PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Songwriting Berklee: 20 tips to write 20 songs in 20 days

The article title is misleading. The exercises are valuable. The tips do not help you complete a song per day but they may unlock some barriers that you might not even know you have as a songwriter.

https://online.berklee.edu/takenote/20-tips-to-write-20-songs-in-20-days-part-one/

I’d be perfectly happy to write a decent song every 20 days.

Bud

Same here. I want songwriting to be fun, not work!

Did either of you read the article? It’s not about work, it’s about practice.

Would you object to anyone suggesting you should practice guitar every day if you want to be a good guitar player?

That’s all that these type of articles are suggesting.

The most well known creatives create every day. Every art form.

Relax, I was trying to be funny. Perhaps a bad attempt. And I did read it.

Bud

I’ll give an example from Robert Frost, from a part of his work which has recently become public domain
————
The Dust of Snow

The way a crow shook down on me
The dust of snow from a hemlock tree

Has given my heart a change of mood
And saved some part of a day I rued
- Robert Frost
—————-

I’m guessing Mr Frost wrote that after a walk. He didn’t take two weeks. I bet he spent 10 minutes on it max. And yet we all just read it. Published.

Bud, there are a few of us here that participate in February Album Writing Month, where the goal is to write 14 songs in the month of February each year. When we put the invitation here, invariably we get flack about how that’s not really possible, turns songwriting into work, etc.

Those of us that participate know that the practice of being prolific is as much necessary to becoming a songwriter as intense handwringing about each and every syllable.

The thread was already taking the turn of disregard instead of taking the tips to heart as a practicing songwriter.

We are avid mountain bikers. Often on a demanding “high heart rate” tough trail we become so focused that, counterintuitively, we feel more free. A zone a lot of endurance athletes describe. And for me some of my better hooks and lines have “appeared” during that state. Never anything resembling a complete song but enough to get started with.

A second scenario for us is when exposed (hiking, biking or even driving) through scenery that takes one’s breath away. That has also inspired some songs.

And, of course we are familiar with FAWN, etc. A tip of the pint glass to all who participate. And, of course we realize that practice helps but it does not always make perfect. I will never be able to race (which we do) my bike as fast as some folks who have "givens." Like giant lungs, etc. And I'll never be able to write like some of the folks on the user forum who have an ability to see themes in many different and unique ways...like a writer of great prose. And create vivid imagery for same. I will note that I do not wring my hands over only writing a song every month or so. I not not spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get the "right" word. But I do spend a lot of days between writing sessions during that month. If I sit down to work on a song and nothing happens I have many, many other things to do -- even in my many years of retirement. But eventually I get a song finished.

Perhaps being veery prolific helps but IMHO a great idea, hook, etc., is golden. And as one of the best writers on the forum once told me "you got to have something to say!"

And FWIW I and others, particularly many on a board like PG Music, tend toward seeing the completion of a song only after it has been arranged, backing tracks selected, mixed and often mastered. A time consuming but enjoyable process got us.

Every man must make his own path...or something like that.

In no way do I want to denigrate the notion that learning is important -- especially about song structure. I have learned a LOT, even at my 73 years, from several members here who have been very patient with me as I struggled to write. Without them and BiaB I would never have begun to try this song writing thing.

Bud

Me too

Yes and here are my thoughts"

Day 1, 4, 6, - do this all the time in BiaB
Day 2, 5, 17 - do this all the time with BiaB tracks in my DAW
Day 3 - try to do this with instrumentals and when collaborating with BobH when writing lyrics.
Day 7, 10, 11 - try to do this with instrumentals
Day 8 - not a lyricists
Day 9, 12, 15 - do this
Day 14 - always do this
Day 16 - I do this with instrumentals
Day - 18 - do this with BobH and JonD and others
Day 19 - I try to write instrumentals in all moods
Day 20 - I have my workflow but many times I deviate from it. It is not engraved in stone.

We have the advantage of having BiaB at our disposal 24/7/365. I'll bet that most of us already use many of those techniques.

After spending many years playing in wedding bands and playing what other people wanted I now play what I want and when I want.

I stand by my statement. Working in MIDI takes time and really can't be rushed if I want good results. Sometimes a song will only take a day or two but other times it may take weeks. But I enjoy this more than working with RTs or any other audio track(s).

Finally I know it takes practice to learn songwriting and/or playing any instrument. My songs are a lot better now then they were 20 years ago. My wind controller is better than a couple of years ago but my guitar playing has diminished as I don't practice like I should. But at my age I don't care.

YMMV

Peace

Hi Scott,

Thanks for posting this article.

I'm a huge fan of Andrea Stolpe. Her book "Popular Lyric Writing" is one that I have re-read at least 20 times. It's short, to the point and teaches a very productive lyric writing technique.

For anyone who reads this and would like a bit of background information....

Andrea is a past student of Pat Pattison and she invented a lyric-writing strategy based on Pattision's object writing. She uses 'external' phrases and rhymes balanced with 'internal' phrases and rhymes to construct verses, chorus and bridge. These phrases and rhymes are gathered during the course of what Andrea calls "Destination Writing".

Following her approach, I have regularly surprised myself by starting with no idea at all and getting a first draft of lyrics within 1 - 2 hours -- often quicker.

She's a terrific educator.

Thanks again,
Noel

*negative post spoiler alert*

I'm not a fan of Pat Pattison. While I will certainly concede that some of his techniques are helpful, here's where it breaks down for me....he's not a songwriter, he's an academic/educator. He hasn't been a successful, published songwriter, which in of itself isn't so bad, but IMO he believes that songwriting is a skill that can be taught. Much like, if you want to be an architect? Go to college, work hard to learn all you can and get your degree, and off you go, you're an architect. You could insert doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.

Songwriting is not a skill, it's a talent. It is certainly a talent than can be improved upon - after 3 1/2 decades of writing for a living, I still try to write better songs, and I believe I improve constantly. But a certain amount of talent is a prerequisite to being any good at it.

I was brought on by a nearby community college to "teach" commercial songwriting, now entering my 2nd year. I can't teach anybody to write a song, and nobody else can. That's pretty much like trying to teach a fish to swim. You either can or you can't. Little bits of craft, shortcuts, workarounds, etc. - that I can share, but I simply reject the notion that just anyone can write songs. It's a running disagreement I have with faculty administration, because (as educators) they simply don't believe my belief to be accurate (although they've yet to provide any evidence to the contrary).

I very well may judge Pattison too harshly, but in my defense, I've just encountered far too many aspiring writers in my career who hang on Pattison's every word as if it were gospel truth or indisputable fact. I believe I mentioned on another thread, I never read a single book about songwriting until 13 years after I had my first song recorded, and then it was only out of curiosity because Jimmy Webb wrote it, and I'm a big fan of his work.

Bottom line is, I guess, if you find something in his (or anyone else's) books that helps you write better, then that's great. I just think he's incredibly overrated.

Yes, I'm a big ol' wet blanket.

I give up.

Go ahead and keep this forum full of ‘what style should I use to sound like Luke Brown or Chris Brian or whoever is currently writing about drinking beer in the woods around a bonfire with the girls in the cutoff shorts and getting familiar in the bed of a pickup truck.

Sheesh

If you've been making a living for 35 years, there's likely nothing Pat Patterson can teach you anyway. Not being argumentative because I agree with all you wrote in your comment above in principle but not in practicality. With more than three decades of writing, I can guarantee you've written better songs than have been published on 100% of record albums/CD's commercially released. You've written great songs that no one other than maybe a family member or close friend has ever heard. I'll counter your notion that just anyone can't write a song with I believe everyone has written at least one song in their lifetime! Music is as innate to humanity as tracking/sniffing is to a dog. It's built into our psyche. Music affects our moods, helps us maintain focus and is universally enjoyable. Everyone sings in the shower or when they're alone and all of them, each and every one, has made up a song spontaneously. They've written a song and they sing it out. Your remarks seem to confuse commercial songwriting with songwriting. They're not the same and you are absolutely correct than not everyone can turn out a hit. Most commercial artists have never recorded a number one song much less written one. It's a rarity and largely controlled by the music industry itself. Millions of artists have written songs of a quality to be number one but the song never even entered the contest. There are people who would be judged to have no musical ability or talent and have written a single song, and it was a hit. Thousands of examples in which an artist writes, records and releases a song and it is a commercial failure only for the song to be selected by another artist, redone (sometimes nearly indistinguishable from the original) and it becomes a huge hit.

Songwriting is a teachable skill. It's no different than being an architect, doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. Most of these people are in careers that their success is measured the same as most songwriters - They work and produce their product daily without world wide fame and monetary success. For instance, lawyers by the tens of thousands work their trade for 35 years and they never have a single case garner national attention that brings them fame. It's just the same for the songwriter that's never had a hit. Most of the world's work product is mundane.

Pat Patterson is no different than any high school teacher or college professor teaching tens of thousands of students daily for years day in day out and never produce a #1 best selling author.

The great thing about opinions is that everyone is allowed (or should be allowed) to have one, or many. I respect yours, and you expressed your position in a very fair and reasonable way. I just happen to completely disagree with you, and to that end, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. By the way, I believe I did say something to the effect of "if you get something out of his books, that's great". I do think he makes some decent points - as I said, I more take exception to the notion that he's some sort of song whisperer. I absolutely wouldn't suggest anyone here has said or implied that, but it is absolutely something I've encountered a great many times over the years.

Let me circle back to the point I thought I was making, and probably didn't do well. I've been extremely fortunate that I've had a great many songs recorded over the years. The first was in 1985 by Tanya Tucker, I was barely 23 years old. At that time, I had never read a book, taken a class, or been given any instruction whatsoever on how to write a song. In those days in Nashville, you had to pretty much sink or swim on your own creatively....the only instruction anyone was willing to give was business-related. There was no such thing as a song critique...it was either "yeah, we might be able to do something with that", or "meh, that's a piece of crap, what else do you have".

Nobody taught me how to write songs, I just figured it out on my own. My first publisher was a songwriter who had a 6th grade education and was dyslexic, and yet he had hundreds of songs of his recorded, and well over a dozen big hits. His comment "I ain't got no craft, I'm gifted" kind of sounded egotistical to me at the time he said it, but over the years I've come to understand where he was coming from. He couldn't tell you how he wrote songs. He couldn't tell you where the ideas or melodies came from. He just sat down and did it.

That is simply not a "taught skill". It's a God-given talent. No different than a kid that picks up a baseball and throws it 100mph.

Now, where you are spot-on correct is when you pointed out astutely that I was speaking about commercial songwriting. I view writing through that lens, because it's my vocation, and perhaps it's an unfair perspective to apply as broadly as I do. I do a lot of workshops and seminars for NSAI (I was a mentor for the Advanced Song Camp just last week), and part of what I do on occasion is to listen to aspiring writers songs and try to help them "fix" them or make them better. I can listen to a song and make suggestions and/or changes - but I can't explain the WHY, it's just instinct. As I said, I was never taught how - I just did it, and wound up making a career out of it.

Lastly, I'll say this. I would agree that a lot of people could write something resembling a song, or a fragment of one at least. But my father, as an example, was completely and utterly tone-deaf. He couldn't tell Mozart from two trash cans lids banging together. He couldn't have written a song if you had given him books and sat him in classes for a hundred years. He did graduate college in 3 years and went to both law school and medical school, so he was a very educated man. But he wasn't capable of grasping music, at all. So no - I don't believe it's a learned skill. I believe it's a talent. Again, I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree - I enjoy reading your posts!

No problem. I think we're closer to being on the same page than either of us articulate. I find it incredibly easy to write songs but practically impossible to sell them. I understand your point about your Dad, but I'll bet at some time throughout his life, when no one was looking and no one could hear, he made up a song and was singing in the shower. Obviously, you're correct regarding talent. There's some that can produce hit after hit and they are actually great songs. Every industry has it's top performers and there seems to be people who are born to be great at something. They can make the difficult look so easy.

There's also some luck involved I think. Good discussion and I've enjoyed reading your posts too and look forward to hearing a lot from you.

For anyone who is interested, here's a link to Pat Pattison's course on Coursera.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/songwriting-lyrics?action=enroll

So far nearly 55,000 people have already enrolled.

It's up and running from August 1.

==========

According to Pat's webpage,

https://www.patpattison.com/online-courses

1.5 million people have already taken his course to date.

Hi Roger,

I write regarding your comment below. I am a teacher.


Good songwriting is certainly a talent. There’s no doubt about that at all. That said, anything that is a talent can also be taught... maybe not with the natural flair for inventiveness and creativity that 'talent' brings to the table, but through analyses it's possible to deduce patterns and regularities that an educator can use as a starting place for teaching and this educator can then expand on these foundations.

• For some students, this process of 'learning the mechanics' often opens a doorway of what's possible and this, in turn, allows previously unrealised or unrecognised natural talent to develop and grow.

Over the years, I have had a number of students go on to achieve outstanding accomplishments although I have never once achieved anything equivalent at any stage of my life.

I’ve been to many Prof. Patterson seminars, I was up to 20 when I stopped counting, and he is definitely a talented educator just like you are a talented songwriter (your credentials are very impressive). My experience is that a talented educator has the ability to not only teach knowledge but also to inspire creativity and to unleash a desire to achieve at the highest possible levels. All too often, our western school system fails at the latter and stops at the 'disseminating knowledge' stage of education. Pattison is not such a teacher. My personal experience is that the large majority of people leave Pattison's seminars inspired to write and eagre to learn more. I've seen many people, like myself, who keep on returning to his seminars. Pattison challenges, motivates and emboldens people to try. Isn't that what good teaching is all about?

• I'll never forget the feeling of satisfaction and gratitude that I felt when I left my very first Patterson seminar. He gave me some tools to work with and a lens through which to view songwriting that made the impossible a possibility for me. Since that day, I have never stopped feeling thankful to him.

In addition, I believe that it is through accomplished teaching that skills are enhanced and exceptional talent is given the very best set of circumstances in which it can thrive and can accomplish great things. Time and time again history has shown that this is true.

You seem to agree with this when you say,


It is when one discovers a talented teacher who has the ability to know what needs to be done to accomplish the "better" that you mention, that the process of growing more accomplished is streamlined and hastened.

One example that springs to mind is Mozart. He was an amazing talent. As I understand it, he had perfect pitch and he could 'hear' an orchestra and its arrangement effortlessly in his mind. When polishing his musical creations, though, it was through the skills he learnt regarding harmony, counterpoint and general music craftsmanship that allowed his music to become timeless. Mozart's talent was enhanced by a number of educators.

Just my tuppence worth.

Regards,
Noel Adams

P.S. I am not a talented songwriter but through seminars with Pat Pattison, Steve Seskin and Beth Nielsen Chapman, in addition to reading a number of books, I have learnt how to write songs that allow me to feel a sense of accomplishment and self-satisfaction. That's enough for me.

Thanks for replying, Noel....
I certainly never intended to come across as if I devalue or disrespect educators or education. That was NEVER my intention, as I hold those who teach in the highest regard (as I said, I 'teach' a songwriting class at a community college myself).
My point is, again and this is my opinion, that I don't believe songwriting at it's core is something that can be taught regardless of how good those doing the teaching are at their job.
Now anything can be learned through study and teaching, that's a separate conversation and most likely where the disconnect is in this particular discussion. Learning how to do something and being really good at it are two different things, as you would know very well. I studied math in school growing up, and though I managed to learn it well enough to pass my classes, I was never any good at it. And so I guess in my mind I'm applying that criteria (being really good at something) to my definition of having learned how to do it - probably unfair, but there it is.
I know Steve and Beth, they are both brilliant songwriters and I would encourage anyone to attend their classes/seminars/workshops. My thoughts are truly specific to Pattison, and with apologies I'm simply going to have to stand by my opinion that he is overrated....more specifically, by many people I have met, his opinions and teachings on songwriting are overVALUED to the point of them being treated like they are the Ten Commandments. Does he have good points, good exercises, good thoughts? Absolutely. There is most likely something in there that could be applied by everyone who writes or attempts to write songs.
However - I, unfortunately, have sat down with dozens and dozens of aspiring writers (please note the word 'aspiring', as in hoping to write professionally) who have played me songs that were simply not competitive in the commercial marketplace, and then being flabbergasted when I told them so, because "I wrote these exactly the way Pat Pattison said to".

So maybe I take less exception with what or how Pat Pattison teaches, and more with the way his methods wind up being applied by many. I hope this clarifies, and my heartfelt apologies if I in any way came across as being disrespectful or unappreciative of educators such as yourself.
Regards,
RB

Hi again, Roger.

I didn't take any offence to your writing at all. You made me think and I always appreciate that.

When I read your statement, "So maybe I take less exception with what or how Pat Pattison teaches, and more with the way his methods wind up being applied by many", I smiled because I remembered when I started trying to apply Pat's approaches. The saying 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' just sprang to mind! That definitely applied to me. I'll explain.

After Pat's first seminar, I was armed with...

• knowledge of aligning syllable strength with appropriate musical rhythmic strength
• how to control lyric movement through rhyme and meter
• how to use sense-based language to engage the listener with 'showing' rather than telling
• how to augment emotion through use of balanced and unbalanced phrases (musically and lyrically)

What I didn't appreciate though, was that these tools in the hands of a well-practised expert are used very differently than when some novice person like myself tries to use them. Ability and sophistication develop through practice. And that needs time. After my first seminar, this didn't occur to me. I simply felt like I was ready to conquer the songwriting world

It's now 13 years after that first Pattison seminar. Up until then, I had no idea at all how to write lyrics and to fit them to music. What Pat gave me was some analytical insight to get started and a belief that I could do it. The reason I kept on returning to his seminars was because every time I heard him speak, I heard things a little differently because as I practised more and gained more experience, I was able to gain increasingly more from his words.

Now when I now look back on my songs from 13 years ago, I usually cringe. At that time, I thought I understood 100% what Pattison was saying. I didn't. In reality, it was just a glimmer of what was to come many years later. As someone once told me, hindsight is always 20/20 vision.

What I am forever grateful to Pattison for is that he taught me how to, and I quote him, "Write Fearlessly!" As he has said at every seminar I've been to, "Never be afraid to write crap. After all, it's the best fertiliser." When I look back now, it's amazing how these two statements of his have been driving forces for me on my songwriting journey.

Thank you again for giving me a heap of the proverbial 'food for thought'!

Regards,
Noel

I would say commercial songwriting is obviously something that can be taught. Nashville and pop music rely heavily on a formulaic approach to hit writing and that can be taught.

But there is incredible competition, the who-do-you-know factor and plain old luck involved in getting a great song anywhere near hit status.

Finally, I was never impressed with Pattison's teaching & writing style. I feel he takes 20 minutes to cover what could be easily explained in 5 minutes. And I just get bored and annoyed listening to him. Maybe he is truly brilliant but I'll never have the patience to find out!

Though I can see his point of view, I disagree with Roger...
I think songwriting is both a skill & talent...
And both can be improved upon...
By writing...
But each of us have our own approach to the craft...
And hopefully we are having fun!

Scott mentioned the FAWM challenge...
There is also the 50/90 challenge http://fiftyninety.fawmers.org/
I urge you to go there & listen to some of the songs...
Some are crap & some sound great (ear of the hearer I guess )...
The drawback for me is finding time to listen to the songs of others & make fairly quality comments...
While still trying to concentrate on writing.

Here it is easier to listen & comment because there are far fewer submissions...
Well... there use to be !

As someone that is grateful for public domain songs so I can have something to record I have no skin in this game. I've enjoyed reading this thread because of the diverse views expressed as well as how civil the conversation has been.

Reading through the posts though one thought keeps coming to me. What if you mentally replace the word "teacher" with the word "coach". Does that change the meaning of any of the posts? Does it bring the two viewpoints closer together? Does this change the conversation any, if at all?

Hi Jim,

I think that to some extent the notions of 'coach' and 'teacher' are interchangeable. I'm not sure that they are synonyms in all circumstances, though.

As a science teacher, when I use the word 'coach' to explain my actions, I am tutoring a person to follow a set of operations that achieve a predictable outcome and that outcome is unvarying. For example, I coach someone in how to multiply two-digit numbers or I coach someone in how division of fractions works.

On the other side of that coin, when I teach someone, I see myself as providing that person with a set of principles that are guided by knowledge and then giving them the freedom to use those principles and knowledge in ways that I have probably never thought of.

My way of thinking is that talented teaching involves elements of coaching as well as elements of facilitating learning. The 'talent' aspect for me relates to a skilled ability to make the complex understandable and, as a consequence, to inspire learners to seek knowledge, to develop skills beyond the classroom and to become their own coaches and teachers.

Thank you for such a thought-provoking question!

Regards,
Noel

I don’t worship Pattison. I’ve taken the free Berklee songwriting course twice.

I’m clearly not a talented songwriter as I have no hit records to my credit.

But I do enjoy songwriting now more than ever. It’s a very satisfying leisure activity and turns on part of my brain that I don’t get to use in my normal job as an ejection seat test engineer. I make a pretty good living doing that. From all accounts that I have heard from professional songwriters, with only the very top 100 of them in the world, I make a way better living than they do. So maybe it’s a blessing I don’t have to do songwriting for a living.

I use several methods in my songs that I learned in Pat’s course; namely The Boxes and odd line counts in prechorus sections, and the whole concept of prosody. These are not things you learn in engineering school on any level.

Is he the only one that teaches those things? I have no idea.

But they are useful to me in this hobby for enjoyment and satisfaction, and for that, I’m quite thankful for his courses. I think this is probably the case for most people that take his courses. He has opened doors for many to enjoy something they perhaps didn’t know they could enjoy.

I think this is why you see the praise of him. Now, if you have no need to be taught anything about songwriting because it’s all just natural talent; and you make write hit records while you are eating breakfast, or while you are just walking down the street, well you would have no appreciation for someone who teaches others what you yourself have known from birth.

To everyone else, if you’ve not tried the tips in this article, but you want to add tools to your songwriting toolbox, it can’t hurt to try them.

I don't think "not having any hit records" disqualifies one from being a talented song-writer. There are too many other factors at play (and the recent "worse songs" threads give evidence to this) that are probably more important than the general artistic quality of a song.

Song-writing (either as a hobby or a profession/semi-profession) is sort of like "photography" to me. Some people prefer to snap-snap-snap and cull the results. Some people like to carefully frame and apply filters and do all the other photography skills/tricks. The former have enough "eye" to recognize the worth of individual photographs and may, over time, learn to produce a larger percentage of their work that become "keepers". The latter have enough eye to recognize the value of the skills/tricks they've learned, and seek to learn more.

I've seen hobbyist photographers who barely knew how to operate a point-and-shoot camera take more pleasing photographs after a few lessons. I have to believe the same can be true of "song-writers". As long as they have the "ear", the skill-sets can be taught. And sometimes what is taught has to be interpreted to meet the requirements of the song instead of reworking the song to meet the requirements of the skill-set. I think that at least sometimes works in engineering too.


I'll look into the video/series more as time allows. At the least, I'd like to know what a "Pre-chorus" is as I've seen it mentioned on this forum before and have no idea.

A pre chorus occurs in the song right before the chorus as a build into the chorus. It often has its own rhyming scheme apart from the verses and chorus. Sometimes there’s no rhyme at all. Of course I can’t think of a single example off the top of my head!

Edit: Since U Been Gone by Kelly Clarkson has a big pre chorus build

Interesting reading the posts from Roger, Scott, Noel and others about a long debated topic is it talent or is it practice. This debate doesn't just rage in the music world it's also in the other arts. Do you have to have immense talent to be a great dancer or a great artist? Or maybe to be in the Olympics? I'm also a visual artist and spent most of the last couple months preparing for a solo art show, proud to say I sold 10 paintings and received really great feedback and positive comments on my paintings. I also did some poetry to accompany some of them. There was the time in art history of Leonardo Di Vinci and other great painters before the camera, that art was taught and apprentices worked with artists to perfect their technical skills. In the time of Di Vinci and Michelangelo art was an occupation and their works met a demand for realistic paintings. They learned to become great through themselves being an apprentice. Van Gogh in his day was sort of looked down on as maybe even slightly crazy and a troublemaker. He only sold (1) painting in his life. Van Gogh was not accepted into the academy as they thought he had no talent, but he painted daily and developed his own unique style. None of these artists were really that famous in their day only post modem when the rich and museums decided to promote them. After the camera was invented, a modern movement happened in Europe and then America when famous artists labeled themselves as "having gifts bestowed by God". No one had to teach them art, they were the chosen ones. Monet, Picasso, Kalinsky, Rothko, etc. They did impressionistic and abstract art. Art became about the feelings to be expressed. This continued into our last century and even today. When I went to art school, I had teachers who couldn't explain perspective. They didn't need to, as art was inspired magic if you had it and about feelings. If you wanted an exact replication take a photo. I am glad to see today there is a remergence of the "New Old Masters" teachings. Back to my point, what I've seen in art students and others learning art you need (2) things a teeny bit of talent and interest and the discipline to learn and practice. You will be amazed at how good you can become. Whether you are ever famous or not is a whole another thing and that is based on opportunity and luck, neither of which may cross ones path in this life. One can become better than someone who has a lot of talent but is lazy and does not put in the time and effort to develop that talent. IMO I believe that many students who couldn't achieve for Roger is because many people and especially young people believe that it is God given and should be easy if they have it, and they aren't willing to put in the elbow grease otherwise to get there. Talent will get you no where without the hard work. I also believe many teachers seeing students not try or fail, dismiss them quickly because they know they won't put in the effort (who could blame them), however someone with some talent will get encouraged and praised by the teacher and that is inspiring in itself and positively encourages the student to continue.
Also, as Roger explained it is possible to have some talent and self teach as it appears that he's done and because he practiced and kept at it to become a good songwriter. I remember one famous songwriter saying "People say great songs come from inspiration, thank God inspiration strikes every day at 9:00". Bottom line is that none of this is important if it's not bringing any happiness or joy in your life. If you're unhappy that you are never going to be famous or cut a top hit (largely controlled by the music industry) then you're only frustrating your life and being miserable. Remember life is short and great artists die like everyone else and they ain't taking nothing with them, chosen by God or not. You gotta have the love of it.

Hey Rock_star, I also took the free songwriting class from Pat Pattison twice. I do use the boxes, length of lines, pre-chorus and prosody from his teachings. I also do the object and destination writing to come up with songs and imagery. I've only been writing for about 8 years but have written over 350 songs. I do FAWM and 50/90 although this year I have been quite busy with my other hobbies I do, art and dance. I read all the time about songwriting, I dissect good songs, belong to a local songwriter group. Try to write a lot whether inspired or not. I just signed up for a creative writing class for the Fall at our local college. I'm writing lyrics and songs for a second album of a local musician country and southern rock style. Last year I wrote 10 songs for a UK artist. I may never have a number one hit, but I consider myself a success and I have worked hard at it. I'm not the greatest, but I'm not the worst as most of us are somewhere in between. Don't let anyone tell you, you have no talent and that you will never be successful. Determine what success is to you. Keep on, keepin' on. Rock on!!!!

Cool find Rockstar_not! Definitely some invaluable exercises to try here. Thanks for sharing!

Hi Tangmo,

Here's my 2 cents worth (just in case it's useful)...

I look at prechoruses as transitional bridges. This is a idea that Pat Pattison once discussed at a seminar I went to and I find it the most productive way of working out how to fit them into a song.

As a transitional bridge, a prechorus's purpose is to link the verse to the chorus. To this end, it often creates tension through an odd number of phrases or lyric line length or rhyme, etc., and then when the chorus begins, there's a satisfying release of tension and feeling of having hit home-base.

Scott used Kelly Clarkson's work as an example so I'll continue to use her work...

The lyrics and the song link for "Breakaway" are below. I really like this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-3vPxKdj6o



If you count the phrases in verse 1, there are six of them. In verse 2, though, there are seven. That seventh phrase in verse 2 serves as a means to transition (lyrically) more smoothly into the chorus. While it's possible to enter the chorus after line 6 (verse 2), adding this linking seventh line disturbs the established motion and, in so doing, creates tension. The melody for this line also lifts expectantly. (This is why pre-choruses are sometimes called 'lifts'). These two factors combine and lift expectations in the listener (i.e. "tension").

So this last line of verse 2 is a trigger for the chorus. It creates tension which is released with the arrival of the chorus. In the hands of Kelly Clarkson, these chorus lyrics feel like they arrive with an explosion. The seventh line augments this feeling. Some song analysts would call this a one-line prechorus others would could it a trigger line or a one-line lift. For me, I see this as a transitional line that empowers the chorus and connects it to the verse more strongly. The thing is that whatever it's called, it's usual purpose is to raise a listener's expectations and boost a feeling of satisfaction when the chorus arrives.

PSY's "Gangnam Style" has one of the best pre-choruses I've heard. It lifts expectations enormously as it prepares the listener for the chorus. As I hear it, the prechorus starts at 0:46 and the chorus enters at 1:10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZTcIJ2ycwM

Regards,
Noel

It's always really cool when people provide their own personal writing tips, and seeing how and in what ways people can adapt them to work for themselves. Really neat stuff.