Non-standard song structures......

[tamoore]

For a lot of pop music, I see this something similar to this structure....

 

Verse

Chorus

Verse

Chorus

Bridge

Solo

Chorus

Chorus

 

I believe this is done to keep the hook in front of the listener. In this format, the chorus is pretty evenly distributed throughout the song.

 

I've just finished recording a song where the structure is like this;

 

Verse

Pre-chorus

Verse

Pre-chorus

Chorus

Solo

Bridge

Modulation +1 step

Chorus

Chorus

 

The pre-chorus I use as a teaser, because it contains the 'hook', but the real chorus doesn't find it's way into the song until it's almost half way over. The pre-chorus is repeated after the chorus as kind of a 'post chorus' also, so even though the pre-chorus doesn't appear in the song until after the second verse, the theme is still there consistently in the song. Also note that there is only one full chorus at the standard key, and the other two are modulated.

 

So, there aren't many things that are the 'same' in this song. It's pretty much changing at every step, however 'the hook' theme is pretty much running consistently through the piece. My question is; Can songs that don't follow the 'established' path for pop music still be engaging for the listener, just due to the variation? Can you think of popular songs by other artists that don't conform to the VCVCVC structure?

 

Also, Chicken Monkey commented once that in his head, after the guitar solo - that's it. No other new info is coming... How realistic is that? I generally decide to put a (short) interlude break in the middle of the song (sometimes before the bridge, or even before the last verse), and not at the end where convention has normally placed such things. What is the danger of doing this? Can the interlude actually lose the listener?

 

A wonderful fellow forumite from Guitar Jam has graciously agreed do some lead work on this song for me, and when he's done and the song is finished, I'll post it here for your review.

 

Thanks for thinking about this... Song Structure and arrangement is something I'm focusing on right now.

[eeglug]

I think it all depends on your material. I actually find myself gravitating unconsciously to standard structures a lot but would like to depart further away from them. I think it's a great thing if you can get a non-standard structure to work. Can't wait to hear your tune!

 

There are many songs with weird structures. Two of my fave Beatle songs are like this - "You Never Give Me Your Money" and "Happiness Is A Warm Gun". It's arguable whether either actually has a chorus or not. Radiohead's 'Paranoid Android' is also another strange one (I think I've read somewhere they were inspired by Happiness Is A Warm Gun).

 

McCartney's Band on the Run has a fairly standard song structure with a prechorus and chorus but it has an opening section before that standard structure, which pushes the first prechorus out to about 2:30, just about halfway through the whole song - a long time to wait for a chorus.

 

There are many songs that stack two verses before the first chorus is heard - like The Beatles 'Come Together'.

 

There's stuff like "Bohemian Rhapsody" - won't even bother to work out what's happening in that! "Stairway To Heaven" is another. Actually Led Zep have a lot of weird song structures...but their appeal might be more in their overall sound and their use of riffs to pull the listener in as opposed to song structure.

 

Yes' 20 minute-ish Close To The Edge is like a song stretched way way out but to me it still 'reads' as a song, complete with catchy choruses.

 

I think I've read somewhere that song structure as we know it was influenced by the amount of music that could fit on a 78 rpm record way back in the early days of sound production...since I wasn't around back then I'm not sure how true this is.

 

 

Also, Chicken Monkey commented once that in his head, after the guitar solo - that's it.

 

 

I don't really buy this but there are so many songs that tend to follow this rule that it's hard to find exceptions. One not-so-great example is "Another Nail In My Heart" by Squeeze, which puts the guitar solo immediately after the first chorus - I find it a little awkward structurally, I must say. A better song by Squeeze is "Pulling Mussels From A Shell" which has an instrumental break followed by one more V/C and I think that one works fine.

[Chicken Monkey]

 

I don't really buy this but there are so many songs that tend to follow this rule that it's hard to find exceptions. One not-so-great example is "Another Nail In My Heart" by Squeeze, which puts the guitar solo immediately after the first chorus - I find it a little awkward structurally, I must say. A better song by Squeeze is "Pulling Mussels From A Shell" which has an instrumental break followed by one more V/C and I think that one works fine.

 

 

I hope I made it clear that this was my personal expectation, not one of my "rules" for songwriting, but you're right--there aren't many exceptions. In pop, anyway. Blues and bluegrass might throw a break in after every verse/chorus.

 

The question that it raises for me, though, is: What is the point of a guitar solo? Again if we're talking strictly pop, I'd suggest that the purpose is to continue to develop the song musically when there is no more development to be done lyrically.

[eeglug]

 

a guitar solo...the purpose is to continue to develop the song musically when there is no more development to be done lyrically.

 

 

I think a good solo ought to be part of the overall development and not separated out sequentially as you propose...unless I've misinterpreted what you mean. If something terrible happens in verse 3, a solo preceding it can deepen the impact.

 

'Taxman' is a case where the solo makes visceral the hostile feelings expressed in the lyrics...

 

Many songs (pop or otherwise) just use the solo as a diversion tactic to break up the monotony of repeating V/C's.

[Chicken Monkey]

 

I think a good solo ought to be part of the overall development and not separated out sequentially as you propose...unless I've misinterpreted what you mean. If something terrible happens in verse 3, a solo preceding it can deepen the impact. 'Taxman' is a case where the solo makes visceral the hostile feelings expressed in the lyrics... Many songs (pop or otherwise) just use the solo as a diversion tactic to break up the monotony of repeating V/C's.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand the first part--it has to separated out sequentially. You can't have a guitar solo and a verse at the same time. I can't call the Taxman solo to mind w/out running downstairs for the CD, but it sounds like an example of using a solo to advance a song without further lyrics.

 

I've got to bend on my previous statement, though. I was thinking strictly early-to-mid Beatles/Motown based pop music. A broader definition of pop (that included Skynyrd, Clapton, etc.) would bring in a number of other purposes for a solo.

 

Your last statement, I think, is just the negatively-framed version of my original purpose of a guitar solo. Your "breaking up the monotony" is my "developing the song musically by introducing new ideas".

[tamoore]

 

I hope I made it clear that this was my personal expectation, not one of my "rules" for songwriting, but you're right--there aren't many exceptions. In pop, anyway. Blues and bluegrass might throw a break in after every verse/chorus. The question that it raises for me, though, is: What is the point of a guitar solo? Again if we're talking strictly pop, I'd suggest that the purpose is to continue to develop the song musically when there is no more development to be done lyrically.

 

 

 

Yea, I was aware that this was your personal expectation, and nothing more.

I tend to think of a guitar solo/kbd solo/breakdown/ etc. as melodic/harmonic or rhythmic devices to bridge sections.. a Segue between related but somewhat separate musical ideas as it were. I tend to keep my interlude sections short - 2 to 4 bars, and I want them to go somewhere, and not just showcase some musical skill - however if both can happen, it's a plus.

[tamoore]

 

There are many songs with weird structures. Two of my fave Beatle songs are like this - "You Never Give Me Your Money" and "Happiness Is A Warm Gun". It's arguable whether either actually has a chorus or not. Radiohead's 'Paranoid Android' is also another strange one (I think I've read somewhere they were inspired by Happiness Is A Warm Gun). McCartney's Band on the Run has a fairly standard song structure with a prechorus and chorus but it has an opening section before that standard structure, which pushes the first prechorus out to about 2:30, just about halfway through the whole song - a long time to wait for a chorus. There are many songs that stack two verses before the first chorus is heard - like The Beatles 'Come Together'. There's stuff like "Bohemian Rhapsody" - won't even bother to work out what's happening in that! "Stairway To Heaven" is another. Actually Led Zep have a lot of weird song structures...but their appeal might be more in their overall sound and their use of riffs to pull the listener in as opposed to song structure. Yes' 20 minute-ish Close To The Edge is like a song stretched way way out but to me it still 'reads' as a song, complete with catchy choruses. I think I've read somewhere that song structure as we know it was influenced by the amount of music that could fit on a 78 rpm record way back in the early days of sound production...since I wasn't around back then I'm not sure how true this is. I don't really buy this but there are so many songs that tend to follow this rule that it's hard to find exceptions. One not-so-great example is "Another Nail In My Heart" by Squeeze, which puts the guitar solo immediately after the first chorus - I find it a little awkward structurally, I must say. A better song by Squeeze is "Pulling Mussels From A Shell" which has an instrumental break followed by one more V/C and I think that one works fine.

 

 

Thanks... A lot of great information here.. I'm going to check out some of the tracks you have here for more research!...

[eeglug]

 

This is my personal issue, but when I hear a guitar solo, I generally assume that there's no new information coming--like, you put that in after the verse, chorus, and bridge have been introduced. Maybe that's a personal thing, but I'm ready for a song to hit the chorus one more time, then get out once I hear the guitar solo.

 

 

So I guess what you're saying is that the most we will hear after a solo is another verse and chorus (maybe a bridge but not likely) and since we've already heard what they sound like, we can turn it off. If so, I think I understand what you mean and you're right that there are very few songs out there that add new structural elements after the solo. Well, if I got this wrong you can set me straight about what you're saying...

[eeglug]

Thanks... A lot of great information here

 

Anytime...have fun with it!

[mount trashmore]

I've been trying to do this as well. Believe it or not, I've just started writing songs this year for the first time in 10 years. Anytime...have fun with it!

 

interesting. I've never really thought about the purpose of the guitar solo in popular music. Mostly, I thought it was to rock the fuck out, but that's not really a structural characterization. I don't know much about pop soloing...if we're thinking of it as distinct from rock solos. Some of my favorite bands certainly don't always fit into chickenmonkey's preferred form, but these aren't the kinds of bands that I imagine chicken monkey enjoys. I'm thinking, in particular, of sonic youth, television maybe pavement. It seems like the solo is a perfect opportunity to explode the structure of the song, and then rebuild it. However, this sort of construction, deconstruction, construction process probably takes a bit longer than 3 minutes to be effective. I hate to say it, but I think what I'm taking about is "jam band" music. I don't like jam bands. Unless sonic youth and television are jam bands...and I guess there's a pretty good argument to be made--at least with sonic youth--that they are in fact a jam band.

[rsadasiv]

 

I don't like jam bands. Unless sonic youth and television are jam bands...and I guess there's a pretty good argument to be made--at least with sonic youth--that they are in fact a jam band.

 

 

The pejorative thing, to me at least, about jam bands is that they play songs which don't have any hooks - not that they play songs which don't have any structure. The reason that I like Sonic Youth and Pavement (and Television to a much smaller degree) is that although their songs do not have a traditional structure or musical arrangement they do have hooks. "Daydream Nation" came out when I was a college radio dj, and there was a spirited debate on the album comment sleeve about whether or not Sonic Youth was now a pop band. I certainly appreciated the hooks in "Daydream Nation" (and watching the riot break out after Sonic Youth opened for Public Enemy was a hoot), so I would have to say that when Sonic Youth are playing songs without hooks (~75% of their material IMHO) they are a jam band, but when they are playing songs with hooks (the 25% of their material that I love) they are a pop band.

 

So as far as non-standard song structures go, I'm fine with it so long as the hooks are catchy - no matter where they appear. And since tamoore is invariably catchy, I think he is pretty safe in this regard.

[eeglug]

I'm no jam band expert but SY, Television and Pavement are far from what I would call jam bands although they may share commonalities in how they structure their songs. The jam bands I've heard have at least a little (or perhaps very prominent) blues influence and generally are reverential to traditional musics, whereas these other bands are more about edge and leaving tradition behind.

 

Or you could say that their tradition is more like the Velvet Underground meeting Ascension-era Coltrane and Ornette Coleman and Eric Dolphy.

 

The lack of hooks angle is kinda interesting...that might explain why those jam bands haven't grabbed me much.

[Chicken Monkey]

 

So I guess what you're saying is that the most we will hear after a solo is another verse and chorus (maybe a bridge but not likely) and since we've already heard what they sound like, we can turn it off. If so, I think I understand what you mean and you're right that there are very few songs out there that add new structural elements after the solo. Well, if I got this wrong you can set me straight about what you're saying...

 

 

 

I'd even say that doing another verse would be a stretch, if only because 90% of guitar solos are played over the verse progression. But otherwise, I think that's exactly what I was saying.

As far as Sonic Youth et al, you'd be splitting hairs to say that they weren't jam bands. I think the only differences between these two sorts of jam bands are subcultural--fashion, attitudes, drugs of choice, etc.

 

trashmore, you've got me in a smaller box than I'd like to be in. I don't LOVE any of the three bands you mentioned, but I do have some Tom Verlaine solo LPs that I'm into, and I LOVE Richard Hell. tamoore and I seem to be barking up the same tree musically, albeit with drastically different results, in that we try to mak music that has a universally appealling sound with a hint of sickness in the lyrics (my opinion only, I haven't talked with tamoore on this). Because we building on a similar framework, I'm a little more comfortable applying "the rules" as I've discovered them.

[mount trashmore]

still thinking about things. just wanted to contest claim that most sonic youth songs aren't hooky. certainly, it seems that the extended jams are to a large extent hook free, but part of what makes that so effective is the catchiness of the material in which the jams are embedded. The hooks are what immediately attracted me to them when I was first exposed to their work...the first album I heard was Goo, so this probably had something to do with it. However, I think, in general, that sonic youth has some of the hookiest material around.