How do you arrange songs?

[theflyingturtle]

Last night a friend, the one who scratched my guitar, took my wife and I to see Colin Hay, the lead singer from the 80's band Men at Work. I have seen him twice before but this is the first time I've seen him with a backing band. What I noticed was that he sang several songs that I hadn't seen him perform before. I've ran into songs that I just couldn't pull off because it needed a band and I'm just one guy with a guitar. With that in mind, how do you approach learning a song with a duo or a group or how is the experience different working together to make something collaborative? I mean, once you've gotten the basic framework of a song. I am really quite relaxed about it. I usually take the rhythm guitar and the vocals and let the other player play lead, add fillers, or that the solo but I wonder if there's more I'm leaving on the table. Any tips, ideas, or suggestions for improving this approach.

[Tman]

His acoustic rendition of "Overkill" is fantastic.

 

The most useful information I could give you is just to define clearly what you are going to do and what they are going to do beforehand and then come prepared to rehearsal.

 

I reunite with an old band (from the 70's) once a year and we do covers for a benefit concert for Alzheimer's Arkansas (this last weekend). We practice just a few times beforehand. It is agreed upon before hand who plays what lead part, who sings what, etc. I put it on an excel spread sheet and keep it very simple.

 

We agree on the structure beforehand like "Play it exactly like the record or the live version or free jam certain parts, etc.

 

We raised $15,000 by the way.

 

Don't let that guy touch your guitar anymore.

 

Good luck to you!

[zombywoof]

I used to love arranging songs. "Wooly Bully" done Cajun style or "Paint it Black" in which the course goes into a waltz time. Just great fun and a good way to breathe life into some old chestnuts.

[blindboygrunt]

His acoustic rendition of "Overkill" is fantastic.

 

The most useful information I could give you is just to define clearly what you are going to do and what they are going to do beforehand and then come prepared to rehearsal.

 

I reunite with an old band (from the 70's) once a year and we do covers for a benefit concert for Alzheimer's Arkansas (this last weekend). We practice just a few times beforehand. It is agreed upon before hand who plays what lead part, who sings what, etc. I put it on an excel spread sheet and keep it very simple.

 

We agree on the structure beforehand like "Play it exactly like the record or the live version or free jam certain parts, etc.

 

We raised $15,000 by the way.

 

Don't let that guy touch your guitar anymore.

 

Good luck to you!

 

 

$15000 !

That's fantastic

 

Our company ice had to deliver goods in aid of an Alzheimer's function

 

 

 

 

 

 

We forgot 😐

 

That's a true story

[QuestionMark]

In answer to your original question:

 

Generally, I think about the available musical alternatives and choices for the song I have for on the guitar (and vocals, if applicable) and then by trial and error, try them to see if any or all they can musically work. And, if I can play them. Each situation that I apply this to may be a bit different each time. I try to make it my own now that I am a veteran player and try to avoid just copying the original. Although, for many early years of playing or singing, I did try to copy the original to build up what I now refer to as my musical vocabulary which now translates into my musical alternatives and choices.

 

That's how I approach it solo. If I am jamming with another, that's how I approach my parts. If collaborating, I share that and hope the other also contributes their ideas, but often I find it one sided on my part. If another wants it to sound exactly like a record, I just go along and try to do that, but I prefer the former two ways.

 

Then once I get it arranged how I think it should be, I practice, practice, practice it until I have it. Maybe slightly fine tuning it along the way.

 

There's actually a lot more involved than I've stated, including tempo, rhythm, vibe, ambience, etc. but what I've said is the basic gist of how I arrange.

 

I don't use tab or charts or sheet music although I could. I prefer doing it all by ear.

 

But that's my approach and others may obviously have different approaches.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

[gfa]

I saw that show recently! I was never a MAW fan, but friends had told me he does a really good show, so I thought I'd check it out. Very enjoyable! I would've preferred a solo show, but we get what we get, and that band was good! Anyway, your question is a tough one to respond to, because it can vary so much. In broad terms, if my intent is to honor the spirit of the original, I think my first job (as rhythm guitarist) is to replicate the rhythmic pulse of the song (not the tempo or the time signature, but the pulse). Then I think about who should do what solo-wise and what our multi-instrumentalist should play. Then I make gentle suggestions, which the others ignore about half of the time. If my intent is to do a re-imagined version, I'm figuring out my rhythm/groove for the song, then following much the same process with about the same results. There's a reason we call ourselves a "jam band." :)

[kidblast]

With that in mind, how do you approach learning a song with a duo or a group or how is the experience different working together to make something collaborative? I mean, once you've gotten the basic framework of a song.

 

A lot of my arrangements are just set for a soloist or duo setting, I use the basic framework of a song. Considering that almost all songs were written either on a guitar, or a piano, the composer, the instrument the voice, THAT is THE song.. What we hear after the fact, once it's reached our ears, is the production aspects that are layered on top of the chords/melody/words.

 

I take it back from there and break it down to the absolute core, leave out just about everything else that doesn't really matter. I think any song, (any decent song) should be able to stand on it's own, a single performer, in their own element, A guitar/piano, a voice,... and go straight for the heart of it... if it's a good/well written song, it comes out, and once you work it to this level, it's your own version and you OWN it.

 

When working with my band, we first have to see if the song is in our wheel house, or if not, can we bring it in and make it work. how the vocals can be arranged is the key part, because that's what people hear, and focus on.

they're not waiting for the epic solo, or blazing drum parts, or what ever we think we want to focus our energy one. Our audience for the most part want to hear the words, that's what THEY know.

 

I think that not all songs work for ALL bands... sometimes you just gotta know when to say "nope... not this one" and move on. Like trying to cover a well known Journey tune, but you really have no where near the vocals to cover it... why knock the head against the wall.. 3,000,000,000 other songs,, find another..

[theflyingturtle]

With that in mind, how do you approach learning a song with a duo or a group or how is the experience different working together to make something collaborative? I mean, once you've gotten the basic framework of a song.

 

A lot of my arrangements are just set for a soloist or duo setting, I use the basic framework of a song. Considering that almost all songs were written either on a guitar, or a piano, the composer, the instrument the voice, THAT is THE song.. What we hear after the fact, once it's reached our ears, is the production aspects that are layered on top of the chords/melody/words.

 

I take it back from there and break it down to the absolute core, leave out just about everything else that doesn't really matter. I think any song, (any decent song) should be able to stand on it's own, a single performer, in their own element, A guitar/piano, a voice,... and go straight for the heart of it... if it's a good/well written song, it comes out, and once you work it to this level, it's your own version and you OWN it.

 

When working with my band, we first have to see if the song is in our wheel house, or if not, can we bring it in and make it work. how the vocals can be arranged is the key part, because that's what people hear, and focus on.

they're not waiting for the epic solo, or blazing drum parts, or what ever we think we want to focus our energy one. Our audience for the most part want to hear the words, that's what THEY know.

 

I think that not all songs work for ALL bands... sometimes you just gotta know when to say "nope... not this one" and move on. Like trying to cover a well known Journey tune, but you really have no where near the vocals to cover it... why knock the head against the wall.. 3,000,000,000 other songs,, find another..

 

I think we were separated at birth. I do this just about word for word. Neat.

[gfa]

With that in mind, how do you approach learning a song with a duo or a group or how is the experience different working together to make something collaborative? I mean, once you've gotten the basic framework of a song.

 

A lot of my arrangements are just set for a soloist or duo setting, I use the basic framework of a song. Considering that almost all songs were written either on a guitar, or a piano, the composer, the instrument the voice, THAT is THE song.. What we hear after the fact, once it's reached our ears, is the production aspects that are layered on top of the chords/melody/words.

 

I take it back from there and break it down to the absolute core, leave out just about everything else that doesn't really matter. I think any song, (any decent song) should be able to stand on it's own, a single performer, in their own element, A guitar/piano, a voice,... and go straight for the heart of it... if it's a good/well written song, it comes out, and once you work it to this level, it's your own version and you OWN it.

 

When working with my band, we first have to see if the song is in our wheel house, or if not, can we bring it in and make it work. how the vocals can be arranged is the key part, because that's what people hear, and focus on.

they're not waiting for the epic solo, or blazing drum parts, or what ever we think we want to focus our energy one. Our audience for the most part want to hear the words, that's what THEY know.

 

I think that not all songs work for ALL bands... sometimes you just gotta know when to say "nope... not this one" and move on. Like trying to cover a well known Journey tune, but you really have no where near the vocals to cover it... why knock the head against the wall.. 3,000,000,000 other songs,, find another..

 

Well said. That part that I bolded - so true. One measure of a good song - not the only measure, but one of them - is that it holds together when given a very different treatment. For example, last night I heard a bluegrass cover of Bruce Springsteen's "I'm on Fire" and it worked.

[Buc McMaster]

...........the vocals......because that's what people hear, and focus on.

 

Yep. A point I made some weeks back in another thread. Good description of dismantling a song to it's essence, as it was most likely originally written, to make it an effective song for a solo player.