There is an old saying. You have to learn the rules first before you can go and break them. I agree it’s kind of nice to know what you’re doing when it comes to music composition. If nothing else, knowledge will give you more possibilities when trying to come up with a tune, unless of course you’re so naturally talented that you come up with the “rules” all on your own. I don’t know many people like that. I certainly wasn’t. I didn’t get decent at composing until I got some formal training. Before that, I was a train wreck.
But that’s neither here nor there.
Breaking the rules shouldn’t be something you do just because you can do it. I know some people who are just naturally rebellious. I used to be that way. Over the years I’ve grown to become more of a conformist. Why?
Well, I’ve come to learn that those who have come before me were pretty bright lights when it came to composing. It’s hard to question masters like Mozart and Bach when their stuff was so great. Bach was described in one episode of MASH as having a mathematical precision to his music. And he did. If there was anybody who was a rule maker, it was Bach.
So breaking the rules shouldn’t be something you do just because you can do it. It should be something you do because it fits what you’re trying to do.
For example, everybody knows the rule about parallel fifths being a no-no. But what if that’s the effect you’re going for? Parallel fifths have a very distinct sound. Imagine playing them going up the scale in half steps. Can you hear what that would sound like? What use could you imagine for something like that? A comedy comes to mind or some quirky video moment. It would certainly stick out. And while I wouldn’t want to live on a steady diet of parallel fifths, I can see a case where the use of them could be justified. Again, they have a very distinct sound.
What about the rules of resolution? For example, leading notes of a dominant always going back to the tonic. Sure, that’s what we expect because the ear naturally wants to go in that direction. But what if, instead of going back to the tonic, we went to the fourth or even another key altogether? If I’m in the key of C and I’m playing a G chord going back to the tonic of C, why can’t I instead go to an E flat? Both chords share a G note in common. It wouldn’t be that odd sounding and might even sound interesting.
I’ve always been fascinated by harmony and all the things you can do with chords, inversions, 7ths, 9ths, and on and on. A lot of people say that melody is the most important part of a song. I don’t always agree. Sometimes an unusual harmony can carry a song even if the melody is simple. In fact, a complex harmony can make a one or two note motif sound interesting.
How about the “rules” of what I call atmosphere? I’m referring to how a song sounds based on what instruments and effects are used on it. This is where we can really go breaking a lot of “rules” or what has become standard accepted practice, especially when you’re talking about specific genres of music.
For example, let’s take a typical orchestral score. In the old days, orchestras were recorded very simply inside a hall with natural reverb. Listen to any old symphony and you will notice that the atmosphere of each one was essentially the same and for the most part is the same today.
But what if we turned this accepted atmosphere on its ear? There are many things we could do, especially with today’s technology and the ability to lay down each instrument track separately.
Let’s take the French Horns. What a lot of cinema producers do today is run those French Horns through a guitar overdrive. That’s how they get that really big sound on those Hollywood movie scores. This is something that wasn’t even thought of 30 years ago. Now, it’s common practice. Violins are recorded with tons of high EQ to really bring them out and over he top. Timpani are doubled with sine waves in a side chain to give them a fuller sound. And I could go on and on with all the effects used on instruments.
We could even take this farther if we want. How about running the entire orchestral score through a mild phase shifter so that it’s noticeable but not overpowering? Or we could run it through a filter.
You know that effect that’s used on a lot of records today where they make vocals and instruments sound like they’re coming from an old record player? This is something else that was unheard of years ago. We tried getting away from that old analog sound so we went digital. Now digital is trying to sound analog because we realize how cool analog really sounded.
So in essence, the rules are almost constantly changing. And the reason for that is simple. Stuff gets old fast. Face it, we as a race of people get bored with things pretty easily. That’s why so many popular acts are gone after 2 years. We get tired of them. It’s the exception, not the rule, that an artist will have a long career.
Anyway, this is what I want you to do as an exercise. I want you to sit down and compose a song. I want you to think about some rules in the composition that you can break along the way. Then, when the song is completed and ready to be recorded, I want you to think about what rules you can break in the recording, mixing and editing process. Maybe make the drums louder than you normally would in the mix. Do something to shake things up.
I think you will find that you’ve written one of the more interesting pieces of music that you’ve written in a very long time.
For The Love Of Music,
Steven “Wags” Wagenheim