I don't have any trouble coming up with content that I like, but when it comes to putting parts together, or deciding where to go with a song, I find myself just sort of "following my nose". This leaves me doubtful about the quality of my craftsmanship. On one hand you can say, "If it sounds good and you like it, who cares?" On the other hand I can't help but think, "There should be a point to it. It's not art if you're just throwing stuff together without knowing why."
So what I'm really asking is, do you just follow your nose when it comes to song structure? Or do you have definite ideas about what you're trying to accomplish in a song, and how to employ song structure toward that end? Do you have any good tips about song structure?
Song Structure
-
- KVRist
- 499 posts since 11 Jul, 2004 from Southern California, USA
-
- KVRer
- 7 posts since 13 Jun, 2004 from Vancouver
Well, I think to a certain extent you have to follow your nose when it comes to music. But I think that there are some rules that should apply to help maintain the integrity of your original idea.
What type of music do you write?
My friends and I write very theatrical industrial-esque progressive rock. For us, we like to first conceptualize an idea for the entire album. After deciding on a basic theme we break each song into a "mood" that would help tie each song together to help portray that original theme.
From there, we break down each song into "segments" or "phases" where we write down the type of instrument used for the part, or, write down concepts for electronic sounds to be used AND what playing styles each of these individual instruments are played in (legato, pizzicato, stacatto.. etc.).
From there, someone writes an initial melody to portray the initial feeling of the song, and the layering and mastering and craziness ensues!!
Anyway, hope this helps a bit.
-X
What type of music do you write?
My friends and I write very theatrical industrial-esque progressive rock. For us, we like to first conceptualize an idea for the entire album. After deciding on a basic theme we break each song into a "mood" that would help tie each song together to help portray that original theme.
From there, we break down each song into "segments" or "phases" where we write down the type of instrument used for the part, or, write down concepts for electronic sounds to be used AND what playing styles each of these individual instruments are played in (legato, pizzicato, stacatto.. etc.).
From there, someone writes an initial melody to portray the initial feeling of the song, and the layering and mastering and craziness ensues!!
Anyway, hope this helps a bit.
-X
I am afraid of the fear. Isn't that scary?
-
- KVRAF
- 2217 posts since 15 Jul, 2003
it's likely too late for me to ever develop any real keyboard skills, so I've put considerable energy into chord progression and song structure.
i would recommend Rikky Rooksby's 'Songwriter's Sourcebook'. Since I worked my way through that book, I've picked up various 'fake' books and much that seemed random before now reveals the underlying structure. (Beatles, Grateful Dead, Carole King, Motown ,et al [I'm relatively old, so these references may not mean much, but a well crafted song structure is timeless. Saw Sonic Youth on Conan 'Late Night' the other day as a case in point])
may not apply equally to all forms of electronic music, but i'm in it for a bit of education and appreciation as well.
having said all that i still tend to follow my nose, it's just a lot easier now that I know what key I'm in and what the liklely and unlikely options are.
i would recommend Rikky Rooksby's 'Songwriter's Sourcebook'. Since I worked my way through that book, I've picked up various 'fake' books and much that seemed random before now reveals the underlying structure. (Beatles, Grateful Dead, Carole King, Motown ,et al [I'm relatively old, so these references may not mean much, but a well crafted song structure is timeless. Saw Sonic Youth on Conan 'Late Night' the other day as a case in point])
may not apply equally to all forms of electronic music, but i'm in it for a bit of education and appreciation as well.
having said all that i still tend to follow my nose, it's just a lot easier now that I know what key I'm in and what the liklely and unlikely options are.
-
- KVRAF
- 2401 posts since 29 Dec, 2002 from In the dark
It is never too late to develop keyboard skills. I only started playing keys for the last year and still can not play shit life, but when working with midi I can put a decent piece together (sometimes). Using keys is much faster and effective than using a mouse.
Song structures can have many forms. I have no official training in it, but for myself I would class it as a) formal structure, i.e. AACABAC (verse, chorus, bridge) type structure. There are as many variations as you can think of ways to put ABC in different orders. b) Free form where you just follow your nose the way you describe and c) Structured free format, typically used in movies, atonal or ambient music. i.e. the music does not have verse, chorus or repeated parts, but it follow a specific structure, sometimes telling a story, or develop into something.
Song structures can have many forms. I have no official training in it, but for myself I would class it as a) formal structure, i.e. AACABAC (verse, chorus, bridge) type structure. There are as many variations as you can think of ways to put ABC in different orders. b) Free form where you just follow your nose the way you describe and c) Structured free format, typically used in movies, atonal or ambient music. i.e. the music does not have verse, chorus or repeated parts, but it follow a specific structure, sometimes telling a story, or develop into something.
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
I take a fairly liberal approach to structure. The fundamental is that you must try to relay the internal logic within your piece to the listener. Known models are a quick way of doing that because they are like cliches, a common reference point that indicate meaning in an abbreviated form.
The basics a composer should start from are answering: what is your intent in composing a given piece; and what arethe internal relationships that you wish to emphasize.
Two examples of structure meaning two very different things:
Instinct is vital to composition, but you first need to be able to explain the point of a track to yourself.
Cheers,
Steve
The basics a composer should start from are answering: what is your intent in composing a given piece; and what arethe internal relationships that you wish to emphasize.
Two examples of structure meaning two very different things:
- Erik Satie's Vexations - the structure is based on repeating the exact same motif 840 times;
Autechre's Flutter from the Anti ep - the structure is based on never repeating the same rhythm motif.
Instinct is vital to composition, but you first need to be able to explain the point of a track to yourself.
Cheers,
Steve
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 499 posts since 11 Jul, 2004 from Southern California, USA
I agree. When developing a song you need to pluck a certain amount of material from the air, as it were.X wrote:Well, I think to a certain extent you have to follow your nose when it comes to music. But I think that there are some rules that should apply to help maintain the integrity of your original idea.
You might call it IDM.X also wrote:What type of music do you write?
I'm into using what I consider strange and underused timbres. That means less substractive synthesis and more of the freaky side of FM, AM, waveshaping, and some new algorithms I'm coding myself.
However, I want to give the listener something to listen to in addition to novel timbres, namely melody and harmony. So I want to render these timbres with catchy, harmonically simple, but rhythmically dense music.
That's where I think song structure comes in. Too little and you bore the listener. Too much and you lose the listener. The right balance should build tension and release it at a pace the listener is used to. It should change pace or mood to avoid becoming aggravating.
But how?
That seems like a step in the right direction because you get a handle on the structure before you need to think about the details of the music. This particular approach doesn't fully appeal to me, though, because the music that comes out of me feels really stale and uninspired when I'm trying to make it "fit" something.X finally wrote:My friends and I write very theatrical industrial-esque progressive rock. For us, we like to first conceptualize an idea for the entire album. After deciding on a basic theme we break each song into a "mood" that would help tie each song together to help portray that original theme.
From there, we break down each song into "segments" or "phases" where we write down the type of instrument used for the part, or, write down concepts for electronic sounds to be used AND what playing styles each of these individual instruments are played in (legato, pizzicato, stacatto.. etc.).
From there, someone writes an initial melody to portray the initial feeling of the song, and the layering and mastering and craziness ensues!!
Anyway, hope this helps a bit.
-X
-
- KVRist
- 216 posts since 10 Jan, 2003
Me, I have three main sources:
i) I've got fragments that I know will go together if I can ever make them meld
ii) I've got a rough plan of action (e.g. three verses, chorus and middle
iii) Off the cuff inspiration.
One track I did had a big build up to the chorus, but then I needed to drop it down to the next verse, so I wrote a bridging section. The bridging section could have gone two ways, so I used different versions for different verses. Then I noticed the bridging section music had a whole other side of it, so I ended up ditching the third verse and replacing it with a verse using the bridging section ideas. So the structure went from
V C V C V C
to
V C B V C B2 B3 C2
Neither particularly innovative nor traditional, but just a consequence of following the song through its construction stage and re-evaluating as you go.
i) I've got fragments that I know will go together if I can ever make them meld
ii) I've got a rough plan of action (e.g. three verses, chorus and middle
iii) Off the cuff inspiration.
One track I did had a big build up to the chorus, but then I needed to drop it down to the next verse, so I wrote a bridging section. The bridging section could have gone two ways, so I used different versions for different verses. Then I noticed the bridging section music had a whole other side of it, so I ended up ditching the third verse and replacing it with a verse using the bridging section ideas. So the structure went from
V C V C V C
to
V C B V C B2 B3 C2
Neither particularly innovative nor traditional, but just a consequence of following the song through its construction stage and re-evaluating as you go.
-
- KVRAF
- 2217 posts since 15 Jul, 2003
you know who's good at all this is mssr. donkey tugger. His songs in the cafe are always very well structured and reveal another point of song structure.
It's not just that ABABC stuff, but it's also the sense of dynamics when to add a layer, when to pull back. mssr tugger has that aspect down. just as a listener might begin to be able to predict, maybe ready to take some passage for granted, some sonic element is added or subtracted or changed up to keep the ears interested.
It's not just that ABABC stuff, but it's also the sense of dynamics when to add a layer, when to pull back. mssr tugger has that aspect down. just as a listener might begin to be able to predict, maybe ready to take some passage for granted, some sonic element is added or subtracted or changed up to keep the ears interested.
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 14312 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
Ahh cheers 
, all trial and error. 
Though after a bit you do get a feel for when to add/cut stuff. Really listening and dissecting one of yer fave songs can be quite instructive, if you listen to what each instrument is doing in each section, and how they build up and break down rto the next part.
Some good Sound on Sound articles here to;
http://www.soundonsound.com/index.php?s ... =arranging
, all trial and error. Though after a bit you do get a feel for when to add/cut stuff. Really listening and dissecting one of yer fave songs can be quite instructive, if you listen to what each instrument is doing in each section, and how they build up and break down rto the next part.
Some good Sound on Sound articles here to;
http://www.soundonsound.com/index.php?s ... =arranging
-
- KVRAF
- 1870 posts since 21 Feb, 2004 from somewhere! anywhere!
This is a very interesting thread, thanks for posting it as it's generated alot of insightful comments. On initially reading it I would have said follow your nose regardless, however reading the other posts has made me alittle more 'considerate'.
What I believe is 'following the nose' as you call it, is an artistic and creative right it's not a mistake in itself. As I see it, it's the errors of judgement that come after that cause the trouble ( I've made many - still do). I think this is where the comments made by shamann and x come in. Both make very valid points.
First, I'm actually crap at production but feel confident about composition, perhaps it's like mssr. donkey tugger says you develop a feel. For my part I aim to allow myself free rein, I always hope to avoid restrictions or preconceived notions (having an infant son running amok like a demented turtle helps enormously). But that's just the first part, it can generate vast quanties of stuff, good or otherwise, and often enough you get something that has written itself - or at least sufficient an idea to further suggest the bridges, dynamics etc that complete the piece.
Next for me comes the 'fashioning' - the cut and tuck, nailing bits on, giving it a good scrub and calling it a tune (there's a great Tom Waits quote about this - but I can't remember the exact words). Generally, I lack the skills to do the composition justice sonically, but almost anything worthwhile came from that initial stage and readily informs this second step.
I hope you can find faith in your nose, let us hear some of your work.
regards
What I believe is 'following the nose' as you call it, is an artistic and creative right it's not a mistake in itself. As I see it, it's the errors of judgement that come after that cause the trouble ( I've made many - still do). I think this is where the comments made by shamann and x come in. Both make very valid points.
First, I'm actually crap at production but feel confident about composition, perhaps it's like mssr. donkey tugger says you develop a feel. For my part I aim to allow myself free rein, I always hope to avoid restrictions or preconceived notions (having an infant son running amok like a demented turtle helps enormously). But that's just the first part, it can generate vast quanties of stuff, good or otherwise, and often enough you get something that has written itself - or at least sufficient an idea to further suggest the bridges, dynamics etc that complete the piece.
Next for me comes the 'fashioning' - the cut and tuck, nailing bits on, giving it a good scrub and calling it a tune (there's a great Tom Waits quote about this - but I can't remember the exact words). Generally, I lack the skills to do the composition justice sonically, but almost anything worthwhile came from that initial stage and readily informs this second step.
I hope you can find faith in your nose, let us hear some of your work.
regards
-
- KVRAF
- 2217 posts since 15 Jul, 2003
this weekend, I made the effort to upload a set of tunes on download.com, to take that next step in my commitment to all this -- in making available to other ears what I've been doing.
in doing that i listened to a random sampling of other selections up there and it seems almost anybody can put togther 4 - 8 bars of something I'll listen to.
It's really what happens after the melody or progression is established that really keeps me listening or not. The really good stuff tends to have a lot of subtle and not so subtle touches. It's the commitment to detail that separates out the real quality pieces, IMHO.
So I have to rethink a bit and break things down to composition, arrangement and production.
Kvr gets a thread every few weeks on mixing/mastering, but I don't think I've ever seen one on arranging. That sound on sound link from donkey tugger is really useful.
If nothing else it opens th eears to going back over well known and loved material and seeing how the real pros pulled it off.
in doing that i listened to a random sampling of other selections up there and it seems almost anybody can put togther 4 - 8 bars of something I'll listen to.
It's really what happens after the melody or progression is established that really keeps me listening or not. The really good stuff tends to have a lot of subtle and not so subtle touches. It's the commitment to detail that separates out the real quality pieces, IMHO.
So I have to rethink a bit and break things down to composition, arrangement and production.
Kvr gets a thread every few weeks on mixing/mastering, but I don't think I've ever seen one on arranging. That sound on sound link from donkey tugger is really useful.
If nothing else it opens th eears to going back over well known and loved material and seeing how the real pros pulled it off.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 499 posts since 11 Jul, 2004 from Southern California, USA
Forgive my American ignorance, but does that mean you think you sound somewhat stupid? You sound alright to me.knockman wrote:Just read my posting here yesterday. I sound like a right tosser.
As far as sharing my music goes, I really don't think I have anything worth sharing yet. I'll be sure to do it when I'm halfway proud of something, though.
-
- KVRist
- 450 posts since 2 Nov, 2003 from 'sunny' Gaylord, Michigan, USA
good thread, this. i wonder about structure sometimes, and have a hard time asking the right questions or advice because i don't always know the proper verbage.
of course, hee is where to learn
of course, hee is where to learn
i'd rather have a mullet than a comb-over.
fortunately, i have neither.
fortunately, i have neither.