Song Structure

[Spiritinthesky2k]

Does anyone know of any good free websites that can teach me a little bit about song structure?
I keep getting pay sites when I search. :mad:

[Nat Stratcat]

Good question Spirit - I'm interested in this too. :thumbsup:

[retromal]

I too would be intersted in this one..

the only site that I know off is a couple of yahoo groups

Songwriterstipjar and

THE_SONGWRITERS

but they are more for the lyrics side of things but worth a look..

Mal

[Bytor1975]

I don't have any links to add that I have in my favorites. I did some google searching just to see what I could come up with and it was pretty weak. It seems like it was either guitar lessons (I think you guys already know what power chords are, right? LOL), lesson DVD/Books to buy, subscription sites, or colleges like Berklee School of Music.

So I guess I got nothin'.

[rezamozaffarinia]

Hey Spirit.what do you mean exactly by song structure?
forms?
eg. Verse-chorus forms, Theme form , 12, 18 or 32 bar forms?

[Spiritinthesky2k]

Hey Spirit.what do you mean exactly by song structure?
forms?
eg. Verse-chorus forms, Theme form , 12, 18 or 32 bar forms?Since I have no idea about song structure I guess I mean all of it. :)

[leivaspelund]

I've learned a lot about structure just by studying songs. Not just listen to them, but really ask myself what's happening here, why does this sound good, why is there a solo here etc.

I know this isn't exactly what you wanted though.

[ldelo]

Disclaimer: This is all from memory with no review and it's been a long time since I studied a lot of this. If I err, I'd appreciate correction but without flames or insults or whatnot...

That being said...

Based on the little theory I've studied and retained, a lot of it has to do with chord scales.

That is, just as there are sets of notes that go together well (are not dissonant) and all "fit" with (are not dissonant with) a set of chords that can be played underneath them, so too are there chord scales.

I can't rememember all the details, but the classic example is based on the major scale. The chord based on the tonic (1 tone) is the major chord.

If you try to construct a chord whose root is the 2nd tone in the major scale using only tones from that same major scale, you end up with a minor. I believe it's the same with the chord based on the 3rd tone in the scale.

So on and so forth on up the scale. I believe the fourth and fifth end up being majors as well, but can't rememember what all the chords end up being.

However, I think you get the idea. It's similar to the way that modes are built up from a single scale.

That's also where the relative minor comes from: It has the same notes as the root tonic major scale, and thus sounds "good" played in a chord scale with the tonic major. The relative minor is the minor whose root tone is a minor third (is that right, three frets?) down from the root tone of the chord scale.

So, as long as you play just those chords and just notes from the same major scale over the top for melodic tones, then the whole thing will "fit" in the sense that there's no dissonant tones and no fully "outside" stuff. It will also sound rather dull to our modern ears...

Similar chord scales can be constructed for nearly any scale that you can come up with, though I'd imagine some/many of the chord scales constructed by formula in this way might not be all that appealing aurally.

That's one of the things that makes the "blue note" so magical... I believe it's the flatted fifth... Anyway, it's completely "outside" in the sense that it doesn't really fit the scale structure, yet it does not sound completely dissonant to the ear. It's just that it kind of sticks out aurally and also strongly wants to resolve up or down to the 4th or 5th (or whatever the scale tones above/below it are.)

For the same reason 7th and 9th chords are also popular... They have extra notes that are not typical for the basic chord, and therefore sound (aurally) slightly outside and generally want to resolve to something else. For that reason they work very well in strongly rythmic repetitive song structures, like the blues. You just keep going round and round that very simple chord structure, and every chord is never really "home" and always wants to resolve to the next chord, which wants to resolve to the next, which wants to resolve to the next... It simultaneously gives the song tension and motion, simple and repetitive as it is in theoretical terms...

Beyond that, most songs are constructed of two or more chord scales that are related to each other but different. Each one is composed of a repeating pattern that typically underlies the verse (vocals) or repetitive/slightly varying melody (in instrumentals), and then the song shifts to one or more other chord scales for refrains, "turnarounds", bridges, and the like.

The whole thing is generally fit into a pattern that is rythmical and repetitive but not strictly so.

Looked at in this light, a typical song might go something like this: Repeat this first chord scale three times (during the melody or verses), then this second chord scale (typically only once, a turnaround etc), then the first chord scale three more times (more melody or verses), then a pause (for effect) and then we blast through this third chord scale twice for the solos, which crescendo to one last note.... Then we play the first chord scale one last time...

That's not based on any song in particular and I'm also not saying that any song actually follows that exact pattern or that it would even sound good. I just made that up to kind of illustrate the point.

The classic such pattern is the 1-4-5 blues pattern:
1...4...
1...4...
1...4..5..4..1

There are similar patterns (some much more complex, but patterns nonetheless) that are very common in nearly all forms of popular music (folk, blues, rock, country, jazz, etc.)

Jazz tends to be more complex, with the chord scales (and ergo the solo/melodic/vocal scales) being more complex. Plus jazz artists tend to play more "outside" and less strictly "by the rules".

BTW, by "outside" I'm referring to chords/scales/tones that are technically "wrong" in terms of strict theory. That is, they don't fit in terms of the raw mathematics of music theory, in terms of music a computer can be programmed to automagically generate, and also in terms of the syrupy folk/pop/easy-listening/elevator/etc music that is designed to be background or soothing or whatever music.

There are always at least *some* such notes/tones/chords available in any song's structure that while technically "wrong" or "outside" the theoretical structure, they none the less are also not fully dissonant and if anything they "stick out" aurally and generally also want to resolve strongly back into the more formal structure, creating both tension and motion.

Well, short of going to review a lot of theory around the web and some books and cogitating for a while to try to dredge more of this up from long-term memory, that's what I can put together in a sitting with no forethought.

I'll think about this and see if I can come up with some references for typical song structure in terms of these types of ideas.

BTW, it's kind of nice to jam/practice/play with folks who think fully in such terms. So that for example instead of saying "We're playing this or that blues song and it goes A-D-A...", you can instead say "It's a classic blues 1-4-5 in A, watch me for the turnaround and keep it tight and slightly upbeat..." I imagine that a lot of the people on this board, being performers or at least having gigged etc at one time, think a lot in such terms even if they don't communicate it verbally and in so many words. Certainly it would help one to be able to do so...

Oh, and a few other things...

The power chord is technically neither a major nor a minor, since it contains no third (in the former case) or flatted third (in the latter.) It's just the root tonic, the fifth (which both the major and minor also contain) and the octave of the root (or the 8th tone in the scale.)

Because of this a power chord kind of exists in some netherworld but can be substituted for either, particularly if ones' audience is not terribly discerning and as long as it is not just plain dissonant.

And because of those characteristics of the power chord, entire songs can be built around it without much regard to (chord) scale structure. There are bands that have pretty much built entire careers around the power chord.

Also, a lot of this kind of gets fuzzy when played as high-gain stuff (pun intended.)

First of all, the subleties of complex chord and - to a lesser extent - scale structure is basically obscured by all the harmonic content.

However, the harmonic content of high-gain (distorted) sounds are based solely on frequencies and, well, harmonics, and therefore do not necessarily fit into chord/scale structures. This is particularly true of chords... If 4-6 tones (dissonant or not) are all played simultaneously along with the boatloads of harmonic content of each note, the combination just starts to sound muddy.

That's why a lot of high-gain stuff relies on (drum roll, please) the power chord. There's only three notes in the chord, two of which are octaves of each other (and ergo whose harmonics all line up nicely), and there's also not that pesky third in there with harmonics that might not fit well with the tones of the scale/chord. That's particularly true of minors, ninths, etc etc.

There are of course exceptions to every rule and a lot of music is about learning where/when/how to "paint outside the lines" (be creative, play "outside" stuff, don't follow the unwashed masses) *without* it becoming fully dissonant or disorganized or whatever...

[ldelo]

I'm kind of surprised no one has either added to this or corrected me...

Having thought about this for a few days...

There are some pretty good (but dry as desert sand) references out there that are nothing more than hundreds, if not thousands of pages of listings of different keys (root tonic + scale, i.e. d#m7, etc) and the basic chords built up on that choice of key (root tonic + scale.)

It might be interesting to get such a book, choose a key, and just start basically throwing darts at the pages and seeing what combinations of chords go well in what order.

One might come up with something nice. Somewhere I have a couple pages of chord charts I made up for songs that I arrived at through a similar process (I was taking classes from a jazz git player who also had an advanced degree in music, mostly theory.)

In general (but with a gazillion exceptions) chords based on the root tonic, the minor third, the fourth, the fifth, and the tone 3 half tones down from the tonic (the sixth I guess) generally fit well together one way or another. I might be wrong on some of those.

Finally, there are analogies for the same types of considerations in terms of scales.

For example, modes can be interesting. Some of them sound kind of odd to most ears, but some of them can be gold mines of "outside" stuff that is not dissonant or just plain goofey sounding.

Just as some artists have made a career out of the power chord (or perhaps other more complex patterns), so too can one make a career out of modes.

Whether consciously or whatever, Carlos Santana relies on a couple modes, though I've long since forgotten which ones in particular.

[The Moog]

OK. The best advice is to go the way of theory, and get your head around Major scale modes. Invaluable! Or you could trawl the known net and find stuff like this. I thought it was a piece of fun....but you know what, it sparks your imagination for chord progs without having to hit the books....check it out
http://www.hotfrets.com/songanator.asp

[Jossy]

OK. The best advice is to go the way of theory, and get your head around Major scale modes. Invaluable! Or you could trawl the known net and find stuff like this. I thought it was a piece of fun....but you know what, it sparks your imagination for chord progs without having to hit the books....check it out
http://www.hotfrets.com/songanator.asp

Nice link, thanks! :thumbsup:

Saludos.

[ldelo]

If one really wants to understand how songs are put together, I don't think there's any way around theory.

It is after all both the mathematical underpinnings of all western music AND the only way to deterministically and rationally (in the academic sense, not in a polemic sense) explain what makes songs "work". It is the essence of the art stripped of all the variations in tonality and nuances and so on and reduced to it's fundamental elements and commonalities.

That doesn't mean that one needs a college degree or beyond or that one needs to make an obtuse academic study of it.

Learn your basic scales, get books on common riffs and licks, learn all the standard chords, practice, play, jam, play out, whatever...

But if you want to know how to create music out of thin air, you pretty much have to depend on tons of experience and talent and practice, or at some point you'll have to attack the problem with your mind (or for best results, both.)

It really isn't all that complex or difficult. The toughest thing I've found with music theory is finding resources that are geared towards the practical and towards simply putting songs together, as opposed to building layer upon layer of dry theory just for the sake of doing so (much like one does in s science.)

I wish I could recommend some more approachable resources, but as I said in *my* search what i've found most difficult is finding approachable, "blue collar" (for lack of a better term) resources.

It seems that many of the folks who've studied enough theory to be able to see through it all clearly and then turn around and reduce it to a simpler, more approachable body of work, instead fall prey to a form of intellectual elitism and turn it into some obtuse mental exercise.

I don't mean to denigrate or impune anyone who has made the commitment to learn theory that thoroughly, nor am I saying such resources don't exist. But at the same time that has been my experience.

Now that I think of it, you might try looking for songwriters resources in your local library. At the level we're talking about, the same concepts (theory) apply regardless of style, there might be some generic, approachable resources out there written for the more general songwriters' market (particular jingle/theme writers, professional writers who write for artists, etc.)

[WireNWood]

To me the term "song structure" does not refer to basic theory. harmonization, or chord prog. I interpreted the question to be about song roadmaps....

AABA,

ABABCAB

verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge ... DC al coda ...

void where prohibited, licensed drivers only...

your mileage may vary, professional driver on closed course, etc...

[ldelo]

Not to nitpick, but aren't we basically saying the same thing in so many words??

I'm asking out of a desire for clarity and understanding, not to be contrarian.

To my mind, to say that there's a roadmap implies that there's some kind of structure that underlies it all, some kind of topology that can be grasped. Maybe that's because of my training and choice of profession...

For insstance, taken out of a particular key, the chord progressions you list would be:
1-1-2-1
1-2-1-2-3b-1-2

Even just listing them in this form both implies and relies on the underlying theory...

Knowing why those chords go together in at least a limited sense allows one to choose from a broader palette (spelling?) and make up their own.

Ditto with the alternations of verse chorus verse chorus etc, thost are the repititions of related chord progressions I was discussing.

I believe what you're saying though is that at some level/point you don't need theory and can simply either "borrow" (for lack of a better term) song structures from previous work, perhaps modify it (by ear if that's ones' technique), or just make things up from whole cloth by ear.

That certainly works and a whole lot of music has been written that way.

One does not preclude the other and understanding theory is not a prerequisite to playing music. Personally I'd argue that it helps greatly and can greatly expand ones' palette, but that's just my opinion...

And again, even with music created from whole cloth by ear, when you get right down to it almost always fits into the same theoretical framework and the song structure can be easily understood in theoretical terms.

In any event, it's all good and I don't mean to nitpick or whatever...

[WireNWood]

Me?


I dunno. Nevermind.


:)

[ldelo]

Me?


I dunno. Nevermind.


:)
The site insists I enter a message here, so here's a message...

:lol:

[ldelo]

BTW. I just stumbled on this (it talks about constructing melodies.)

It's on some goofey music schools' blog. You have to scroll down to the bottom of the page and start scanning from the bottom up.

http://www.44school.com/blog/

I'm not necessarily recommending this, as I've not had time to grok it.

But I stumbled onto it and it's at least superficially relevant.

[stratcat51]

.....had time to grok it.....

STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND.........great book! The word "grok" has kinda worked it's way into the American vocabulary.

[ldelo]

And someone else even knows what it means! :hat-man:

My all time fave Heinlein book is 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', what a story line!