Another thing that's been on my mind in regards to the writing process is how songs like Lowdown by Boz Scaggs can be so simple. I recommend this song to anyone because this song is not only just a great song but it has a treasure trove of things to learn from. First off, it's a perfect example of how a song doesn't need much to be great. It's literally two chords for the most part: a Gmaj7 (some also say Em9, but that's basically the same thing) to an A13. So you get this creamy maj7 chord and then a little bit of tension with the 13 chord, resolving back down to the maj7. If you were to analyze this as just a basic triad on the guitar, you end up with B D F# with the D moving simply to Db and then back to D, so literally just one note changes!

Now why do I find this so interesting? Because the whole song is built from just these two! And then it gets even better. It adds dynamics by having a section that starts with Dmaj7, and then has a chromatic walk down through C# to C to B. And then there's just a part where it changes the key up a whole a step from D major to E major, or if you want to get modal, G lydian to A lydian. 

So after going over this song a great deal, I realized another important part that I can't go without talking about: dynamics. I honestly feel like this is something that can really make a song shine. Again, this may be a somewhat obvious thing, but I feel it's less obvious than the process of writing a song because even if you finish a song, no one can tell you how the final product should sound. What can you do to make the song sound less like a simple repetition of all the elements? I think it might go something like this:

Layering<Musical Dynamics<Modulation<Melodic Variation<Rhythmic Variation<Combination of any of the preceding.

Layering is cool because you can add new elements like a keyboard, backing vocals, a guitar solo, whatever. This can add a lot of power to a section, I think, by filling out the sound. However, layering can also seem like a cheap way to vary a section by simply adding a new sound to fill out the mix. 

Musical dynamics are more important than layering because this varies the overall sound that the listener is used to hearing. Going from loud to soft or vice versa is a very effective way to change the context of a certain section. Going quiet may mean the vocalist or instrument is going to say or play something that's very sentimental or important, etc. depending on the context of it. The same could be said for a part being loud. This all just depends on the context, I think.

After musical dynamics, there is a more important and more profound method of shaping song dynamics: modulation. Moving to a different key has a very jarring sound, especially if it's unexpected. And if you play something like Jazz, then you can evoke this same feeling using wholetone scales/diminished scales/bebop scales and what have you to introduce "outside" elements. I would even say that the latter method can sometimes be more satisfying since part of the music moves outside of the expected chord changes, and eventually resolves after producing so much tension. In fact, I would just group with modulation the idea of producing tension in the music anyway since the methods you can use to produce more tension can also allow you to modulate (secondary dominants, etc.).

The last three I mentioned are interesting ways to vary a song, no doubt. But if you imagine a song being structured with the rhythm and melody at its core, the chord changes being the layer surrounding it, and the final layer around that being the way a song sounds altogether with all of its elements, then the last three only really change those first two layers. The core of the song remains the same. So what would happen if you changed the melody of the whole thing and used a new riff or melody as your main theme for a new section? This would definitely be interesting since the listener may have been surprised by the other things, but a new melody would create an entirely new context for the song to operate in, surprising the listener even more. 

Finally, rhythmic variation could literally change the entire scope of things. Granted, rhythmic and melodic variation should probably be present in some small amounts just to keep the song lively, but what I mean here is an entire overhaul of the rhythm or melody. To me, rhythmic variation can be more effective than melodic variation because the melody depends on the rhythm and if you change the rhythm, not only have you changed the feel and general theme of the song, but you will have forced the melody to vary itself in order to fit the new rhythm.

With all that, the final method would be to combine the other elements in clever ways to produce entirely new sections for your music. Any one of these methods used by themselves could be effective, but taken together, you could produce some very satisfying twists to the music. Of course the point isn't to make the song an entirely different song. You'll still probably need elements of repetition to drive home the melody and sound of the song, but these things can definitely help spice it up and much like with real spices, too much could spoil things.

That's really all I had to say for now, so, as usual, to any of you reading, good luck in all your endeavors. I hope that maybe some of this is helpful, because I know figuring this kind of stuff out (however inaccurate I may find it to be in the future) is helping me.

Dillon