What Can Anyone Say About A Song With Two Different Chorus's?

[Euphloria]

I have read on another forum recently a very intriguing discussion, an argument really, about the possibility of writing a song that uses two different choruses. I realize this is not advised in the sense of commerciality, but i would be interested in any feedback anyone has. Thank you

Edited November 19, 2011 by Euphloria

[MikeRobinson]

Variety is the spice of life. I always like to stumble-upon a song that "thinks differently," and as long as the finished product sounds pleasing to my ears, I'm all for it. The beauty of musical creativity is that it is truly boundless.

"We are here now ... en - ter - tain us ..." That really is the name of the game, isn't it?

Edited November 18, 2011 by MikeRobinson

[Euphloria]

I am specifically talking about a song with actually two different choruses. On the forum i mentioned previously the subject got a little heated.

Some felt it was sacrilegious or something. Others had lectured about having to know the rules before you can break them and so on. I was extremely excited to read some of the more discouraging comments. For me it was inspiring. Here it is, my band's name is Euphloria and we are on reverberation, myspace, Facebook, twitter,etc. and the song is called "Venus Rose". It was literally written while it was recorded. I only edited later for arrangement's sake to find the form or scheme to read as ABCDE<ABCDE,ABCDE

This is, i believe, your success story. I would love to invite anyone's opinion, i think, on this very rough demo with no additional instrumentation or overdubs. You can tell me how it works for you but for me it was an aspiration that finally and organically came to be not by possibility but thru necessity. I think this is the way it goes and what felt best. Extremely interested in any feedback anyone can offer.

Thanks

Mathew Martinek of Euphloria

Edited November 19, 2011 by Euphloria

[Tambarskjelve]

If it sounds good to you, go for it!

In my opinion, the most important rule in songwriting is : "There are no rules!"

[Euphloria]

I apologize for not having previously added a link.

This my song "Venus Rose" and an example of the ABCDE structure incorporating two different chorus's.

Venus Rose.mp3

[Steve]

If Lazz were here, he'd point out that the structure you've adopted, i.e. ABCD - ABCD is perfectly acceptable! And that what you call a 'Chorus' isn't anything of the kind! If the structure of the song is as you say it is, ABCD and that repeats, then that is fine!

[Euphloria]

That structure is ABCDE - ABCDE. Not ABCD - ABCD and i really feel that regardless of someone's ideology on this they can't all work just because some text somewhere says

it's possible. In any case they would have to hear it to know. Music, of course, being so subjective one would really have to step back and ask themselves the question," Is this valid." The proof would be found, in spite of someone's personal feelings, if people enjoyed it and improved or sustained their quality of experience through it.

[Euphloria]

Yes, I do agree that the lyrics would definitely help and maybe act as a kind of "musical compass" for the listener, but of course we can't all depend on each listener to have a copy of the lyrics handy just in case the structure isn't obvious to them, particularly in public or if heard over the radio. Many times i have been in a situation while writing a song

where i know the form and anticipate the next change but have to remind myself that it may not appear so obvious to the listener,especially the first time around. With that thought in mind i would have to say that sometimes you just have to roll the dice, so to speak, and know that you have to make it pay off. That is to say that i count on whatever overdubs i intend to use to be that sort of "musical road map". A sudden lead guitar line gliding up a scale might intentionally be used to point to the next change if in fact there were no way theoretically you could make that same line leap into the previous A major "chorus" as an example or whatever the case may be. In that situation anyone would realize that the previous chorus could never follow that point in the song and the expectation for change at that juncture would be the "do or die" stage of the game. We are either frustrated having been required to use too much of our own imagination for passive listening enjoyment to make it work or Voila, you just set the listeners mind up for a new surprise twist in the song which can , because of it's variation, truly because, give you every bit of the advantage the first chorus had when it outlined the beginning structure. Your second chance of opportunity presents itself, not as a disadvantage, if it is truly warranted, but as something to exploit musically. As i mentioned before this song has no overdubs or suggestive melodies to help foreshadow it's outcome. I would not call that a "musical crutch" to help the listener along as it is a necessity, sometimes for far more simpler pieces, while the obligatory inclusion of lyrics most definitely would be a"crutch." Right now i'm fairly certain that if i include the lyrics for that purpose then i would only hamper the listener's chance to figure it out for themselves. If the overdubs or absence of overdubs are accounted for i don't think we need to rely on any lyrical road maps

to find our way. Of Course you must know that i intend to prove that with my next update of this recording.

- To address, briefly, the issue of catchiness and memories of melodies, the poll is almost a 50/50 split now on which chorus people like the most! But none, as of yet, would except the removal of either.

Thank you for your thoughts and input.

I hope this was as helpful to you as it has been for me.

[Steve]

I think Toms point about posting the lyrics here was more a way for us to answer the question you posed. Obviously you are quite right to say that the average listener of the song will NOT have access to the lyrics. But then again! You're not asking for their advice/input! I had a listen to the song and, like Tom, I couldn't get a definitive grip on it! But you say this was recorded in one hit? Personaly, I don't think it matters what the structure is! If it's a song that people can relate to, then it's a good song! I have been listening to some songs lately by prog rockers. And frankly! I can't fathom any kind of structure at all! Except the beggining, all the stuff in the middle, and the end!

Interesting subject!

[vivies]

Song is a popular art and must be easily memorable by auditors.

If your chorus is really strong, no needs having another one...

[Ferry0123]

Off topic, but I want to comment on the guitar playing at the beginning to 0:09 (and also repeated throughout the song). It doesn't sound right to me. It's the ears that want to hear another way of striking the strings of the guitar. There's so much more to accomplish with this song, it has a real David Bowie feel. But somehow, I think it's the production, the songis a bit uneasy to listen to. The guitar is too dominant overall I guess, and another thing is to have your song more structured.

[McnaughtonPark]

Yep, made me think of Lazz right away. I'm ready for his refrain.

If the stanza doesn't repeat, and any particular lyrical line or musical measure doesn't repeat, you have no refrain, or in terms of this discussion, chorus.

The stanza labled chorus is done so to inform the musician/singer/audience to expect to see that stanza again. A song without a refrain is actually nice every now and again. Hardly hear anything like that, I'd have to search for an example because of the songs I do remember, it is the refrain I remember most.

[Janeva]

I have written songs with choruses which differ slightly, usually the last line or two when I wish to show a progression in a storyline.

Here is an example of one I have written recently with 4 different choruses - but I suspect this is breaking a lot of rules

Jan