Another form of songwriting that is not as uncommon as it may sound is the of the No Chorus. I know it sounds unlikely but many songs do take this formula.

A fantastic example is Death Cab For Cutie’s ‘No Sunlight’; the song has a catchy verse which always leads to a repeated refrain which is far too brief or lightweight to be thought of as a chorus, rather just an extenstion of the verse.

The song continues into a middle8 section which after returning to instrumental verse passage, is repeated before finally ending on the verse extension I mentioned earlier. This form of structure allows for wonderful layering, as so much of it built around the same chords. It is very popular with bands such as DCFC who are not necessarily making pop music but are keen on strong songwriting.

Just something I found interesting that I thought I’d share.

Great article!

Jack

Songs with recurring bridges tend to confuse me – didn’t Genesis’ That’s All have three distinct sections that all occurred multiple times?

http://colortheory.com/hall-oates

The bridge as I discuss it here has a different chord progression and lyrics than the rest of the song. The instrumental break over the verse or chorus progression is one of the substitutions I suggest for a bridge.

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any of your songs that have bridges. Maybe the “then I lost the baby” section of Sing It Away. You tend to use a whole bunch of verses to facilitate all the exposition in your songs, which usually tell a story.

Would you call your piano solo in Continental Divide a bridge or an instrumental break? I am confused about the difference and I think I’ve been misusing the word sometimes. Wikipedia is little help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_%28music%29
I used to think a bridge had to have words, but I suppose it doesn’t. My older songs almost always had lyrical bridges, but I haven’t written one in a while.

Is it a bridge when the chord sequence is different than the chorus and just an instrumental break when you use the same progression as the chorus? If so, then 90% of my songs don’t have a bridge, but I am a big fan of instrumental breaks over the chorus progression (and sometimes singing only a line or two of the chorus). Just to respond to this post, I think I’ll try writing something that is nothing but a bridge. Just kidding, that would be silly. But thanks for getting us all thinking and talking.

I want to be clear that I’m not preaching one particular formula. A good chunk of the article is devoted to ways to deviate from the standard pop form. I’m just advocating the use of clear structures so that the message of the song doesn’t get lost in a convoluted arrangement.

“Ditch the bridge until you’ve written your first hundred songs” is probably good advice. I understand why the focus on fan quantity rubs you the wrong way, but after all, it is a promotion blog.

Thanks for your kind words on my music!

…none of that stuff influences my songwriting. I’m more concerned with fueling my muse than catering to the masses. I’m just lucky (or at least that’s what I want you to think) that by doing so I remain accessible. And I agree with you that making a song too complex can lose you certain listeners. I just know that, for me personally, as soon as I actively say to myself “Self, I’m going to write a hit” it always ends up a contrived, pale shadow of what it’s intended to be.

(…which makes it great for commercial radio at this point.)

I’m listening to Color Theory, and I’m really enjoying it. I can see that you’ve got a viewpoint and a signature sound. And yes, I hear that a lot of your structure is simple. But if I were to hear your music first and then read this article, I’d be surprised. It doesn’t sound like you’d be preaching the benefits of following formula as much as you are.

I think ultimately we come from the same place as songwriters. You have originality and variety in your work. There is a danger when you post something like this as advice to songwriters and use sensational language like “the bridge is dead” that your sleeping with the enemy (read: corporate radio) and not really advocating being a true artist and visionary.

This article is good for people that are having trouble with form. I think if you’d said “until you’ve written XX number of songs” as opposed to “until you’ve got a substantial following,” I’d have a lot less issue with this article. My issue was with you equating fan quantity to risk-taking.

It’s funny that you site “Creep” as a grabber and not a grower. As much as that song seems simple, there is a build and a departure from form. I don’t think the simplicity of “Creep” put Radiohead on the map, I think it was that it stood out somehow from everything else that was coming out at the time.

Anyway, formula is bad. Originality is good. Play on.