Trouble with songwriting

[Glimpsed-AM]

Hello everyone, I have a bit of a problem here. I've got quite a few riffs written now, but I've ALWAYS seemed to struggle in coming up with a good intro, So with the amount that I have right now, it's enough to have a full song... without an intro. I was wondering if any of you could give me some tips on your thought process, and how you go about writing "intro specific" riffs? At the moment I'm just jamming, I'm not trying to force it because that's gotten me nowhere, and I'm just not coming up with anything that would be a fitting intro... Just more riffs that I could use elsewhere.


This also got me thinking about another question: Is there a certain part of a song that actually is more difficult to write?

 

[Winspear]

You're right it can be hard. If I had the time right now I'd check out a few songs and see what they are doing and write it here, but for now I'll just say some common things:
-The next riff but on its own with some lo-fi effects
-The next riff but with one guitar doing just accents along with drums before it kicks it
-A fairly unrelated (usually same key, often different tempo) melodic 'epic' sounding theme that doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the song and just kicks into the verse afterwards
-Chorus without vocals/slightly different arrangement

All pretty common things in modern metal. Sure not the most sophisticated or theoretical approach but it works

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

Introductions are typically not significant to form. I would suggest putting your song together, then working on the introductions at a later date. I mean, if that's the only thing holding you back, then you need to get beyond it so you can be productive and write songs. Once you have a better idea of what the song is actually about, you should go in and make changes, add things, take things out, whatever. Maybe we compose differently, but I can get a better idea of what I want from a piece once I know what the piece is trying to convey.

 

[Pablo Zuta]

Introductions are typically not significant to form.

+1

apart from that , know some music theory make the things more easy when you wanna make parts of songs gel together (if that make sense).

 

[ToMurderAMachine]

I just do what ever the hell i feel like doing for an intro. Atleast as far as the bass tunes go. Otherwise i'll do the whole generic "chorus-minus-vocals" thing

 

[Varcolac]

Introductions are typically not significant to form. I would suggest putting your song together, then working on the introductions at a later date. I mean, if that's the only thing holding you back, then you need to get beyond it so you can be productive and write songs. Once you have a better idea of what the song is actually about, you should go in and make changes, add things, take things out, whatever. Maybe we compose differently, but I can get a better idea of what I want from a piece once I know what the piece is trying to convey.

This method of writing works well in areas other than music. When I think back to my undergraduate days, I'd never write the introduction to an essay first. I wouldn't know what I'd be introducing. I'd write the body first, make all the points I needed to make, conclude my arguments, and then go back and say "right, here's what's going down in the next ten pages." I graduated with honours and all that, so this method can't be too bad.

Often when writing music, I'll do the same. I'll come up with some sections, let's call them A and B, then mess around with them, doing different arrangements of similar things, let's call them A' and B', maybe A'' and B'' if we're feeling especially creative. When I've got the "body" of the song, the real meat and bones of it, then I can get creative with the order of the sections, adding a development C section, the final chorus key-change (what), any other clever (or cheesy) things. Much easier to hang a development section or a complex structure on something when you've got something to develop or structure. I'll only go for the intro at this point in the process: when I know what I'm going to introduce.

As a caveat though, some songs don't even need an intro - they're perfectly fine jumping straight in with the first verse. Depends entirely on what you're writing - if your A section riff is an epic riff of Olympian proportions that really sets the tone for the rest of the piece, just start with that.

 

[Glimpsed-AM]

Introductions are typically not significant to form. I would suggest putting your song together, then working on the introductions at a later date.

Well the song is pretty much done already except for the intro and outro. But when you say having it put together, do you mean having the bass/drums/vocals done as well?

 

[Bloodbath Salt]

I find the outro the hardest, cause it's hard to tell if the songs complete.

Intro's sometimes depend on what music you're writing.

Some other intro writing tips:
Play a variation of your main theme/riff with an acoustic or clean guitar.
Use 2 guitars, as one plays the main riff, have the other emphasize the beat with the drums.
Write an intro solo.
Use a simple build up intro, like "Hell Awaits," for an epic effect.
Find an audio sample from TV or movies, that's relative to the song.
Or the easiest way, use a fade-in, straight to the main theme.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

Well the song is pretty much done already except for the intro and outro. But when you say having it put together, do you mean having the bass/drums/vocals done as well?

I wish I could say that I had a formula. After I have my pillars erected, it's pretty easy to start building things on top. What the pillars are could be very different, though. Formally speaking, when I have an A section and a B section, I have all of the material I need and the rest falls into place. But, you know, I'm a classicist, and the great majority of my ideas rely on dichotomy, setup, and expansion. To some extent, you can distill the way that I think into a process, but I think what ultimately overrules a process is individualism. What I'm saying is that even though I have a very basic and very definitive way of structuring my music, I eventually surrender the formula to what I feel the music needs.

Let's look at the 'formula' side of things for now, since that gives us concrete answers. This is what you want when you first start writing a song: AB

AB gives you so much good stuff. Right off the bat, you have the power of contrast. AB by itself is acceptable as a form, but our music typically wants to go a little further. ABA is the next step up, a "ternary" form. This is a huge advancement, because you have now transformed the sections from merely being music, to becoming a philosophy. "A" is now place of stability, of return. "A" is what you believe in, "B" is some sort of challenge to that. It's like when you speak to a religious zealot who has a set of immutable beliefs (A), you question them (B), and they keep on thinking what they're going to think (A) despite whatever evidence you may present. OR you could be talking to this dude about his beliefs (A), offer some point that he can't refute (B), and then have him change his mind (A', which involves some kind of transformation of A).

ABA is pretty cool, because it forms a basis on which to create other forms. This next one is merely a magnification of that form: ABCAB

Do you see the components?

A = AB
B = C
A = AB

Now we have a greater number of ideas to work with, yet keep the dramatic and philosophical nature of ABA. ABCAB is a form that is used very often, sometimes with better or worse exploitation of the materials. However, it seems fairly rare in modern music that ABCAB is presented so straightly. Because we now have a bit of meat on the formal skeleton, we can afford to add and subtract things. This is very typical in pop music: ABABCB

What happened? The first AB was repeated, and the last AB was shortened to B. This indicates a heightened interest in B, which is very typically going to be the chorus.

Bon Jovi - Livin' On A Prayer


0:00 - Introduction - Notice that this isn't some huge deal. It's setting up the riff for the Verse.
0:46 - A - "Verse"
1:17 - Transition - "Pre-chorus"
1:33 - B - The "Chorus"
1:49 - A
2:24 - Transition
2:40 - B
2:59 - C - "Bridge"
3:17 - Transition
3:24 - B' (different key)

Very straight. C is there to provide a little contrast. A and B are our baseline.

This same form is used both in completely stupid, vapid pop music, as well as very intellectual art music. I think that there is prejudice in the metal world because of the association of ABABCB with decades of awful formulaic pop hooks, but those that put themselves in that camp should reexamine. Remember that form does not bring any actual music to the table: it's a vessel that one fills with content, or that one forms by molding the content into something intelligible. You obviously don't want to try fitting a square peg into a round hole, so your options are to find a find a square hole (find the right form) or modify the existing port to accept the square peg (manipulate the form to suit your needs).

Next, I'll walk you through a piece that manipulates the same form to suit its needs. It's a piece in sonata-allegro form, which is the classical version of ABCAB. Instead of A and B, we say "Theme 1" and "Theme 2", and instead of C, we say "Development".

The first presentation of the two themes is called the exposition. The exposition establishes thematic material and sets up a conflict between the two themes. The conflict is found as a contrast in the key, mood, and character of the two themes. Often, a closing theme is added to wrap the exposition up. This isn't a very important theme, it is there more for the purpose of getting to a particular key. In older pieces, the exposition is repeated to really drill the contrast into your head.

After the themes are presented, the elements of the two themes are pitted against each other in a battle during the development section. This battle is expressed by tearing apart and transforming the themes. Somebody has to win the battle (and it is almost always the first theme, for reasons I won't get into right now), so when the themes come back at the end, there is a transformation: theme 1 is back in its original key, and instead of being in a different key, theme 2 is now in the key of theme 1. The conflict has been resolved. This last part, where the themes come back, is called the Recapitulation section. Now check this out:

Exposition - Development - Recapitulation

Look familiar?

A - B - A

As I was saying earlier, you can't fit a square peg into a round hole, so this example deviates from the formula a fair bit in order to convey a particular message.

Ludwig van Beethoven - Piano Sonata No.8, "Pathétique", mvt.1


EXPOSITION
0:00 - Introduction - Very extensive. An obsessive, brooding, melancholy idea. There is a sense of hopelessness.
1:48 - First theme - Anger, storming.
2:18 - Second theme - Determination. Almost out of the rut.
2:47 - Closing theme - Much more light-hearted. There's a light at the end of the tunnel. However...

[Repeat of exposition]
3:19 - Introduction - FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU.........
5:10 - First theme
5:39 - Second theme
6:08 - Closing theme

DEVELOPMENT
6:42 - Introduction
7:30 - Phase 1 - Fragmentation of Theme 1
8:32 - Phase 2 - Theme 2 - Modulatory
8:56 - Phase 3 - Closing theme - Change of mode

RECAPITULATION
9:25 - Introduction
10:03 - First theme, truncated - Can't get away, just gonna be angry all the time.

If you were going to ask me what the most important idea is in this movement, I would say its the introduction. I know, I said earlier that introductions aren't typically significant to form. This piece is the exception: it's all about that introduction. There is no development, no resolution to the conflict, and no matter what the other themes are trying to express, the person whose mental state is being expressed here still feels trapped. Rather than having two ideas duke it out until they come to terms, the narrative is about this guy going "FML" (the introduction), and all of the coping mechanisms that he tries (the resolution of conflict that sonata form nearly always guarantees). Instead, there is no resolution, which is why that never-changing introduction completely dominates the entire piece and the recapitulation is missing the transformation of the second theme and doesn't even really finish the first theme.

Want to hear what a straight sonata form sounds like?

Franz-Josef Hayden - Piano Sonata No.50, in D major


Ah, yes. Good ol' number 50. I won't bother you with the analysis, but suffice it to say that this is very boring and by the books. No introduction. Theme 1, Theme 2, repeat (although this performer thought it was so banal that they blow right through the repeat sign), very uninteresting development section, recapitulation of theme 1 and theme 2 with theme 2 in the tonic key, we cured cancer, everybody is happy, and we can go grab a scone and tea now.

Same form in both pieces, but there is obviously a lot more artistry in the Beethoven. I feel that he started by writing that introduction, then formed the rest of the piece as a reaction, although he could just as easily have written the two themes and decided down the road that the piece was about despair and hopelessness, and wrote the introduction to suit. Haydn's thought process? The guy wrote 52-or-so piano sonatas and 106 symphonies and counting. Beethoven wrote 32 piano sonatas and 9 symphonies. Papa Haydn was writing hit after hit, he didn't care for this profound introspection crap. Alas, the form fits the function: that piano sonata is supposed to be entertainment, not the elegy of a suffering artist.

What am I getting at here? The content of your music is informed by the music's purpose. Do you feel that the song needs an introduction and a coda? Or, better yet, do you feel that it could do without it? To quell the risk of going on longer than I already have, I'll leave it there for now. Get the feel of what you're going for, then try to convey that in music.

 

[morrowcosom]

For the intro just write something that puts people on edge anticipating when the next part is going break loose. You could use discordant arpeggios, some chords in tense intervals, a simplified version of the first verse riff, a melody that starts out bare and builds layers until it sounds like it is going to explode, a volume swell into a full volume first verse riff, a drum beat with no riff yet, then the same beat with a riff over it, etc.

 

[Overtone]

Drum intros are cool too.. basically the opposite of that... groove first, then the riff comes in over it.

Just listen to songs... there are many many examples out there.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

Seriously, if all you're looking to do is tack an intro onto a song, open your ears and check out what other people do.

Hate Eternal - Behold Judas


^ Just a riff.

Cynic - Integral Birth


^ A riff with more melodic content. Reprised and developed a little later in the song, so there is some thematic content there. Coda is a repeated section that fades out. Lame.

Death - Perennial Quest


^ Riff in the beginning. Coda is way different than the rest of the song and has the effect of narrowing the music to the point that it disappears. There is a fadeout, but it is more composed than the above example.

Judas Priest - Heavy Metal


^ Start with a goddamn solo. I wrote a post in another thread that expands upon this approach: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/music-theory-lessons-techniques/169951-playing-solo.html

 

[troyguitar]

^ Start with a goddamn solo. I wrote a post in another thread that expands upon this approach: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/music-theory-lessons-techniques/169951-playing-solo.html

That's the old school approach. For today's music, the appropriate suggestion is to start with a breakdown.

 

[zakatak9389]

One thing I love doing with intros is introducing a theme or melody on guitar and just build on that with the other instruments until the whole band comes in.

Another thing I like doing is just playing a riff/melody that's similar to the rest of the song but won't be repeated again.

Or you could play a theme that could be brought back periodically throughout the song with slight variations (key changes, going from natural minor to harmonic minor or strictly pentatonic etc.)

Or you could just start on full blast with a killer riff and then roll into a verse, chorus, pre-chorus, etc.

Each method has been pretty effective in my experience. An intro is a very important part of a song as it has to grab the listeners attention and hold it. That's one of the reasons I love using theme and variation so much across one or multiple songs; it reminds the listener of why the song caught their attention in the first place and expands on it