Song Structure
Written by Dan on June 1, 2009
Home >> Editorials >> Song Structure
  • Share
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Pownce
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
 
PrintPrint

Something very unusual happened to me over Memorial Day weekend… I heard the radio. Despite the lengthy period of time since I last heard the radio for longer than a few seconds, I actually recognized quite a few songs. Some of that has to do with the radio playing in various public places, but this is mostly because there were a few covers being played. I thought it was particularly funny hearing Ozzy Ozzbourne cover… Ozzy Ozzbourne (technically a Black Sabbath cover I suppose). Aside from the plethora of covers/sampling on the radio, I had a more profound observation. This is perhaps the root of what separates mainstream from what I’d like to call quality music; and that is song structure.

You can get the same effect by going into iTunes, searching for any mainstream band, and perusing the “Listeners also bought”.  You’ll hear the same things over and over.  What I heard over the holiday weekend was pieces of bands I’ve been listening to for years, mutilated and forced into some kind of radio friendly algorithm. This isn’t exactly a revelation. So many of us hear this already. But I noticed something slightly different. Many of the subtle details that defined the hardcore punk and heavy metal genres are being used frequently in mainstream rock. I heard more lead-ins and a sense of spontaneity in at least one of the band members from time to time. I heard faster riffs and more obscure sound effects.  I even heard snippets of songs that actually take talent to play. Effectively, what I heard was actually a good seed for music. The reason it was mainstream was that it had a very simple song structure; the usual verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus routine. But as Dana Carvey once said, “You cannot pee in a Mr. Coffee and get Taster’s Choice.”

A big gripe with mainstream music is originality. I actually think that argument is moot. I’m not entirely sure how to quantify the originality of music (unless of course you rip off “…the same rhythm, tempo, melody, and key”). Perhaps I’m a purist, but I think difference between mainstream music and quality music is the creative process behind the music. It seems anyone can come up with a couple riffs, play them one after another, repeat, and maybe play one of the riffs softer. There is an art in writing good music, not a filtration system. A telltale sign that an artist realizes this is the variation in song lengths. An album of tracks all roughly 3 - 4 minutes probably lacks some structural creativity. If you allow the music to write itself, you simply won’t have a 3 - 4 minute song every time.

It doesn’t make sense to force two parts of a song together that don’t necessarily fit. Sometimes it needs additional work to make an appropriate transition and sometimes the pieces just aren’t meant to be in the same song. The real heart of this argument applies to more than just music; it even applies to literature, movies, etc. For example, doesn’t it irk you when you watch a movie and it doesn’t explain how one character has unlimited ammunition, and no one else does? Or how about when Daniel Faraday knew how to calculate the bearing to get to The Island before he even got there which cured his drifting mind (Damn you J.J. Abrams!). It’s the same thing in music. You’ve got to explain how you got from point A to point B. On the same token, you don’t want everything completely spelled out for you. That said, it’s nice to have enough faith that the answers to your questions are there whether you catch them the first time or not. This is exactly the same for music. I despise Law & Order because it’s entirely predictable, and I loathe mainstream music for the same reason. By the way, Robot Chicken did a spoof that brilliantly depicts how nearly every episode goes (embedded at the bottom of this article).

For the sake of being explicit, I feel song structure is as important as sonic development and maybe even the music itself. I’m also not saying that the more complicated of a song structure the better. For example, one of my favorite bands, Demians, has a song called Shine. This song effectively only has two parts… and the first is not played again after the second. A song that simply goes from A to B and nowhere else. It’s so simple that this may seem obvious to someone who has never written music. But it’s easy to get in a mind set of having to repeat pieces of your song because nearly every other song does that.  Another example, the seventh track, Empire, from that same album has a few measure loop playing over and over throughout the entire song… even through the verse, chorus, peaks, and quite moments.  What makes it so amazing, in my opinion, is that it’s subtle.  You could have heard that song a hundred times and not noticed because it all fits. So it’s not that song structures need to be complicated, the writer just needs to be creative and let the music breathe a little. And the moral of the story, I might be more inclined to tune into the radio again if the mainstream rock artists picked up on this.

 

Music all too often falls into the same trap as Law & Order… using the same formula over and over.


Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    "Lost" SpoilAr FTL Sadfayce....
    • ^
    • v
    I think this is fantastic and dead on. I am a professional bassist who has played music outside the Philadelphia area for over 20 years and I wish music audiences would wake up from the "spoon fed" mentailty. I'm thinking of an Ozzy Osbourne line, "the media sells it and you play the role". There's a consumer based reason why formulaic music works - it's because "the masses" actually favor it. My experience says that no matter whether I'm playing in a top notch band or subbing for a much lower quality act, "All Summer Long/Sweet Home Alabama" always works not so for original music or genuinely creative covers, which is a great risk. Most often you'll get blank stares from most albeit a great response from a few genuinely energized patrons. Economically it's a tough choice knowing that the band can be fed on the same old sets but likely live very lean on "outside mainstream" music. I am not arguing this is necessarily the fault of the spoon-fed masses - the onus of responsibility is on original bands to create inspiring enough music and performances to break people out of their routines, so the music has to be not only creative, but MOVING (as in move people out of their houses for a Tues eve show). Sadly, the execution of the Mon-Wed eve original bands is often below par to that of the Thurs-Sat the cover bands, serving to dilute the interest in original music even further. The music consumer wants value for money - and generally they get it on the live music scene with very good cover bands. Bands that contribute something new to music, such as The Dave Matthews Band, often have to pay a high price - living poorly for years on end before enough of a "snowball" in audience support catapults them to self-sustainability. I think there's a basic mechanism of human nature at the root of this: in general, people like "familiarity" - it's safe and comfortable to know what to expect. Fewer people - and the ones I admire more - aren't afraid to give something strage a relisten or risk going to a club not knowing what to expect. The main point is that, sadly, the economics are on the side of the same old stale formulas. To the musicians out there, I ask "what are you willing to give up for your art?"
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Tom! Thanks for the feedback. I'd say I'm about 99% on board with what you're saying. Actually, I think everything you've said is right, but there's something about the mass consumers that gravitate towards familiarity we could add. These type of listeners often don't know what they're listening to, and I think bands could compromise a little bit without the masses catching on necessarily (or maybe even get inspired to find more music). There are certainly bands out there that play mainstream music and are very much artistically inclined. It's just easier to crank out the mainstream without bothering with the artistic side so much. I will almost certainly be made fun of for this, but you know what... Toto is an example of this. This band is very much pop music, but if you listen carefully, they're actually great musicians. Even though I'm relatively young (and certainly wasn't around for it), but the mainstream rock music from the 60's, 70's, and even some of the 80's had much more talent than the mainstream rock out now. I feel like the music industry is turning more and more into a bi-partisan entity... it's almost like escalation. Internet has given the gift of music to more people than ever, pulling in more and more people into the mainsteam. Trying to counter this, there's more and more artistic and unique music coming out. On the surface this doesn't seem so bad, but the problem is this creativity gets drowned out and doesn't reach the audience it really deserves. On the bright side, for those that actually take initiative, it's easier than ever to find amazing new music.

    I guess the short of it is that I think mainstream musicians could incorporate subtle creativity that doesn't push away the masses but is enough to intrigue more eclectic listeners.
    • ^
    • v
    Dan - I'm quite impressed that their was no snide comment in reply to the DMB reference! haha....
    • ^
    • v
    Really? I actually like a lot of DMB. I even mentioned Carter Beauford
    in my drumming editorial. That said, I don't much care for the bulk of
    their following.
    • ^
    • v
    Ah, I think I must have inferred some misc comment about "their following" as directed towards the band. I stand corrected (and also like a good bit of DMB stuff too!)
    • ^
    • v
    1st paragraph: I refuse to believe that you only recently made this "profound observation" as to what separates quality music from most radio stuff.

    3rd paragraph: I agree with every single word! Without hearing a single audio clip, I am immediately turned off if an album has a suspiciously low variation in song lengths.

    4th paragraph: I don't think it's entirely fair to compare radio to television in this way. My point is that a song can still get plenty of radio play even if it doesn't fit the standard mold of a ~3 min. track (Stairway To Heaven and Freebird are two blatant examples). Due to the format that networks impose on tv shows however, every episode MUST be ~22 or ~44 minutes in length. This inherently puts a restriction on tv shows that doesn't exist for songs on the radio. That being said, there's probably not a good reason why every episode must tell a complete story... 'to be continued's don't happen nearly enough in my estimation.
    For example, House is one of my favorite tv shows because of the witty banter, acting, and drama. However I know that roughly 95% of the time, sure enough House figures out exactly what's wrong with the patient when there's about 4 minutes left in the show. Not coincidentally, I think my favorite episode was the 2-part season finale last year. The extended length allowed for a more creative and well-developed story line, plus *SPOILER ALERT* someone actually died at the end (gasp!).

    final paragraph: I'm glad you explicitly stated that a more complicated structure doesn't necessarily imply a better song - sometimes simplicity rules!
    • ^
    • v
    1st paragraph: If I had made that specific observation before, it was subconscious.

    4th: I didn't mean to imply time had anything to do with the connection to other media. The connection I meant to make was that predictability (particularly of the structure, aka the Mr. Coffee effect) of songs, movies, tv shows, etc, is like the scratching of a chalk board. I guess I could have done a better job have making a clearer distinction between the points made in paragraph 3 and 4.

    Brian: I'm prepared to bring ear plugs next time I come.

    Mike: House? psh... What ever free time you have away from the site should be spent watching The Wire!
    • ^
    • v
    If ever all my free time is spent watching ANY television show (or combination thereof), remind me to shoot myself! Although actually, I am reminded of that week in which I watched every episode of Futurama... that wasn't so bad.
    • ^
    • v
    The N.I.B cover you heard is actually from Primus off of the Nativity in Black II tribute album http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_in_Black_II - and for the record, I totally hate any and every version of that horrible song. I'm sorry I subjected you to that specific song.

    And next time you come to my patio, instead of Octane on Sirius...I'm going to play all Elvis 24x7 and make you listen to it till your ears bleed!
 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus