# Orchestral song forms, what are they and do you follow them?



## HREQ (May 17, 2016)

Hello, I come from producing rock and pop, the song form can be simplified like Intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, solo, chorus

but I'm more interested in a "your version of form" where you detail it much more. For me I like to think of most pop songs like this

Intro > catchy tune> verse1 > verse1 variation > pre chorus > small bar suspense > chorus > repeat chorus> outro chorus > catchy tune > verse1 modified > verse 1 modified variation > pre chorus > small bar suspense > chorus > repeat chorus > outro chorus > solo section > chorus

alot follow that kind of format, with a few changes here and there.

I'm starting out learning orchestra, and would like to know what you think the orchestra form is for you. Or can you link me to really good examples of orchestra pieces with forms? I know alot of theory but I can't read sheet music, I'm piano roll warrior.

I think form is one of the most important parts in music.

Also, what makes orchestra different from pop / rock besides form? I heard of how a melody evolves, or is reintroduced or something. Could someone give me some good links on this stuff, or links of youtube videos explaining it? or orchestra pieces on youtube, that you think represent the popular forms in todays orchestra / film music pieces?

Also, does orchestra follow a set rrythem formula, or is it just random changes of time signatures and tempo? There must be some standard that most people follow. I'm interested in trying to write modern orchestra, that's popular. I really don't know many orchestra pieces, but have heard them every now and then. Always amazed when I hear them.


----------



## Suganthan (May 17, 2016)

An overall list of forms sorted by era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_forms_by_era

EDIT:
To add:


----------



## muk (May 17, 2016)

There are many, many forms orchestral music can take. One of the most prominent models through history are the sonata forms. It is a multifaceted concept, and though there are thousands and thousands of pieces which employ a sonata form, at least among the really good ones you won't find two that are the same structurally. Except maybe with Bruckner. He only composed one symphony, but composed it nine times 

If you're really interested in orchestral forms read up about sonata form. The most detailed and thorough study about it has to be 'Sonata Theory' by James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy. If you compress that huge 700 pages tome into two graphs, it looks like this:







This short wiki article, plus the one about sonata form, may be enough to get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonata_theory


----------



## Prockamanisc (May 17, 2016)

Energy-gaining modules? Is that like sequencing, and what-have-you? To build up tension?


----------



## thesteelydane (May 17, 2016)

Here's a very brief, but entertaining, overview of sonata form with live played examples, and the development of motivic material by the always entertaining Geoff Nuttal and SLSQ:


----------



## muk (May 17, 2016)

Prockamanisc said:


> Energy-gaining modules? Is that like sequencing, and what-have-you? To build up tension?



Yes, but there are unlimited ways to shape the transition zone. Energy gain and tension building is but the most frequent of the possibilities. There are quiet transition zones as well, and anything else you can imagine. The main purpose of the TR is to modulate to the dominant key, usually, where the secondary theme zone ensues.

The two theme zones are always in different keys. That's one of the few rules set in stone, because on the formal scale the tension between the two keys defines the sonata form, and building and solving (in the reprise) that tension is what the form is all about. That's why you will never see a secondary theme zone that is in the subdominant key. The dominant key is the most frequent, but others (mediant keys foremost) are also possible, as long as they establish a tension to the tonic key. And that's exactly what the subdominant doesn't do. Dominant is tension building (straying away from home), subdominant is tension reducing (coming home).
In more elaborate codas sometimes you'll encounter modulating passages. Most often they modulate to the subdominant - the coda is the bit at the end after the tension has been resolved, and therefor it should not build up new tension. By modulating to the subdominant key you can prevent that.

Anyway, the transition zone links the primary theme zone in the tonic key with the secondary theme zone in a different key. How it does this depends on the material being used, the key it has to move towards, the scale of the work etc. It's completely up to the composer's imagination. If you want to know which models have been most prominent through history, there's a chapter about the TR in Hepo/Darcy.


----------



## JohnG (May 17, 2016)

NOTICE: THE FOLLOWING POST OVERSIMPLIFIES EVERYTHING

The critical difference between orchestral pieces of yesteryear and most music today is *modulation*.

I'm defining "modulation" to mean a more or less clear series of chords that lead the listener to the new key, not just a jump with no preparation. The new key, traditionally, would be related (that is, the V chord / dominant in a major key or the relative major if the piece is in a minor key. There are many other choices that have been used but these are common). As our fellow member, muk, wrote above, many believe that the tension between the keys creates interest and energy.

*Why It's Rare Now*

These kinds of chord progressions are rare today, as are traditional orchestral arrangements with woodwinds. Why? Because to many people they sound old-fashioned and not "cutting edge."

*Is This Rarity Bad?*

Some people deplore this. Many hand-wringing traditionalists moan that many / most pop songs use only three or four chords and almost never modulate in a traditional way. It's not uncommon to jump to a new key (the old 1970s Barry Manilow thing), but it's often just an abrupt shift up a whole step, not a "real" change of key via modulation.

Those same people may also moan that a good bit of film music not only doesn't modulate, but often is just a series of "cool sounds" over essentially a drone. There might be some chord changes but often they are so closely related that they still don't hint at a different tonal centre ("main" pitch centre).

I think some of this criticism is valid; some just shows either a hankering for a bygone era or a wish to display that the critic took a music theory class (and is thus superior to those rubbishy pop stars). On the "valid" side, I'd argue that since much film music and video game music sits for many minutes in a single key / tonal centre, it lately relies very heavily on cool-sounding production and ever-evolving sonic material to maintain a level of interest. While I like a lot of that creativity, I do think it is far more exciting when married, however subtly, to greater melodic and harmonic variety, as, say, John Williams does in most of his scores.

In the hands of the very best modern composers, these new ways to create variety are, I think, reasonably powerful and interesting. However, there are legions of less able, less inventive, less perceptive, or less energetic composers out there producing mind-numbingly repetitious, single-key, drab dreck for games, TV and films. Many of these seem to miss, in my view, what really makes this stuff work.

There are some guys like Tom Newman who rise above in another way, but still I don't hear a lot of traditional modulation in what I've heard of his scores, with the conspicuous exception of "The Good German."

*So What?*

So, regarding forms, the traditional forms like rondo or sonata-rondo do seek often to juxtapose keys. If you are writing a 10-20 minute movement for a piece, it is unimaginable to me to stay in the same key the whole time -- what a bore!

But really I think the biggest difference is not even that. It's that even a traditional "theme and variations" form starting with a fairly unremarkable main tune can, in the hands of a total genius (like Beethoven's "Diabelli Variations") utterly wreck any pat definitions of what the form is _supposed_ to be and take us on a musical journey that is so sublime, so far beyond what probably anyone else could have done, that it reminds us the form is nearly irrelevant when ranked against invention, musical fluency, and just plain genius.

So I'm not saying that the form is irrelevant -- I don't think that -- but I don't personally think it's a magic bullet to create interest and variety. Helpful, yes, but not "that one simple trick that's driving established composers crazy...."


----------

