing wrong with "pop" songs..i find it a challenge to make the old chord progressions and structure sound fresh but still familiar, you know?
 
yes!

You're definitely right! I think it's just the writer's fault if his/her songs sound boring and predictable, you must not blame old rules or structures for a lack of good melodies or fresh elements!
 
Listen to Sgt. Pepper's or Magical Mystery Tour. Of course this music is over 30 years old but it doesn't seem to follow any formulas if only by accident.
 
wow, man u guys have tons of great advice,,,,,,one thing i will always remember is this,,our music today, whatever genre, is mainly based on theory and harmony amalgamated from the great artists before us,,, we have taken all that and said this is how it is supposta be done,and it works, kinda like saying hey,"we need that wall of distortion sound", and what do we head for?,,,for the general public, it's a wall of marshalls isn't it!!,,,,the one thing that i always remember is all the greats,,,,bach, mozart, blaa, blaa, blaa, were writing music from original stand points,there were no teachers or book read harmony for some of those composers way back,,,,,,they just wrote music how they felt it should be, whoever it was for us, we said, "man that is what i want to do",and we wrote great theory and harmony books,,, doesn't mean that it is wrong, just is. i'm the same way, frank zappa was weird yes, but so was arnold schoenburg and the 12 tone system before frank.....i'm the cover artist from hell lol,,and it shows in my sucky songs, but,lol, i say to myself,,,,will this sound good to me, if i was to only sit with an accompanied acoustic guitar, does it stand up as something,,,,mosta the times, mine don't lol, but i still go with that...i think that if every artist should be true to his or her self...and u will know if u are or not, it does take time, tons of time, there is no quick solution,,,man do i have a long way to go inside my self, i know that i haven't found it all the way but honestly i can see it over that huge mountain, and only then, will i then begin to polish it...peace :o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top