Contemporary Song Construction

[Hugo H]

Way back when I was very young (late 50s, early 60s) just about every hit song fell into only a couple formats or so. There was the blues 12-bar, for example, and the ever present C/Am/F/G chord progression. They're still around, of course, and I'm sure we all still write in them. I can't count how many different tempos and rhythms I've done them in myself.

 

But things now are different. Or are they? Often I find myself stuck looking at the same old structure: Verse, Pre-chorus (lift), Chorus. Repeat three times, add intro, outro, and you're done. For thrills, toss in a bridge.

 

Gems have been, and will be, written in this format. It's good, familar, "safe", and provides a structure that's makes a lot of folks happy every day. Some of my best stuff follows right along this well-worn path.

 

It's also boring. At least for the songwriter who's looking at this same-old, same-old all the time. Sure, it can be varied. We can leave out the chorus and just use a verses, maybe with a bridge between the last two. Heck, we can get daring and use two choruses at the end!

 

Now, limiting it to just recent songs in whatever genre:

 

What structure do you like to use? And what structures do you like to listen to?

[David R]

For some reason the "traditional" song form of AABA gets overlooked in modern pop music. Some people have used it (Stevie Wonder - "Visions," Billy Joel - "Just The Way You Are" as two examples), but not as often as Cole Porter, Jerome Kern or Gershwin.

 

Radiohead and Bjork often have interesting structures. Bjork's "Pleasure Is All Mine" is intro-verse-bridge-verse up a semitone-outro.

Radiohead, since OK Computer, has explored alternative song forms ("Exit Music [For A Film]," "Paranoid Android," "Karma Police," "2+2=5," and many others).

 

David

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Doesn't the composition naturally take you where you need to go? I seldom think of such things, it's all a rather organic process for me.

 

Bill

[Hugo H]

David,

 

Interesting point about AABA. I vaguely recall a songwriting text citing a "reason" for that, but it didn't strike me meaningfully enough to remember now. Think I'll look for that again.

 

I hadn't even thought about Radiohead and Bjork. Another thing to look at

 

I'm wondering if the industry is biased against alternatives.

 

-Hugo

[Hugo H]

Bill,

 

For me, that depends on the kind of writing I'm doing. If I'm doing a piano instrumental, yes, it kind of goes where it needs to go.

 

But for popular music, there's a certain level of expectation listeners have, so that drives me along certain paths, consciously or not (especially after writing a whole bunch of them). Going down those paths too much turns them into ruts

 

Thinking about the form as I compose is the only way I can get out of the rut.

 

-Hugo

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by Hugo H:

I'm wondering if the industry is biased against alternatives.

Of course! This is just a part of the old saw, "Why doesn't anybody take a chance?/Why does today's music suck?"

 

In general, in order to be commercially successful you have to reach the widest audience possible. In doing so a lot of edginess gets smoothed down. Before you know it, everything starts sounding alike: bland, plain, vanilla.

 

One of the books I borrowed from the library, If They Ask You, You Can Write a Song by Al Kasha and Joel Hirschhorn (1979), discusses different song structures. They give a few examples, prefaced with: "There's more flexibility in today's music than there ever was. Music today is largely dictated by what feels right." They wrap up the section by cautioning that songwriters should probably follow a proven structure until they get the hang of writing hit songs. (The theme throughout the book is not just writing songs, but hit songs.)

 

The reference is dated, of course, and I chuckle everytime disco is brought up. But, some things never change, and for other things it is interesting to hear a '79 perspective. According to the rear cover flap, the authors have "sold over 52 million records" and "won two Academy Awards for Best Song" as a team. They obviously knew what it took to be successful.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Hugo H:

Bill,

 

For me, that depends on the kind of writing ... for popular music, there's a certain level of expectation ...

I know what you mean about the 'rut' thing, which is why I do not compose at an instrument. I compose as much as I can in my head, go to the instrument, and force myself to learn to play what I heard in my head. That is how I beat the 'rut' of playing the SOS all the time, and trying to turn it into another song.

 

As far as 'expectations' go, there are two things I have to say about that. #1, I NEVER even think about that or consider it when I am writing. THEY are not why I write. #2, I probably enjoy the same stuff that the average audience does, and I probably look for a changeup at about the same time, so when I write for me, I'm probably writing something that is acceptable to them, too.

 

Obviously if I am writing a piece for hire, that is different, and I do have to think about what they might like or want. But that is a different situation.

 

 

Bill

[Hugo H]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

I NEVER even think about that or consider it when I am writing... if I am writing a piece for hire, that is different, and I do have to think about what they might like or want

That actually sounds like what I said

 

Originally posted by Hugo H:

If I'm doing a piano instrumental, yes, it kind of goes where it needs to go...But for popular music, there's a certain level of expectation

Hopefully we can agree to agree on that...

 

I'm working on a Christmas song at the moment and talk about expectations of an audience! At least, as you pointed out in #2, the audience and I share the same tastes (if I'm lucky). But I do find myself actively thinking about those expectations in this case. And it may be something I shouldn't focus on. Perhaps I should rely on my instinct, knowing that the result will come out okay. But I haven't been able to do that, which may be part of why I'm struggling with it.

[Hugo H]

Ric,

 

Along those lines, the same stuff is still repeated in the books by Jason Blume, Pat Pattison, Jai Josefs and all the others. "You gotta know the standard structures." Who can disagree? They all emphasize that you need to master the basics before you use "non-standard" forms.

 

Interestingly, there's a few hits mentioned that aren't standard:

"The Rose", sung by Bette Midler, written by Amanda McBroom, is a straight A-A-A.

"Every Breath You Take", done by the Police, written by Sting, is A-A-B-A-C-B-A.

 

The first is, of course, the simplest possible form. I know the form's put me to sleep at times, particularly when listening to beginning acoustic guitar singer/songwriters trying to be folksy. Clearly, that doesn't have to be the way it goes.

 

And Sting's is a good example of taking liberties with a form.

 

Anyway, I find that keeping a form, any form, in mind helps structure my thoughts, but it could just be my personality-type's way of thinking.

 

-Hugo

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by Hugo H:

[Well-used song structures are] also boring.

This is probably one of the reasons I started writing. When I finally got to the point where I understood music well enough to notice the underlying simplicity of popular music, I found it a little lacking. I wanted to somehow do something a little more challenging. After all, I had at least some experience playing classical music.

 

Write a riff. Add 3 chords. Delineate verse and chorus progressions. Throw on a melody to fit. Maybe add a bridge. Arrange into a standard form. That all seemed so easy. Of course, lyrics were either left for someone else to complete or they'd come very slowly for me.

 

So I wrote in odd time signatures. I used complex and sometimes dischordant chords, searching for different textures (but always staying diatonic). I explored rhythms (though not polyrhythms). I had written several compositions (no lyrics, so they weren't songs yet) that satisfied my need for a challenge.

 

Friends found a few interesting enough as compositions, but always there was the comment that lyrics (and in some cases a strong melody) needed to be added. And some of these friends were musicians that were used to playing instrumental music (mostly classical).

 

There have always been songs I've discovered on the radio that I like for whatever reason. A lot of times when I sit down and analyze them I find the same boring stuff under the hood. So why did I like them? Probably for the same reason most people like popular songs: catchy lyrics and/or melody.

 

I've even annoyed myself when I start with lyrics/melody and find that the chords that seem to fit are just a simple 3-chord progression.

 

Driving the point home recently is a duo I'm auditioning for. I heard them at a coffee house and they really sounded good. I started putting together chord charts to learn their material. Some songs had the same 8-count/4-chord chord progression throughout both verses and choruses! How could I, Mr. Complex-Music-Advocate, have liked their tunes? (In this case it was a good job of the leads performing the melody and counter.)

 

I imagine that the first musicians were probably singers. Singing, or at least producing sounds with the voice, is such an innate human ability. I was always amazed when my band director would tell us to put our instruments down and hum our parts. The music was still there even though probably none of us had any voice training.

 

Looking at some older songs written primarily to be sung by groups of people, such as hymns, you may notice that there could be many more verses than today's pop songs. And we may only remember one verse, like the first verse to "Amazing Grace", but we get to hear the chorus enough times that it sticks. But the verses kept mainly to the same melody to make them more easily singable.

 

In conclusion, it seems lyrics and melody are what hold the listener's attention. The rest is just there to support it, although it can be given its moment to shine, too. Unless you're writing some kind of sonic landscape, the words and the need for repetition are probably going to dictate the form. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but I think this is along the lines of your comments.)

 

Hugo, in the case of writing a Christmas song for a particular group of people, I think the above applies. With the emphasis on the words the form should fall in place, and probably nobody but you will care if it's the same old sorry form. Make it something fun to sing along with and I bet even you will stop worring about the form.

[Eric VB]

Going back to your original post, I can't imagine writing 12-bar blues songs in my normal mode of thinking. Basically pick a key, rhythm and tempo and you're done.

 

But some guys like Stevie Ray Vaughan have written hundreds of them. I went to one of his concerts and didn't really know his material very well. It was interesting to hear how he could make every song sound different when most of them had the same structure. The identity of each song is in the lyrics/melody moreso than anything else.

[Eric VB]

Hahahahaha!

 

I just wrote a quick tune the other day in about 2 hours. It was a tribute so the lyrics were the most important thing.

 

The first stanza was a rhyming triplet (!) with a 4th line tagged on. Amazingly I was able to keep this up for another 5 stanzas! (I was not always able to get the 4th lines to rhyme from stanza to stanza like I had hoped, but I don't think it's that noticeable.) These were my A sections, or short verses.

 

For the B sections, I made a double-decker out of rhyming couplets with a third line tagged on, and the 3rd lines rhymed: a-a-b-a-a-b. I wrote two versions that had a lot in common but reflected two parts of the song. They have the feeling of a chorus or refrain, even though they are not identical lyrics-wise.

 

So ... all together it's A-A-A-B-A-A-A-B! (Yes, the song structure actually echoes the verse rhyming structure.)

 

It was well received at the event it was written for (that evening). I only had about half an hour to practice locking in the vocals, and I was fighting congestion in my throat, so it wasn't the greatest performance by far. It was one of those "it's the thought that counts" moments.

 

So, with the lyrics went the melody. I wanted to keep the music simple, so it's a fairly simple melody. In fact the first four notes are quarters, and the first three are the same pitch. (!) (Who knows, maybe I subconsciously stole it from something else? The longer I'm alive and the more music I listen to, the more I'm certain that I'm guilty of subconscious plagiarism.)

 

For chords I just used the first thing that would fit. Again keeping it simple, I went for a folk feeling on guitar (strummed open chords). The rhyming triplet is sung over a nice, easy I-IV-I, 8 counts to each. For the 4th line of the verse I did something I don't normally do: I changed key (or at least put in a chord that was out-of-key). So, either I went up a whole step in key, or played the ii as a major, however you want to look at it. This was only 4 counts, so I finished with 4 counts on the V from the original key.

 

For the choruses I started on the I again, but the lyrics went up in pitch so it's not obvious that the chords don't change. (Besides, I just came off a V, where else was I going to go if I wanted to keep things simple? ) Four counts then I went back to the V for four. Then I did another key change, but this time I went down a whole step. (!) So, I have no idea how to represent the chord in the original key (since the flatted 7th does not exist); in the new key it was just another I-V (so ends on the IV of the original key). For the 3rd line of the chorus, I had a hard time keeping the chords simple to fit the melody, so I settled for a IImaj-IV9-V that I crammed into 4 counts and let the V go for another 4.

 

I ended with an instrumental reprise of the chorus, because it felt like the song ended too abruptly if I just ended when the singing stopped. A time for people to reflect on all those words I just threw at them and let them soak in a bit with the feeling of the folksy chords.

 

I already have some ideas for a fuller arrangement, but haven't had time to pursue them.

 

In conclusion, I more or less did the Bill method of composing away from an instrument. It was just a piece of plain paper and pencil, and as I wrote the lyrics down I was cognizant of their rhythm. (I always worry more about rhythm than rhyme for some reason.) This lead to the melody which I vocalized as I finished writing the words so I could work on the prosody. I didn't actually write down the notes of the melody but kept them in my head. (Yeah, I know, dangerous place for me! ) The guitar was simply for support; if I could actually sing well the song would have worked a cappella.

[Eric VB]

BTW, how's the Christmas song coming along, Hugo?

[Hugo H]

Oh, I've been struggling to write

A Christmas song tonight...

 

And last night and several before it. Oddly enough, I've discovered something while messing around with the concept. If I use two fingers to play a melody (two notes at a time), I come out with what I think of as a contemporary-sounding Christmas song. It seems that it leads to a natural dissonance, perhaps a somewhat jazzy sound, but more like a jangly sound I think. I'd write out what I mean but I left the papers downstairs at the piano and I'm too lazy to go get'm. Maybe later. But it's not the sound I'm looking for at all. The usual modern song never seems joyous enough. Perhaps it's a quality we've lost the appreciation for, or perhaps our culture has grown too sophisticated in its tastes to explore the notion.

 

That goes along with something I've noticed before: an relative lack of happy, upbeat songs. Unless you listen to children's music. Do you think we're too grown up? Or simply too weighed down?

 

Ric, you've posted an awful lot of interesting stuff. I wish we could sit down and just talk about it all. I'd enjoy it. It's a shame so few people are around to read and appreciate it! Each time I've popped in here for a second I've ended up reading what you've written and simply haven't had the time to respond in full.

 

For example, reading about your quick tune and how the rhymes didn't quite work made me want to sit and write a bit about family rhymes and how they're just as good as perfect rhymes.. well, at least sometimes, when sung especially. And, of course, there's the challenge of finding them and what software exists to help.

 

Your thoughts have not gone unnoticed.

 

But time is short of late and other things get priority. Like trying to get my grand piano mic'd properly using the equipment on-hand. It's been a major pain and I really want to get it done just so I can get on with writing some stuff. Like a Christmas song

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by Hugo H:

It's a shame so few people are around to read and appreciate it!

Build it, and they will come. This is the musical field of dreams.

 

Seriously, there are plenty that lurk and don't post. (Nothing wrong with that, but no reason to be shy around here.) And there are those like me that googled their way here. The more interesting the content, the more hits you'll eventually generate.

 

Read some more Al and Joel last night (If They Ask You, You Can Write a Song). They mentioned holiday songs and their potential to be perennial standards.

 

This discussion on the LowDown about holiday covers is pretty interesting, too. I don't think everything listed made it to the radio station playlist that's playing all Christmas tunes for the season.

 

I had an idea for a Christmas song a day or two ago, but I didn't have paper and pencil handy so I didn't write it down. It's probably gone now, though I remember the main lyrical theme I wanted to use. Sometimes that's enough to pull it back up (or at least something similar).