Musical Forms - Do You Consciously Use Them?

[Subtonic]

You may already know about musical forms and structures, but how often do you consciously use them?

 

I think the last time I ever thought something like "Oh, that's Rondo!" or "The Recapitulation starts at measure 151" was when I was in a music class.

 

My music could probably benefit from some formal structure because I'm great at starting things, but not so much at finishing them. So I'm curious how often other people think about form when working on a new track, if at all.

 

A primer:

Musical Form on Wikipedia

[Beer Moth]

No.

Being aware of something doesn't mean you have to use it as a blueprint.

You do something and you are aware that it isn't "kosher" ....so what?

 

If you learn a language as a second language,the reality of usage is nothing like the correct form.

 

But knowing the (correct) form gives you a bloody good base from which to start.

 

Get your ability to recognise s#!+ together,and ignore it.

At least you know what you're doing.

 

Let go!

Use the farts!

 

 

Hic.

[David Nahmani]

Well I don't write classical music, so I'll never use Rondo or Symphony or Fugue forms, but yes, I always use form. Whether I am writing a song, and trying to find an intro, a verse, pre-chorus, chorus, bridge, hook, outro.... or whether I am writing a dance track, and I am looking for various sections, even though they may not have a name... I am trying to find a recipe that works for the song.

 

If I wrote a song just by stitching together a bunch of different parts, the results may become more experimental and original, but most probably less approachable. In fact, I have done that a few times. Here's an example: http://www.6ameternal.com/seentheworld.html - forget about radio airplay with that kind of song.

[dkgross]

I think it has a lot to do with your 'musical upbringing'.

 

I have no 'formal' training, other than piano lesssons from the time I was 5-16. Then I spent 20 years in a cover band picking parts off of records.

 

I do think in terms of into/vs/ch/etc...but I think more in terms of movement, emotion, progressions..getting from one mood to another... Sometimes I only have :10 to say everything and move to the next :10 of a commercial...sometimes I have a 2 minute cue.

 

it's funny...in all my years of doing this..I've honestly never just 'written for myself' ..there's always been a client/demand/deadline of some sort. Even with the production library stuff I write....I get direction (tho..vague and free-minded..)

 

"hey dave..write a few new-age tunes and a few funky things for the video editor to cut to'"

 

love that

[Beer Moth]

David,

just cos you doný know you're doin' it doesn't mean you aren't doin, it!

Which is perfectltly cool.

 

The Rondo form is an analysis with hindsight and as such is a tool for demonstration to students,...an example.

I always found form difficult because of the way in whitch it was described in the standard tomes.

In essence it is dead simple.

Your approach is probably the same,but with different nomenclature.

 

Section 1 = A

Section 2 is same as 1 = A

Section 3 is different= B

Section 4 is different again = C

 

ABA

 

ABACABA

etc

 

dig?

 

Bit like well organised Regions.

 

 

Dig?

 

Or am I pissed?

 

Hic!

[Orsanct]

Personally, I have to use some kind of structures to start with. When I just begin with a blank slate, so to speak, I tend to go all over the map. Once I get started however, I like to go where the music seems to want to go -- I try not to force it.

 

For me, I think of the traditional forms as basic dramatic templates. (Rondo, for example, presents new material while always coming back to the familiar. Sonata is a kind of protagonist/antagonist narrative that ultimately resolves. And so on.) At any rate, it's not the form that makes or breaks the music (12-bar blues, for example), it's what you DO with it!

[Subtonic]

I think things like forms and other ideas from music theory get a bad reputation for being set-in-stone rules, when really they just act as guidelines.

 

And they don't have to only apply to classical genres. On King Crimson's last album there's a track called Level 5 - basically opens up the album with heavy instrumental guitar rock. I'm pretty sure this is a sonata form, whether it was intended that way or not.

 

Even Every Breath You Take is in rondo form - at least according to this.

[sayenex]

good post,

 

I do use forms a lot when I write, most of the time consciously sometimes not.

but, I don't think there is anything wrong or "unoriginal" if you use a form.

 

I've studied forms in college (got a degree in classical guitar)

but I mainly work with pop/rock music and I think it's amazing how you can see people using the same forms in modern music as people did hundreds of years ago.

 

check it out:

Most songs that I hear today have this form:

(sections in parenthesis are optional)

 

(intro)

verse 1

(pre chorus)

Chorus

verse 2

(pre chorus)

Chorus

Bridge

(verse 3)

Chorus

(outro)

 

or in shorthand: v1, CH, v2, CH, BR, v3, CH

 

I compare this to a BASIC sonata form from back in the day:

 

(intro)

Theme 1

transition

Theme 2

Theme 1

transition

Theme 2

Development section

Theme 1

transition

Theme 2

closing section

 

or in shorthand: t1, t2, t1, t2, Devlopment, t1, t2

 

before you experts on form go crazy on my ass, I know that forms are a lot more complicated than what I have written, but if you look at it more from a distance, I think that Sonata form can be seen in so much of the music we here today.

 

breaking it down even more, would be like this:

A,B,A,B,C,A,B

 

A- in modern music is a verse, in classical it's theme 1

B- modern music is a chorus , classical it's theme 2

C- modern music is a bridge, classical music it's development section.

 

I love how the bridge and development section both serve the same purpose. basically, the listener has gotten bored of hearing the same thing twice in a row, so you need to mix it up. modern day bridges can be anything from a guitar solo, to really crazy key changes, and off the wall progressions to take the listener to a different place for a while.

 

development sections were basically used for the same purpose. they would go off on tangents skewing the melodies of the first 2 themes in different ways.

 

then when you repeat the A,B sections, it brings everything back.

 

I think there is something about that form that makes a lot of sense, maybe it's the fact that all of us have been hearing it for so long?

 

very cool.

 

anyway, fun post, I've been thinking about this a lot, but never have had anyone to talk about this to! yay

 

Evan

Edited October 3, 2007 by sayenex

[sayenex]

I think things like forms and other ideas from music theory get a bad reputation for being set-in-stone rules, when really they just act as guidelines.

 

And they don't have to only apply to classical genres. On King Crimson's last album there's a track called Level 5 - basically opens up the album with heavy instrumental guitar rock. I'm pretty sure this is a sonata form, whether it was intended that way or not.

 

Even Every Breath You Take is in rondo form - at least according to this.

 

HA! you just posted this as I was writing the post above. well, there ya go.

 

yes, I do think a lot people write a song, and it fits into a form, whether they know it or not

[Orsanct]

Some terrific and thoughtful posts here. Thanks.

 

One more quick thought. . . for those who might think that standard forms are the arbitrary delusions of music theory teachers (though some theory teachers may be delusional), remember that some forms have a history outside of music. Some are based on long-established literary or rhetorical forms. (Rondeau, for example.) That doesn't make 'em good or bad, but sometimes it's helpful to note that history gives us evidence that humans tend to respond more readily to certain forms.

 

Having said that, I'd hate to think that we're not always trying find ways to push the envelope. Yet, it's nice to know there are some tried and true models of musical architecture we can turn to, time and again.

[Orsanct]

or in shorthand: t1, t2, t1, t2, Devlopment, t1, t2

 

Actually, I think that's a fine way to sum it up. In the "for whatever it's worth" category, I would add one little component to any discussion of sonata form. (And there are exceptions to what I'm about to say.) There is an additional "dramatic" component driven by the fact that t1 and t2 in the exposition are in contrasting keys, while t1 and t2 in the recapitulation are reconciled into the same key.

 

To the untrained ear, this distinction is probably not easily detectable (unless there's, say, an alteration from major to minor -- or vice versa). Just the same, I think that reconciliation adds a certain symbolic underpinning (conflict --> resolution) to the sense of "return" at the end. At least that's my take on it.

[Kent Sandvik]

I personally think that Frank Zappa is a good example of a rock&roll hacker type who actually saw the light concerning learning more about orchestration and musical techniques in his early days, and the rest is history. --Kent

[sayenex]

Just the same, I think that reconciliation adds a certain symbolic underpinning (conflict --> resolution) to the sense of "return" at the end. At least that's my take on it.

 

agreed. I think that good music is basically, (conflict-> resolution) done right

 

there was a musical theorist we studied (forgive me I forget his name, it's been a couple years, OK) that said you can take any peice of music and whittle it down to I and V chords. where V is anything that represents unrest and I represents resolution. he would take huge complicated peices and analyze them just using I and V chords. a little basic perhaps, but I see his point.

 

I also read a good article about dance music. I used to hate dance/techno. especially when I was in college, and was a music snob. I was like "how can you call this music, it stays on the same chord for 36 bars?!"

 

but the article talked about how dance music creates conflict by building things up (you know the ol' snare hits on 8ths/ then 16ths/ then 32nds etc.) and then resolves it by getting back to the basic beat/theme.

 

I never listened to Dance music the same after that, and actually I love it now. of course you can't just create conflict by using the snare every time, so now it's interesting for me to try to listen to ways that people do this in all types of music. very cool.

 

how many times have we all heard someone strum the same chord on a guitar for like 16 bars. with a melody that doesn't change much? instantly boring. not enough conflict.

 

or what about crazy ass songs that are so edgy they never let you rest. I can think of about 5 modern classical peices that I despise right now. too much conflict.

 

anyway, it's all about balance I guess. geez. we should all write a book. the zen of music.

 

Evan

[dkgross]

ABACAB

 

I love Genesis. Even with Phil Collins.

 

 

[Kent Sandvik]

The creation and destruction of harmonic and 'statistical' tensions is essential to the maintenance of compositional drama. Any composition (or improvisation) which remains consistent and 'regular' throughout is, for me, equivalent to watching a movie with only 'good guys' in it, or eating cottage cheese.

 

* The Real Frank Zappa Book

[Orsanct]

there was a musical theorist we studied (forgive me I forget his name, it's been a couple years, OK) that said you can take any peice of music and whittle it down to I and V chords. where V is anything that represents unrest and I represents resolution. he would take huge complicated peices and analyze them just using I and V chords. a little basic perhaps, but I see his point.

 

I'm guessing Heinrich Schenker?

 

 

I also read a good article about dance music. I used to hate dance/techno. especially when I was in college, and was a music snob. I was like "how can you call this music, it stays on the same chord for 36 bars?!"

 

but the article talked about how dance music creates conflict by building things up (you know the ol' snare hits on 8ths/ then 16ths/ then 32nds etc.) and then resolves it by getting back to the basic beat/theme.

 

I am a lover and practitioner of "classical" music. Just the same, I am often frustrated by my colleagues inability to see the biases present in that genre. IMO, while classical music has richly explored melody, harmony and tone color, it is extremely undeveloped when it comes to RHYTHM. Compared to the sophistication we find in popular and certain "ethnic" music, the classical world has a long way to go. (Composers like John Adams, Michael Daugherty, John Mackey and others are starting to make inroads, however.)

[Orsanct]

or eating cottage cheese.

 

Sorry -- free association. Have you read Bill Bryson's "The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid"? He has some delightfully disgusting childhood perspectives on cottage cheese.

 

 

As to your comments? I agree wholeheartedly. (Steve Reich and others generously granted an exception however.)

[Subtonic]

Steve Reich is at least actually interesting, even if it's a lot like repetitive dance music.

 

That's the point with minimalism. You get into this vibe/trance with it where if one thing changes in the composition it upsets the whole balance.

 

Steve Reich is, in my mind, the only composer who can pull that off and make some of the best music in the last 100 years. Phillip Glass…eh.

[calvin200001]

Although I think all of this is great information, someone at one point sat down and wrote these things in a book. And since they're there, they then become the music "law". The thing that I think this can do though is limit you. So even though I dont use forms, or even know too much about them, I feel like I have pretty a pretty good natural understanding of it just by listening to the type of music I like...

 

So, from that knowledge, a simple melody and modulation emerges along with bridges or whatever else...So I guess my answer is yes they can help, but they can also hinder you when dealing with a writers natural instinct/intuition. We wanna make sure that we are as original as we can be, and this usually means breaking the rules, and writing our own books...

[Orsanct]

Although I think all of this is great information, someone at one point sat down and wrote these things in a book. And since they're there, they then become the music "law". The thing that I think this can do though is limit you. So even though I dont use forms, or even know too much about them, I feel like I have pretty a pretty good natural understanding of it just by listening to the type of music I like...

 

I absolutely agree with you! I think analysis (form or otherwise) can be a very useful exercise if it helps one to better understand how a piece works. To the extent to which analysis gives one a better understanding of a song, I think it's a good thing.

 

On the other hand, when theoreticians then take that description of a good song/piece and make it into a set of hard and fast rules for creating new music -- well, I think that turns everything upside down! It's no small wonder that many gifted musicians have been scarred by small-minded theory teachers. I don't mean to stereotype -- there are lots of terrific teachers out there -- but I believe a lot of damage has been done over the years.

[sayenex]

I'm guessing Heinrich Schenker?

 

Good call, thank you. looks like someone paid a little more attention than I did.

[Matt Mayfield]

Orsanct said it.

 

I teach music theory, and I try to emphasize to my classes:

 

It's not fact. It's just a theory. If it's limiting you, you're taking it too seriously.

 

Knowing music theory just means that you have some knowledge of what most people have done in the past.

 

If you choose to only do the same thing that's always been done, that's your choice. But concepts in must theory are not meant to be rules - they are descriptions.

 

I've also encountered more than my share of students who try to use the "theory limits your creativity" argument as an excuse not to actually exercise their brains... but that's another story.

[Matt Mayfield]

...So I guess my answer is yes they can help, but they can also hinder you when dealing with a writers natural instinct/intuition. We wanna make sure that we are as original as we can be, and this usually means breaking the rules, and writing our own books...

 

Some things to consider:

 

1. If you don't know what the "rules" (even though they're not really rules) are, then when you break them, you do so randomly, out of ignorance.

 

2. If you DO know what the "rules" are, and you're aware of what others usually do with them, then when you break them, you're making a conscious choice and communicating a definite statement.

 

I prefer to think of theory concepts not as rules, but as a vocabulary or language.

 

I think there is a wide continuum between being totally original (and effectively making up your own vocabulary so people struggle to understand you) and rigidly following theory ideas as rules (and saying the same things everyone else has said).

 

Another thought... if a person writes from the heart, just from what they hear in other songs, they use that "vocabulary" of musical ideas, maybe make up some new "words" here and there, and say what they have to say, kind of like someone who never learned to read and write might still be a great speaker with great ideas.

 

An individual who extensively deliberates over music theory with sedulousness is analogous to someone who is enthralled with reading, writing, word etymology - they gravitate toward a polysyllabic nomenclature in their literary and musicological endeavours, and strive to communicate with greater complexity and subtler shades of connotation.

 

But which approach someone takes has little to do with what they have to say.

[maloje]

This is a great subject.

I am a rock and pop instrumental tutor to senior school students in the UK.

I teach composition for exam students and structure is a valuable lesson. I try to emphasize the focal point or points of a song. It is much easier to write from a focal point outwards rather than from the start to the end of the song. This way, accidental structures happen. Also, it takes away the regimented 4 an 8 bar phrases which I think is totally ancient. Cloggy is right (as usual) and this focal point method tends to let the music happen.

Then you alter the odd chord, add the odd bar, add stop and start bits, and if you play guitar, move the chord up a bit, i.e. modulate., to add variation.

I always say to my students, if it sounds good to you, it sounds good to the listener, even if it is an examiner. All you need is the ability to tune in to non standard structures and avoid too much Pink Floyd repetition. Pink Floyd repetition. Pink Floyd repetition. Pink Floyd repetition. By the way, I love pink Floyd but their songs need remixing to get rid of the repetition repetition repetition.

Classically trained music theorists over analize and end up composing pieces that have no chance of working. Any composer should work with all 13 notes (The 13th is silence) and the qualities of the instruments used in any arrangement.

My theories in the link between pitch and colour can start focal point composing, but I don't want to bore you with those details.

Happy structuring.

[Kent Sandvik]

Good points. Alas, a big exception is dance music. DJs like to count in 16 and 32-bar formats, throwing in something innocent like a break after 7 bars which is 23 bars in length will confuse them.

 

Maybe a couple of years later, with most DJs using tools such as Ableton Live where they could chop the tracks to whatever liking they want, this issue is no longer relevant.

 

I had to learn to write repetitive stuff for the underground dance music world, even if I don't think it's musically that inspiring. --Kent

[damian]

In regards to form and theory, an artist is only as constrained as one chooses to be...most people fear the learning process. It goes like this...if I am ignorant to what works in relation to musical (not necessarily classical) theory and form, I am playing a game of chance in the dark.

 

It takes time to develop an understanding of the rules-- BUT it is at this very point where one is best prepared to break them. In my world, efficiency and musical creativity are not mutually exclusive. They are the same. Theory and form help shore up my efficiency...as if leveraging the broad expanse of 'theory' were not a creative pursuit in it's own right!

 

Then again, I could spend countless hours succumbing to the demons of trial and error (and their evil cousin-- constant tweaking)...to arrive at no...or worse, a mediocre result.

 

So in my case, for each project I begin, I must set boundaries-- but only if I hope to finish . The key is to be flexible but not to lose myself in distraction. An architect would never finish a bridge without a draft of the project...a playwrite would not be successful without structure-- so why should music be treated differently?

 

Bottom-Line: It is far more limiting (and a whole lot easier) to hide behind the word 'creativity'-- than it is to be properly grounded in the principles of theory and form.

[Beer Moth]

Jumping off the shoulders of giants.

 

Disregard accumulated knowledge.

 

Burn the libraries.

 

 

Kill the unbelievers.

 

 

Invent the wheel.

[Beer Moth]

It's not fact. It's just a theory.

 

 

 

Not true.

Theory is the explanation,physicality is the proof.

Even when proven,the theory remains theory,even when it is in fact,fact.

 

E=mc²

[Matt Mayfield]

(edit) Nevermind, not going to touch that one.

[calvin200001]

(don't read this is you aren't crazy)

 

If we are talking about originality only...

 

I think that the perfect and most original sounding music is in each one of us, we just have to animate our personalities through it.

 

 

I don't think you can do this until you have a natural occurance inside your artistic mind . Where you hit this sort of point of understanding... that you know you've found "your music/emotion".

 

By being alone with your own mind and really quieting down all restless thoughts, i believe you can actually hear the natural waves and frequencies coming from your own emotions. (that is original music and probably a song)

 

(I.E. a happy emotion sometimes has a major scale etc...)

 

Regardless of structure, even if your song is one phrase, its music and music is harmony of frequencies. A wave is a beat. And a beat is a sequence...continue concentrating and the sequence will change forming a structured song of your own making (probably looking just like FORMS). Just learn how to use Logic(no pun intended?), and you can get it down pretty good even with a vague understanding of structure.

 

 

I dont think though that any can create original sound without understanding themselves as unique artsists . So I think that both things are important, but with out self-understanding of the artistic mind, the other is useless for creation of original ideas.

 

I like this quote by bjork

 

shes talking about her album Medulla here.

 

 

"it was interesting for me, probably - several reasons that I suddenly was very keen to get back to that human spirit place before tools or extensions or civilizations...

...I had a chance to go back to the begining, you know what im made of..."

 

 

 

How to make music original?

intuition?

structure or not structured?

What constitutes music?

What constitutes a song?

what came first? chicken or egg?

 

I think the real question here is: science or spirit?