Song Analysis - Do you have a structure?

[MisterB]

Got any tips on how to structure your analysis of a song? Obviously there are elements such as genre, chord structure, instrumentation, melody, counter melody etc, but how do you structure your listening to capture all of these things? Do you take it one thing at a time, work until you've got it nailed, then move on to the next thing?  Or is there a better way?

 

Biggest problem for me is actually not being distracted by how good the song is, getting to the end and realize I made no notes at all. 

 

I used to work with a pianist on a regular basis, who could listen to a track once, then play it pretty much note perfect. He made enough notes to half-fill a regular sized square post-it note, and he'd stick it to the piano's music stand.  If it was condensing a band down to a piano arrangement, he could still do it with a single listen.

[john]

7 hours ago, MisterB said:

Got any tips on how to structure your analysis of a song? Obviously there are elements such as genre, chord structure, instrumentation, melody, counter melody etc, but how do you structure your listening to capture all of these things? Do you take it one thing at a time, work until you've got it nailed, then move on to the next thing?  Or is there a better way?

 

Biggest problem for me is actually not being distracted by how good the song is, getting to the end and realize I made no notes at all. 

 

I used to work with a pianist on a regular basis, who could listen to a track once, then play it pretty much note perfect. He made enough notes to half-fill a regular sized square post-it note, and he'd stick it to the piano's music stand.  If it was condensing a band down to a piano arrangement, he could still do it with a single listen.

 

I do a lot with one listen. From that I will get the structure, the basic progressions and use of cadences etc. I like to listen with an instrument, as I make initial observations. 
 

I might take a moment or two after listening to try out specific chord changes etc, and then I can often play and sing the basics…. Though mostly wordless apart from maybe hooks or key phrases.

 

To be super accurate I would go through the song a 3rd or 4th time. I try to keep the listens to a minimum because of a lack of available time, nothing else. That said, I am secretly pleased with every initial observation that is borne out by closer inspection.

 

Key and modes are something I have to double and triple check.

 

Words I get in phases, starting with primary lines, hooks and fill from there out.

 

Weirdly I complete the lyric analysis first. The music analysis I break into tempo and time signature, keys and modes, melody and harmonics, chord progressions and cadences, then anything else.

[MisterB]

41 minutes ago, john said:

Key and modes are something I have to double and triple check.

 

Do you think in terms of modes for all songs?  

[john]

2 hours ago, MisterB said:

 

Do you think in terms of modes for all songs?  

 

Increasingly. As I try to add colour and character by intended use of borrowed notes and related modes I find I think increasingly about mode. One of my favourite songs as a teenager was David Bowie’s “Life on Mars”. It’s a beautiful song, with an interesting origin story. I’m writing up a detailed analysis of the original album version, (as performed by David Bowie, with piano by Rick Wakeman and arrangement by Mick Ronson) for this board. I’ve more or less completed the lyrics analysis, but performing a musical analysis… it is such an interesting piece. If you look online there’s very little agreement by those performing the analysis or transcription. It’s not helped that the original is actually detuned by a semitone. So I’ve analysed it where I believe it was played, a semitone higher. the song uses passing notes, borrowed chords, chromatic chords, 4 keys, 2 modes, 2 different types of cadence, and a bunch more interesting stuff. The borrowed chords add real tension to the song and some unexpected harmonies.

 

That it is all done with such intention is brilliant. Sure, with inspiration and experience Bowie might have stumbled across much of the song, but the deliberate use of keys, modes, transitions, cadences and harmony are masterful.

 

BTW, try our circle of fifths tool to help navigate chord progressions, keys and modes. I have some plans to improve the tool but would love any feedback you could offer. Members can find the tool on our songwriting tools page. Just go to the member hub page and you should find a link to the songwriting tools page there.

[Pantonal]

On 7/31/2024 at 10:53 AM, MisterB said:

Got any tips on how to structure your analysis of a song? Obviously there are elements such as genre, chord structure, instrumentation, melody, counter melody etc, but how do you structure your listening to capture all of these things? Do you take it one thing at a time, work until you've got it nailed, then move on to the next thing?  Or is there a better way?

 

Biggest problem for me is actually not being distracted by how good the song is, getting to the end and realize I made no notes at all. 

 

I used to work with a pianist on a regular basis, who could listen to a track once, then play it pretty much note perfect. He made enough notes to half-fill a regular sized square post-it note, and he'd stick it to the piano's music stand.  If it was condensing a band down to a piano arrangement, he could still do it with a single listen.

Interesting that your question asks about structure, but the actual question isn't about structure. In my view structure of a song is where you start. How long is the verse? Is there a pre-chorus? How long is the chorus? Is there a bridge, or breakdown or some other form of middle section? Is the chorus the ending or is there a coda? In my experience those who can play a song perfectly after one listening aren't being challenged by the song they're being asked to play. There are some songs that are the same three chords from start to finish.

 

I have a pretty good ear and once I know what key the song is in I can get some basics from one listen. But, some songs have little details that may be easy to miss. Rick Beato recently posted a video about being owned. He had previously posted a video about the 20 best keyboard intros of all time. He got an email from a viewer telling him the inversions of the last two chords at the end of one intro were wrong. They had learned the parts in a day by ear and then shot the video. It turned out the email was from Matthew Fisher who played the organ part in Procol Harum's Whiter Shade of Pale.

[MisterB]

4 hours ago, Pantonal said:

Interesting that your question asks about structure, but the actual question isn't about structure.

 

The question is about structure - session structure, as in how do you structure your analysis of a song. Things to consider - genre, song form (or structure!), key, chord progressions, instrumentation (inc. vocals), hidden meanings, modulations. Could also include production style and probably a whole bunch of other things. What order do you do them in, and generally how do you approach the whole thing. Actually though, would be good to know what genres you typically analyze, because some are way more complex than others.  

 

R.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12 by MisterB

[GregB]

"Analysis" ... I've never got my head around the purpose.

 

Rick Beato,  the 'Strong Songs' podcast, and many others,  go in great detail.  They nail down key, tempo, meter, rhythm.  They identify chords, inversions and extensions, key changes and relative keys,  mode changes, etc..  

 

My question is ... WHY?

 

Of course, this could be just personal, and in no way am I belittling the presence of this Forum Topic.  I'm just explaining why I've never contributed to it.

 

When I write, I go with the flow.  The 'feel' determines what tempo/meter' is used and how the lyrics/syllables are employed.  Chords/extensions are chosen to fit where things need to change progess.  I've never thought to myself "I need to go mixolydian mode", or "I need a #7th plus b9th".

 

Analysis for me represents an autopsy ... except  that at least an autopsy has an ultimate purpose.  

[john]

2 hours ago, GregB said:

"Analysis" ... I've never got my head around the purpose.

 

Rick Beato,  the 'Strong Songs' podcast, and many others,  go in great detail.  They nail down key, tempo, meter, rhythm.  They identify chords, inversions and extensions, key changes and relative keys,  mode changes, etc..  

 

My question is ... WHY?

 

Of course, this could be just personal, and in no way am I belittling the presence of this Forum Topic.  I'm just explaining why I've never contributed to it.

 

When I write, I go with the flow.  The 'feel' determines what tempo/meter' is used and how the lyrics/syllables are employed.  Chords/extensions are chosen to fit where things need to change progess.  I've never thought to myself "I need to go mixolydian mode", or "I need a #7th plus b9th".

 

Analysis for me represents an autopsy ... except  that at least an autopsy has an ultimate purpose.  

 

That’s exactly what I go into during analysis. Familiarity makes a big difference. At some point when studying composition you go past the understanding of concepts, and understanding of the nuance behind the theory, the feel of theoretical concepts becomes very familiar.

 

So, you say you play by feel. A song makes you feel a particular way. You are playing an AMaj, and your experience tells you that you have several options. You haven’t overly thought about it, but with a little thought you feel you could play an EMaj, or a DMaj or a GMaj. The feel of the piece suggests the direction and based upon experience you choose a chord. You play it, but you could hear the chord before you played the chord. You could tell how it would sit with the melody.

 

For some musicians they see sheet music and in their head they hear the melody, just by reading the notation. For many they See I, IV, V, vi, and they know exactly how that will sound. They know which type of cadence will maximise the melancholy of the piece. They know before they pick up an instrument how that section will sound… and how another section in the relative minor will sound.

 

Like anything, the more you use the skill, the more honed the skill becomes. You get to the point through ear training, of understanding the common progressions, the common scales, modes and cadences. More than that, you can remember the key emotions associated with each musical figure, So much so, in feeling the lyrical journey you can reasonably map out the composition of the song. You can hear it in your head without going near an instrument.

 

When I wrote and played every day, I would sometimes write a song in my dream, have it roughly arranged all before I woke up. It happens less now.

 

My point is, that when words and phrases are unknown, or they are simple concepts alone, they literally mean less to you. Meaningless. When someone sitting with you calls out a chord progression, and interjects scales and arpeggios and you can hear it all in your mind, then analysis and discussion is a very meaningful pastime.

[GregB]

32 minutes ago, john said:

When I wrote and played every day, I would sometimes write a song in my dream, have it roughly arranged all before I woke up.

 

Wow. That's the story behind Paul Mc's "Yesterday".  I've never had a gift or one-off like that. 

 

As for the 'analysis' discussion, it must just be different strokes for different folks.

 

For example, I know what bricks are and ... frames, joists, flying butresses, trusses, naves, doric columns, Georgian windows etc. etc., but that knowledge would never help me design or build a Grand Design home.  More's the pity!

 

I've always analysed songs but that has never helped me write something new.  At least as far as I know.  It MAY well have been of subconscious benefit rather than front-of-brain creativity.

 

[Pantonal]

On 8/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, MisterB said:

 

The question is about structure - session structure, as in how do you structure your analysis of a song. Things to consider - genre, song form (or structure!), key, chord progressions, instrumentation (inc. vocals), hidden meanings, modulations. Could also include production style and probably a whole bunch of other things. What order do you do them in, and generally how do you approach the whole thing. Actually though, would be good to know what genres you typically analyze, because some are way more complex than others.  

 

R.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess I've never thought too hard about analyzing popular songs. I do it when I learn them for my band, but that's the only reason I can think of to go to the trouble. I've learned a lot of music theory in my life and have almost never found understanding what's going on in a pop or rock song challenging. If I want to learn a song then I listen to it and try to figure out what keyboard (or brass or string) parts are important because I only have ten fingers on two hands. Sometimes it takes a lot of listens to get it exactly right, but I can usually get it done. Then again, sometimes the part is beyond my abilities. The piano part in Steve Ray Vaughn's House is a Rockin is a blues concerto. For me the juice wasn't worth the squeeze and it's a great song.

[VoiceEx]

I can figure out most structures after a few good listens. However, on rare occasions where the structure intrigues me, to the point where I feel like going to town, I will sometimes do something that's a bit unorthodox.

 

Simply put, I will 'cut' the song into parts according to its structure and tempo, sort out the main 'chunks', listen to them in isolation, and than I will mess around with the structure, as if I were putting together a puzzle. 'Frankensteining' different versions, if you will, by using said parts.

 

The benefit from this method is that I it gives me the opportunity to test out interesting variations and different approaches. Which in turn can sometimes provide me with ideas to use in my own songs. This process also doesn't take as much time as you'd think. Its simple copy pasting with minimal editing, in most cases.

 

I don't know if this tip helps you, but I hope it does! 👍

[MisterB]

On 9/9/2024 at 8:30 AM, VoiceEx said:

I can figure out most structures after a few good listens. However, on rare occasions where the structure intrigues me, to the point where I feel like going to town, I will sometimes do something that's a bit unorthodox.

 

Simply put, I will 'cut' the song into parts according to its structure and tempo, sort out the main 'chunks', listen to them in isolation, and than I will mess around with the structure, as if I were putting together a puzzle. 'Frankensteining' different versions, if you will, by using said parts.

 

Sounds like a great idea, and probably what I need to do in order to maintain focus on the job at hand. 

 

 

 

On 9/9/2024 at 8:30 AM, VoiceEx said:

 

The benefit from this method is that I it gives me the opportunity to test out interesting variations and different approaches. Which in turn can sometimes provide me with ideas to use in my own songs. This process also doesn't take as much time as you'd think. Its simple copy pasting with minimal editing, in most cases.

 

I don't know if this tip helps you, but I hope it does! 👍

 

Yes, I think it does! Thanks.