Three choruses = too much

[dohhhhh6]

Hey, my originals pop rock band (we're a power trio band, by the way) are trying to be a bit different as far as the structure police go. For us, 3 choruses seem to be way too much. Also, we don't feel like ALWAYS having an extra bridge/solo. If they feel right, cool, if not, it's out.

 

We try to think of a slightly different structure to every song or atleast one aspect that keeps it different from our other songs. With all of the slightly different structures, we seem to be focusing around a formula very similiar to this:

 

intro

verse 1

chorus

verse 2

chorus

outro

 

We're trying to be a little bit different, but I'm wondering if this is head strongness is going to help or hurt us. I'm concerned that with only 2 choruses, the audience might not get into the section that everyone is supposed to remember the song for.

 

So what's your take? Is cutting the songs a bit short going to leave the audience completely left out or will we make a small imprint in the local scene that's swamped with poppy hardcore and emo variants? By the way, haven't gigged yet, so we don't have any real experience on whether it works or not.

 

Thanks.

[cherri]

I'd recommend trying different arrangements. As you write the new songs, try moving verses, choruses, and bridges around, grouping them different ways. Some songs will naturally flow into a more traditional verse/chorus arrangement and some will deviate. I think you've got the right idea, avoid getting yourself locked into 'formula writing'. Let the song dictate it's own progression.

[Tedster]

I know there are "structure police", but more often, IMO, the structure policeman is the song itself. Allow the song to take its natural course.

[Eric VB]

I don't see anything wrong with that structure. I'm guessing your songs are about 2:30-3:00 long. That's probably "radio air" time, so I don't think anyone will think it's too short. Given today's attention span, shorter is probably better. The only people it may effect are the dancers; by the time they make it to the dance floor the song will be over.

 

You said you didn't always like the 3rd chorus and/or bridge/solo. Have you tried a 3rd chorus WITHOUT a bridge/solo (as in, repeat the 2nd chorus)? Sometimes that'll work and help imprint it in your listeners grey matter. You can try changing things slightly to make the repeat less annoying (different drum beat, different bass line, different melody, etc.) Or use the age-old trick of "taking it up a whole step" (a la "Push" by Matchbox 20).

 

I have at least one song with the same structure you quoted, but the outro contains a solo so the whole thing comes out to over 4 minutes.

 

(I have another song with an extended intro -- vocals don't come in until 1:04 -- but that's a whole 'nother can of worms!)

[noneverstuck]

I've just finished reading "Complicated Shadows", a so-so biography of Elvis Costello. There is a decent discussion of the Pub Rock phenomenon which was a loose, quick-and-dirty approach to songs--a reaction to the sometimes pretentious, extended jam style that pervaded much 70's rock.

 

I don't know if Elvis Costello is your style or not, but if you want to hear how one highly respected songwriter approached the short song form, I'd recommend two of his albums: "My Aim Is True" and "Get Happy!!!". Many of the songs are under two minutes, but they feel complete and, although often fast, never rushed (like some punk material feels).

 

Deef

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Da LadY In Tha Pink Dress:

So what's your take? Is cutting the songs a bit short going to leave the audience completely left out or will we make a small imprint in the local scene that's swamped with poppy hardcore and emo variants? By the way, haven't gigged yet, so we don't have any real experience on whether it works or not.

 

Thanks.

What Ed said.

 

First, the audience is never going to notice, one way or another, unless they are dancing and the songs are too short. You won't make any 'imprint' on any scene unless the songs are good songs to start with. The way that you know that you have written a good song, even if it is long, is that people don't notice how long it is until it is over. A bad song seems to take forever, no matter how short it might be.

 

A story takes as long to tell as it takes to tell. If that means 15 verses and three choruses and 2 different middle 8s, so be it. As long as the audience is not bored, who cares?

 

Punk started out as 2 minute songs played very, very fast with little depth in the music or lyrical content. Well and good, but to play a four hour night you need to write and learn a whole lot of 2 minute songs, quite a few less 5 or 6 minute ones.

 

Bill

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

I have at least one song with the same structure you quoted, but the outro contains a solo so the whole thing comes out to over 4 minutes.

Da LadY, here's the skinny on the song I was thinking of (it actually has 3 verses but is still AB).

verse1,chorus,verse2,chorus: 1:36

verse3,chorus: 2:18

outro (end): 4:18

No intro, either. To "commercialize" it, I'm sure the producer types would want to cut the outro and add a bridge, and then it would be just over 2:30. If it only had 2 verses it'd be closer to 2:00.

 

Speaking to Deef about "rushed" songs, a friend of mine introduced me to the Ramones about 20 years ago. They always seemed a bit rushed to me. Off the top of my head, "Pinhead". Still, sometimes that's the kind of fun stuff you're in the mood for. The only Elvis Costello I've heard was his radio stuff.

 

Speaking of long songs, Bill, I never realized how long Don McLean's "American Pie" was until I was at a meeting and someone tried it as a sing-a-long with only acoustic guitar. Thought that thing would never end!

[noneverstuck]

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

Speaking to Deef about "rushed" songs, a friend of mine introduced me to the Ramones about 20 years ago. They always seemed a bit rushed to me. Off the top of my head, "Pinhead". Still, sometimes that's the kind of fun stuff you're in the mood for. The only Elvis Costello I've heard was his radio stuff.

The frenetic pace of punk is absolutely part of the fun. Certainly moreso than the structure of the songs.

 

I don't recommend Elvis Costello lightly--many sane music lovers find him oblique, wordy and contrary. However, if you are interested in learning a lot about songwriting, there is an immense education available in his work. His radio stuff doesn't come close to representing the depth and breadth of his oeuvre.

 

Deef

[Ernest Buckley]

Let the song dictate the arrangement.