I wrote a song that I believe needs to have the tempo increased by 20% for the bridge but don't know if this will be acceptable to listeners. The lyrics for the bridge also require a change from a 4/4 time sig to a 3/4 time sig. Changing the tempo from 100 (which it was for the verses and chorus) to 120 works very well for a 3/4 time sig in BiaB. Because a change from 100 to 120 on the first measure of the bridge is too abrupt, I made it occur much more gradually by starting four measures earlier and first changing the tempo to 105, then 110, then 115, and finally to 120. The gradual increase in tempo is still noticeable but is much more aesthetically pleasing. Then at the end of the bridge, I do make an abrupt change back to 100 for the chorus that begins next. This also sounds fine to my ears because it complements the lyrics and enhances the musical hook that coincides with the first word in the chorus. But my wife and a friend didn't like how it sounded to their ears. When they listened to the version without the tempo change, my wife didn't like that one either because the bridge sounded too slow (like the words were dragging), which was also my impression. However, my friend liked that one better. My producer also didn't like the tempo change version (I only shared the abrupt version with him) and claimed that it would be more appropriate to introduce faster-played instruments for the bridge (like a staccato violin, for example), but he hasn't heard how the bridge sounds without a tempo change. He also hasn't heard the gradual change version. What would you do with this song? Here are links to both versions that are unlisted (only for those who have the link because I haven't released these songs to the public) on my Youtube channel:

https://youtu.be/NGKiJ5JaawE

https://youtu.be/7c0eMbuGEBE

See the attached screenshot and music sample...... In Pro Tools on a current project I'm going from 125 BPM in the verses to 135 BPM in the choruses. I do this over the course of 2 measures at the end of the verse. The first measure of 135 BPM is the first measure of chorus. So the two measures prior are like a build up. In Pro Tools I just highlighted those two measures and said I wanted to go from 125 to 135 and it pasted in the transition tempos on it's own. Looks like about 8 tempo adjustments per measure. The transition sounds clean to me.....

That's the same pace of tempo change that I'm doing in BiaB. Mine sounds "clean," too, but will it be acceptable to the listener? Did you listen to both of my demos yet to hear the differences in them?

I like your 1st version better. In your case the meter change works better than the meter & tempo one IMHO. I was able to hear the 5 bpm increments and thought it sounded a bit mechanical. You are also adjusting by 20 bpm, double what I was doing with the 10 bpm bump. Try increasing just a total of 10 bpm and see if that sounds more natural. Hopefully you'll get more opinions since I'm just one listener.

Steve, thanks for your additional comments and for listening to both of my demos. Increasing the tempo by only 10 bpm is not enough to achieve the effect I'm after that adequately complements the lyrics in the bridge---even if that change were spread over four measures (like the 20 bpm tempo increase in my Demo #3). BiaB also has difficulty syncing up the 3/4 time sig with 110 bpm. So, I created a new demo that has a smoother transition from the second chorus into the bridge. Unlike Pro Tools, BiaB only has the ability to change the tempo at the beginning of each measure. Therefore, instead of the four equal 5 bpm incremental tempo changes in Demo #3, I now have five tempo changes that range from 2 bpm to 6 bpm (2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 bpm) across five measures. This resulted in a smoother transition that is comparable to yours but without being linear. I should also mention that the 10 bpm tempo increase from 125 to 135 in your project would be equivalent to an 8 bpm tempo increase above the 100 bpm in my verses and chorus. This is another reason why yours sounds so much more smooth and "natural" in comparison to my Demo #3, besides the fact that your tempo increase is divided evenly across 16 eighth notes that span two measures.

Assuming that you find the transition from the chorus to the bridge in my Demo #4 to be smooth enough in the sense that it is aesthetically acceptable if not pleasing to your ears, do you still think the 20 bpm tempo increase will be too much for the average listener with the result that s/he will not like this song? From what I've read during my research on this issue, tempo changes in pop music are discouraged, but not in rock and classical music. That's what prompted me to submit my post to this forum.

Here's the link to my new demo for you to check out:


https://youtu.be/aEkM2jk3iiQ

I liked the first one where the tempo remained constant. Switching time signatures was a bit strange, but not as weird as I thought it would be. I could see why you did it.... but I can also hear this in straight 4/4 as well. That would be my choice.... stay at 100 and in 4/4.

The tempo change I think was not a good idea... speeding up and them dropping back suddenly. I have used tempo change to slow the ending to a hold/stop... and that works well because it is used a lot in popular music.

When you do the tempo change the way you did, you can actually hear the steps and that makes it sound awkward. So what I do is a bit more work but it makes it sound totally natural and smooth. Where you plan to increase the tempo.... figure which measures are going to be affected. Then, lets say, using your song as an example... 4 measures for the transition. Insert an extra 4 measures. Go into the first measure and reduce the beat count from 4 back to 2 and then change the tempo by about 5 to 6 BPM in the direction you are transitioning. Then go to the next measure and repeat the process. To the listener's ear, your 8 measures of 2 beats each sounds like 4 measures of 4 beats and the transition in the tempo is by smaller increments and as a result sounds totally natural.

For what it's worth... I ten to do my transitions from regular tempo to the slow down hold across only 2 measures which are 4 measures of 2 beats each so there's 4 small tempo transitions and waaa laaa.... it works like a charm.

Once you get all that worked out to your satisfaction, this is a good tune and would certainly benefit from a real singer.


Edit. This is a song where I did exactly what I outlined above. Slow to a stop smoothly.

https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=13017714

IMHO the best way to do tempo changes is with a DAW as you will get a much smoother tempo transition. If you are working with RTs your DAW must have time stretching abilities.

I agree with your point that a DAW will create the smoothest tempo transition. Steve made the same point above and also shared a sample from one of his songs that demonstrated how a DAW will spread the tempo transition evenly across all of the notes in the measures that are affected by the tempo change. While this technique may be preferable in many if not most tempo change situations, I don't think it's the best technique for me to use on the tempo transition in my song.

Since my last comment above, I've done a lot of additional experimenting with different ways to increase the tempo from 100 bpm to 120 bpm over four or five measures but wasn't able to create a transition that I liked better than the one in the demo (#4) that I shared in my previous comment. So, I've decided to stick with that one. The transition back to 100 bpm at the end of the bridge has been more of a challenge because of its abruptness. But I was able to find a way to do this elegantly as well, thanks to the suggestion and example that Herb provided in his comment. In my reply below to Herb, I'll be sharing a link to the the latest demo (#5) I created that has a much better transition at the end of the bridge than my previous demo (#4) has.

The main reason the change to a 3/4 time signature sounded strange is that I didn't switch from a 4/4 drum track to a 3/4 drum track. I tried to keep the bridge in 4/4 but wasn't able to because the rhythm of the lyrics in the bridge call for a 3/4 time signature.



The tempo change transition in the demo (#3) I shared in my OP was definitely not very smooth because it consisted of four distinct steps of five bpm applied to four consecutive 4-beat measures. But in the next demo (#4) that I shared in a subsequent comment (which you may not have listened to), I used a different transition scheme that starts with a 2 bpm increase on the first of five measures that switches to a 3 bpm increase on the second measure and then switches to a 4 bpm increase on the third measure before ramping up to a 5 bpm and a 6 bpm increase on the last two measures respectively. Because the bpm increase on the first three measures is so small (from 2 to 3 to 4 bpm) the tempo increase isn't even noticeable until the third or fourth measure. By the time the ramp up to 6 bpm occurs in the fifth measure, the time signature also changes to 3/4. However, because I continued with the same 4/4 drum track in this demo (#4), the drums don't sync with properly with the rhythm of the bridge. So, I created a new demo (#5) in which I switch to a 3/4 drum track, which takes over to complete the transition to 120 bpm on the first measure of the bridge. I'll share the link to this demo below for you to listen to.



After I listened to the song you shared at the end of your comment (which has a tempo decrease at the end of the song), I decided to try a similar effect using BiaB's hold and fade feature in order to create a one-measure transition instead of a two-measure transition (as you had suggested) because the tempo decrease in my song occurs before the last two choruses instead of at the end of the song (like yours does). Here's a link to the latest demo (#5) I created that contains the 3/4 drum track for the bridge and the hold/fade effect for the tempo decrease at the end of the bridge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRYu4jVCu5o




Thanks! I do have a real singer who will be singing this song for me after my producer records it in his studio sometime this summer.

Hi muzikluver. What I think you might like much better than a tempo change is going from straight 4/4 to swing 4/4, and I think that your bridge might move very smoothly into quarter note triplets. That would give you the faster speed with no need to change tempo or time signatures, although you might need to hold notes at the end of phrases for an extra beat (or leave off a beat, depending how the phrases fall). Top 40 music in the Swing Era years did this all the time, moving from straight quarters to swing quarters and back again, or vice versa. In the case of your bridge, it means what you've written as two 3/4 bars totalling six notes would become one 4/4 bar with six notes. Quarter note triplets have a very smooth, flowing sound to them, which I think might compliment your lyrics.

Edited to add that we cross-posted, so I went back and listened to your 5th take. The stop time before you resume the 4/4 time signature is quite effective. For me, though, the switch from 4/4 to 3/4 with the tempo change is a little jarring even done gradually. It just feels to me like it ought to be triplets in 4/4 at the same tempo. (I watched the bars on the bridge this time, and saw that you wouldn't need to add or subtract anything at the ends of phrases; you have it very neatly divided.)

Hi Cathie, thanks for your suggestion, but I'm not familiar with swing 4/4. Would that be the same as a 6/4 time signature? It's hard for me to picture six quarter notes in a measure with a 4/4 time signature.

Cathie, any substantial tempo change will be "jarring" to some extent, even if it's done very gradually. I don't think this can be avoided, and I don't think that's the ultimate objective either. Perhaps it would be helpful to compare the tempo changes in my fifth demo to the tempo changes that were done in other songs that have already been released and became very popular. If my tempo changes are comparable to and perhaps even less "jarring" than the ones in the songs at the following links, then this should suffice as an answer to the question I asked in my OP. In fact, the reason I asked that question is that the articles I had read on this topic prior to posting my question advised against changing the tempo in a song. But, according to the first paragraph in the article at the first link below, tempo changes are one of the most overlooked tools in the songwriter's tool box. Here's the complete quote:

"For this week’s top 10, we’re going to explore one of the most overlooked tools in a songwriter’s toolbox. But don’t worry, even if you don’t write songs, I’m sure this will inform your musical listening (if nothing else, you might just hear these songs in a different way). Unfortunately, it seems as though a good tempo change in a song is becoming less and less popular in today’s music. It’s virtually non-existent in most hip-hop, dance, and pop styles, and we think that’s a shame. A common musical device of classical music, a tempo change (speed of song) is something that should be explored and celebrated for its musicality. As humans, we’re rhythmic by nature, and an increase or decrease in tempo has unique physiological effects on the listener. So let’s check out some sweet tempo changes that work wonders in the songs we love."

https://mysongalive.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/top-10-tempo-changes/

https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6d2ana/favorite_tempo_change_in_a_songpiece/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-songs-with-many-tempo-changes

https://kpsu.org/blog/12-great-rock-songs-change-dramatically-mid-song/

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3fMEe78seMp28I3rytx1Yp

https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2018/mar/15/readers-recommend-playlist-songs-with-sudden-changes

https://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?/topic/108141-songs-that-change-tempo-half-way-through/

Then there's the following excerpt from a forum on stackexchange, which I'll link to below:

"Q: Is changing tempo during the song and back again a common device used on modern popular music? Or is there a good reason to avoid this type thing?

A: No, it is not a device commonly used in popular music. However, this technique is extremely common in other forms of music. There are no good reasons to avoid this technique, band musicians are still musicians. If a clarinetist can change tempo in an orchestra, a guitarist can change tempo in a song.

Q: Does it pose any particular problems for either the listener or the musicians who must play the song?

A: For the listener, they are a little confused at first (depending on the nature of the tempo shift) but unless you're doing it every two beats, which could be a little disorientating, the confusion quickly subsides as the listener then adds temporal shifts to their aural vocabulary about the piece. The next time you do it, it'll make sense to them.

For the musicians, really the only problem is making sure you all move at the same time, the same speed, and arrive at the same tempo. If you don't read music, learning and incorporating this technique will be more challenging, but you should all be able to do it just fine. I would start by practicing going between double time and half time and move on from there.

Q: Assuming the negatives aren't prohibitive - are there certain guidelines that should be adhered to in an effort to make this type change more effective or less disruptive (ie. try to use a multiple of 2 on your Bpm)?

A: Who cares about disruptive? Make your music interesting; if it's disruptive for them, that's their problem, not yours. As I said, I would practice double time -> half time, and then try different modulations. I would try (as a band) starting slow and then gradually playing faster, and then doing the reverse. I would purchase a metronome so you can all practice agreeing on tempi. I would also work out some sort of visual signal from whomever is the "leader" to everybody else so that you know when to start / stop speeding up or slowing down.

If you're doing really complicated temporal modulations, I'd recommend click-tracks you can place in your ears. Many 21st century musicians who play very complicated music use click-tracks to help make sure they play the rhythms correctly, stay in tempo, and not get lost."

https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/30536/is-it-acceptable-to-change-tempo-in-the-middle-of-a-song-or-is-this-a-bad-idea

Swing time 4 is sometimes notated in 12/8 but is always beat 4/4. It was the dominant feel in jazz from the late '20s through the mid '60s as well as gospel, blues and much of rock. March time (6/8) would be its godfather as it were. Jazz waltz is 3/4 subdivided into 9. Take Five is beat in 5 but subdivides into 15.

The opposite is straight time which subdivides into 8 and 16.

Rock and roll has millions of examples of both. If you look at the Styles descriptions in BIAB, you'll get a feel for it quickly. Not so much something to learn as much as the realization, "Oh, that's what that is."

Thanks for answering my question, Mike. Do you think "swing time 4" would be a better way to accomplish what I've done with the bridge in my song using a 3/4 time signature and an increased tempo of 120 bpm? I've already tried using a 6/4 time sig and even a 12/8 time sig on my bridge without increasing the tempo, but it sounded exactly the same as if I had kept the time sig at 4/4. Also, can you share an example or two of a song that changes from a straight 4/4 time sig to a swing 4/4 time sig to demonstrate the effect that Cathie described and recommended for my bridge in her comment above?

Hi muzikluver, I'm sorry I didn't get back here sooner. No, I didn't mean 6/4--personally, I find 6/4 pretty awkward so I avoid it. What I meant was to use quarter note triplets in 4/4 because it gives the effect of going faster without changing the tempo. What you're essentially doing is dividing two quarter notes into eighth note triplets (123 123) and then tying those eighth notes so that you can count them 12-31-23. You've just played quarter note triplets. It feels flowing (like a waltz), but it's highly syncopated because the rest of the band is still playing ordinary quarter notes--and since you've just played six quarter notes in the space you formerly allotted to four, you've sped your melody up by about a third.

I went looking for an example for you but it's awfully late and I'm brain-dead. Really hope this link works. You can see the melody switches back and forth from quarter note triplets to ordinary quarter and eighth notes. It's not quite what I meant when I said the sections switch back and forth, since this is bars switching back and forth, but it's the best I could find.

Begin the Beguine

I wish you all the best on your song. It's going to be lovely however you choose to arrange it.

Well....

Even though I'm no audience for this genre or type of song I gave it a spin.

The tempo change did not work for me at all.
It's a slow ballad sort of song and the (any) tempo change is awkward and doesn't add anything to your effort.
If I were asked I'd say leave it at the 100bpm.

But...it's your song so good luck with your recording.
Just being candid....hope that helps.

Have a great day....

Thanks for listening to my song even though it's not a genre that you prefer listening to. I appreciate your suggestion to leave the bridge at 100 bpm, but that tempo doesn't do justice to the lyrics, IMO. So, I'm convinced that something needs to be done to address this issue. I'm sorry that the tempo change I made in my previous demos weren't appealing to you, but perhaps one or both of the two new demos I created with triplets for the bridge per Cathie's suggestion will be. Here's the links, which I'll also be including in my reply to Cathie below:

https://youtu.be/QeHWYLTDh-s (triplets on vocals only)

https://youtu.be/4qNwQhcABwY (triplets on vocals and instruments)

Thanks for following up with me, Cathie, and for answering my question. I visited the URL you shared but it didn't help me grasp your suggestion to use triplets for my bridge instead of a tempo change. So, I did some searching for examples of 4/4 swing and triplets but couldn't find any other examples that helped either. I eventually decided to see if MuseScore had the ability to create triplets and discovered that it does, which compelled me to modify the bridge in my lead sheet by replacing the 3/4 measures with 4/4 triplets. After some experimentation, I realized that 4/4 triplets at 100 bpm is equivalent to 3/4 at 150 bpm. This enabled me to create two new demos of my song with triplets in the bridge using BiaB and MuseScore. One of these demos has triplets on the vocals only, and the other demo has triplets on both the vocals and instruments. I'm not sure if you had the latter in mind with your suggestion, but I tend to prefer it over the former because vocal triplets alone don't enhance the lyrics nearly as much as vocal and instrument triplets combined do. The drawback with having triplets on the instruments as well as on the vocals is that the effect it produces is the same as abruptly changing the tempo from 100 bpm to 150 bpm, which doesn't lend itself well to a gradual transition that would be pleasing to the ear. However, to my ears, this abrupt change to 150 bpm per your triplet suggestion is quite acceptable if not preferable to the gradual transition from 100 bpm to 120 bpm in my Demo #5 version. Of course, I'll have to see what my producer thinks of it because I trust his judgment and will want to discuss both of these options with him at length before making a final decision. Until then, please check out these two new demos and let me know what you think of them and also which one (if any) you prefer. Thanks again for your suggestion!

https://youtu.be/QeHWYLTDh-s (triplets on vocals only)

https://youtu.be/4qNwQhcABwY (triplets on vocals and instruments)

Yikes… there are so many ways to accomplish this. Step one is always to have a clear idea of what you want to accomplish—how best to do it should always be step two. So many reverse the process but that only works when you're willing to be surprised by the results.

This is an extreme but quite famous example. It starts in a slow swing 4 (12/8) but the instrumental jam is in straight 4 (8/8) before it alternates between the two feels at the end. Note that the 8th note stays constant (taking into account that it's a live performance and the tempo does wander). Blew me away when I first heard it 53 years ago.

Cream: Spoonful from Wheels of Fire

If you want some real fun, check this out. Drummer starts in straight time but James Burton will have none of it swinging the 8ths from start to finish. During the instrumental, the drummer takes a 'can't beat 'em, join 'em' approach but when the vocal re-enters, tries to push it straight again — and JB is having none of that.

Susie Q — Dale Hawkins 1956

A lot of early rockabilly does this swing against straight.

In the mid-'60s, I heard The Golliwogs do the same song to a straight beat at a Rec Center dance where I first grew up. A few of my friends knew the original and were saying, That ain't right. as people do. Later, the record company made them change their name and they re-recorded it to some success—still with that rigid straight-8 feel.

Susie Q — CCR 1968

Back to your original question?

When is it ok…?

When the song demands it.

When it's fun or funny (not always the same thing).


When is it not ok…?

When the only reason you probably have is that you can.

When the change is so awkward that it sounds lame. Lame is in the ear of the beholder but you need to be the filter.

OH! Here it is!! Listening now.

I definitely prefer the first one. The instrumental triplets are too fast and have a mechanical, rushed sound which affects the melody negatively. But the first version flows and is what I expect to hear, triplets on top and straight beneath. It's a really common jazz technique, also common in Latin music, and I think it adds a lot to songs in any genre--so there you go, now you know I'm biased towards triplets. **smiling**

I notice you added to the ending for the second version. It's a lovely song. I like it. When you combine the vocal-only triplets with the new ending, does it feel flowing to you, satisfying? It feels that way to me.

Thanks, Cathie, for listening to these demos and for sharing your thoughts. The endings are the same for both of these new demos, but the notation for the end of the bridge is slightly different. The notation for the version with the triplets for both vocals and instruments has a one measure time signature change from 4/4 to 3/4. However, the duration of the pause after the instrumental hold is exactly the same. So, I suppose that either notation could be used.

I'm not sure which one I prefer because I'm so used to listening to Demo #5. Now that I've had a break from hearing all of them (I've been working on two of my other songs), I need to listen to them again with fresh ears to see which one I like the best. Nevertheless, I'll want to know which one my producer prefers before making a final decision which one to use for my album because he has many more years of songwriting and performing experience than I have. That should happen sometime in the next few weeks. I'll let you know what he thinks of them both as well as of my Demo #5.

Thanks, too, for your compliments on this song. I'm glad you like it because, contrary to my producer's reaction to the original version that I shared with him, your positive feedback strengthens my case that this song is definitely good enough to include on my album.

Oh dear… Artist v Producer.

Good luck.

Actually, my producer isn't "just" a producer. He's also a songwriter himself and an excellent multi-instrumentalist and singer. He was the lead singer and drummer for a band that he was part of back in the 80s before he eventually decided to become a producer in the mid 90s. Besides drums, he plays the guitar (acoustic, electric, and bass) and keyboard. Plus, he has written and produced numerous orchestral pieces for various purposes using Cakewalk's library of orchestral instruments. So, I would have to say that he's much more of an artist than I am because, while I do play the guitar, I don't perform or sing.

It's an earworm kind of song--the opening of the chorus especially--and I think when he hears it with triplets on top and a straight accompaniment below, it'll make more sense to him.

I'm sure you're right because one of the things he insisted on when he heard my first demo was that it shouldn't have ANY tempo change or even a time signature change. Instead, he wanted to use fast-played instruments (like a staccato violin) to simulate the brevity of this life. However, the bridge lyrics are such that they demand some kind of increased tempo or, at the very least, a time signature change from 4/4 to 3/4. But besides this issue, the main objection that my producer had to the original demo that I shared with him was the random chords that I had chosen, which I knew needed some more work because I had rushed through them just a day or two earlier so that I could finish my "first cut" demo in time to share it with him during our next session that we had scheduled. Now that the chord structure has been improved substantially, I'm confident that he'll have a much different and more receptive reaction when I share my newest demos with him in two or three weeks from now.

In that case, I would definitely choose the version with the straight accompaniment and no time change. But you might consider just eliminating that bar between the bridge and the chorus altogether, because when I listen to it (and I just did again), I find myself expecting the chorus to start pretty seamlessly from the ending of the bridge.

And although you didn't ask for this and should feel free to disregard it if it doesn't fit your vision for the song, I really missed the fingerpicking from the chorus when you changed the style at the bridge. It would flow more smoothly if the style stays the same, and that smooth flow is part of the song's appeal... I'm thinking it could easily be a meditation song during a church service, and those songs are all about creating and sustaining serenity, you know? But again, if this doesn't fit your vision, you should disregard it.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think what you're really asking me to do is to eliminate the piano because the fingerpicking guitar is still there. It's just being drowned out by the piano. I'll have to listen to it without the piano to see if the overall effect is suitable for the bridge. I could also replace the piano with a different instrument---synth perhaps? (I'll have to experiment.) Also, I should mention that my producer will be creating his own arrangement of this song, and that version will have a different sound overall than my BiaB demo has. Otherwise, his "official" version won't mesh with the other songs on my album. So, my plan is to use my demo arrangement for a real singer who would be interested in covering this song some time after I release the "official" version that my producer will create in his studio. Then I'll release that version as a separate single from the album.

Regarding the 3/4 bar between the chorus and bridge, I can easily eliminate it by eliminating the triplet rests in the previous bar, as I did in the lead sheet that I used for Demo #6 that has triplets only on the vocals. IOW, the 3/4 bar with the triplet rests in Demo #7 is just another representation of the lead sheet with a 4/4 bar and no triplet rests in Demo #6.

Oh! maybe a volume change would fix it then.

This song is already an earworm; I heard it all evening last night. I don't know if your producer can do better than that. **smiling**

Your definitely right about it being an earworm. It was stuck in my head and playing non-stop for several months. Plus, it keeps coming back into my head because it's such a relaxing song that has a way of pulling me into listening to it and because of the awesome arrangement that BiaB enabled me to create. Though my producer has done better than BiaB with his arrangements for some of my other songs, I think this one is going to be a tough one for him to beat. However, I suspect that he'll create an arrangement that is just as good but with a little different sound. One thing I will insist on him having in his arrangement is a dreamy electric guitar because that's what makes BiaB's arrangement so appealing to me.

Regarding the piano, I did play around with the volume levels but wasn't able to prevent the piano from interfering with the sound of the guitars and still be audible enough to impart its accelerated effect on the overall sound of the bridge. I've had the same kind of thing happen when I added a piano track to some of my other songs, which eventually compelled me to disable the piano track completely and not even use it. I suspect that will be the case with this song as well. At this point, I just don't know what other instrument I could use as its replacement, but I know I need to have some kind of instrumental change in the bridge to enhance the vocal triplets and the message of the lyrics. For now, though, I'm just going to leave it as is until I have time to do lots of experimenting. In the meantime, I'll be taking my new demos of this song to the studio this afternoon at 2 pm and sharing them with my producer for him to evaluate. I'll let you know what happens.

It would be more correct to say "Songwriter/Mediocre Guitarist v Producer/Songwriter/Artist/Multi-Instrumentalist" not only because my musical knowledge, skills, and experience pale in comparison to his (as I mentioned in my previous reply to your comment) but also because we definitely don't see "eye to eye" on this song. However, after wrangling back and forth on it for four hours during two separate sessions and an additional two hours on the phone, I finally agreed to let him produce it the way he wants to at a faster tempo (120 bpm instead of 100 bpm) with triplets for the vocals in the bridge and with only the second chorus after the bridge. This will reduce the song's length to around 4:30 instead of around 6:15. In exchange for my concession, he has agreed to also produce a version the way I want it at 100 bpm if I'm not totally happy with his version when he's finished with it. I'll have to pay for both versions, of course, but he'll give me a discount on the second version. So, it will be interesting to see how his version turns out. I'll let you know.

Thanks again for your input on the style change during the bridge that adversely affected the fingerpicking guitars. I thought that I would have to substitute a different piano or a completely different instrument in order to achieve the same effect without adversely affecting the fingerpicking guitars, but the fix actually turned to be much simpler and easier than that. All I needed to do was change the piano from stereo to mono, which eliminated the interference that had existed in both the left and right speakers. This change enabled me to retain the "fast-paced" effect of the piano without the interference. Another slight change I made was to change the drum track during the bridge from normal time to double time. This further enhanced the "fast-paced" effect that I wanted to achieve.

Regarding your suggestion for me to use triplets on the bridge vocals only, I am definitely in agreement with that because the instruments sound way too fast with the triplet effect (which is actually the equivalent of a 50% boost in bpm). But after listening to my Demo #6 version numerous times, the bridge vocals seemed as if they still needed a little something more than just the triplet effect. So, I did some experimenting with a very slight and gradual tempo change leading up to and continuing through the bridge and found that an additional 1 bpm boost in the tempo for six consecutive measures was just enough to do the trick without producing any of the objectionable "jarring" effects that exists in my Demo #5 version. IOW, I gradually increased the tempo from 100 bpm to 106 bpm for the bridge and then dropped it back down again to 100 for the rest of the song. I have to thank Steve (sslechta) and MarioD for their recommendations on how to create such a tempo change with a transition that wouldn't be noticeable to the listener. However, because I only increased the tempo by 1 bpm per measure instead of by 2 bpm per measure (as Steve did in his example), I was able to create a smooth enough transition using BiaB instead of a DAW.

In response to your comment about "expecting the chorus to start pretty seamlessly from the ending of the bridge," I think there needs to be a slight pause between the end of the bridge and the start of the chorus to complement the effect of the "hold" on all of the instruments. In fact, if you watch the notes as they're being played in the video, you'll see that the instrumental "hold" occurs at the beginning of the same measure in which the pickup note for the chorus begins. So, I really can't bring these two any closer together than they are. You'll also see, though, that I removed the 3/4 measure to eliminate any confusion or misunderstanding that its presence may cause. However, the transition from the bridge into the chorus is still the same as it's been in all of the demos I created for this song, including my newest demo (Demo #8) which I think is the best I can do until I'm able to have a real vocalist sing and record a vocal track for this song. You can listen to my newest demo at the link below:

https://youtu.be/UZyiAtMC45E

Thanks again to you and to everyone else for your feedback, suggestions, and recommendations on this song. It's made a huge difference and has resulted in a much better version of this song than I would have been able to create otherwise on my own.

Demo 8 really flows well! Thank you for letting me be part of your process. As always, feel free to disregard the unsolicited advice which follows. **smile**

In our society, the 3 minute song has become a convention. Going against that convention takes a pretty strong belief in one's song. I'm sharing a quote with you because I think it applies here. "...you should trust your instincts, and believe in yourself, as all the successful artists have had to do at some stage in their careers." Michael Eaton, 2016

Eternity is a marvelous contemplative meditational song, and I believe it has value at a slower tempo. I've sped the youtube up to 125 bpm to see how your producer hears it, and it becomes upbeat rather than contemplative. There's a place for both in Christian music, but if you had to argue over it for four hours, it's obvious your producer doesn't really like the song. My question is this. Why not, given the strength of your BIAB arrangement, simply have your singer record it at your tempo and create a BIAB song with it? Why not release it as a single? Put it on Spotify, tag it Christian, tag it Jesus, maybe tag it meditation, talk it up with your friends, link it on Facebook or Instagram, see if you can get a lot of plays.

Now for a purely technical notation comment on the melody line to make the music easier for your singer to understand. At bar 87 where the triplets start, that should be all quarter notes like it was before. That's what Eleanor is singing (quarter note triplets) so far as I can tell. Bars 88, 90, and 92 should not be triplets at all, but a half note followed by a quarter rest and two even eighth notes--again, that's what Eleanor is singing. Bar 95 is just a half note. You're bouncing back and forth between swing and straight, and that's very good, part of the charm of the song--it's a really common jazz/swing convention that makes a melody flow in a lovely way.

If you do decide to shorten the song, you might consider removing a verse and a chorus to do so without changing the tempo; you could combine verses, since you have repeated lines that could be repurposed. I have longer songs myself and when I first started squeezing them down to meet the 3.5 minute standard it really hurt, felt totally wrong, but I learned to combine the verses and eliminate some time that way. I also experimented with changing the tempo by just 5 beats, reather than by 20 beats, to keep the easy flow of my songs but shave off time (you might not need the tempo increase at the bridge if you try this). Intros and outros can also be shaved down. The song itself is complete at the end of the chorus; your coda is lovely but to me the change in melody and lyrics took away from the feeling of completion. Again, this is unsolicited so feel free to disregard it; you might be better served by having one chorus at the end and only repeating the last line ("How I long for eternity") if you wish to shorten the song and keep the mood. Or you might to decide to keep the coda but only play one chorus.

Lots of options for shortening the song... but here's the thing, Tom. Your song has a specific purpose and you've crafted the lyrics and melody to fit that purpose. Like Mr. Eaton says, "at some point, you have to believe in yourself." Maybe the audience who will love your song is waiting on Spotify or even in a local church. You won't know until you release it.

Hey Man,

I think there is some really cool stuff going on here.

As the leader of a songwriting organization's NC chapter, I have an idea:

I think you should try an alternate version. Don't even think about this one--just say it is done, as part of this experiment. BUT, go into BIAB and type in praise and worship and look at styles that have "power push" drums. Try just the 4/4 time signature, don't use this bridge, and give yourself 3:15 or 3:20 max. Only use your best lines. Don't do 2 verses to get to the chorus, get there fast, and limit it to V PC, C, x2 a new 4 bar bridge and Chorus out. In the pre chorus, start building the energy, so when you hit the Em (which is functioning like a V) we can really feel it. Make sure to hit the green button on the chord sheet in BIAB so we get a real dramatic chorus drum feel and uplift.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this version, but try a faster, "push" version that keeps the momentum driving hard, and does it in half the time.

Again, don't throw this one away, just experiment with a whole different take and see what you come up with, just for fun.

Also, when you are in the P&W section, check out the chord progressions in some of the demos.

You could simplify it a bit I think to make a version that has more sing along potential in the chorus.

If you are in BIAB, try going to edit menu (top of GUI), song form, and reduce duration of chords by one half. Try singing along with two chords per measure instead of one. I think you will have fun.

Does that make sense?

I am just suggesting this is an experiment if you feel like tinkering.

But again, there is some really nice stuff going on here. I love the idea.

Thanks! It does flow well, but I think it would flow a little better with a more gradual tempo increase into the bridge. So, I decided to try only increasing the tempo from 100 bpm to 104 bpm and to only increase it by 1 bpm every other measure instead of in four consecutive measures. Doing this resulted in a very similar slight tempo increase for the bridge but in such a slow, subtle way that no one would ever hear it unless I were to tell them.

However, that's not the only shortcoming I noticed with Demo #8. After listening to it numerous times, I realized that the fingerpicking guitars weren't audible enough because they were too close to the center. So, I tried moving them farther away from the center than BiaB's default setting of +40 and -40. This made a huge difference in the sound of both guitars and in the overall sound of the entire arrangement. As a result of this improvement, I created another demo video and uploaded it to my Youtube channel. You can listen to it at the following link:

Demo #9 https://youtu.be/02v4CWXcXzE


You're welcome, but I need to thank you for suggesting that I try triplets for the vocals in my bridge instead of a tempo and time signature change. Going through this process was a huge learning experience for me, so I really appreciate your input as well as everyone else's input on my song in this forum.


I agree with you 100%. Otherwise, I would have given in to my producer's recommendations a long time ago and wouldn't have even bothered to post my "Tempo change conundrum" question in this forum. I also wouldn't have decided that I intend to release my full-length BiaB arrangement version at some future date after I've released my album version but with a different vocalist who would be interested in singing his or her own "cover" version of this song.


I wouldn't say that he doesn't "like" it because he did tell me a few days ago that it's a good song. Instead, I'd say that he doesn't like it at the tempo of 100 bpm that I chose for the song because he thinks it's too slow and boring---especially because of how long the song is (6:25) due to the fact that it has three verses and a double chorus at the end. Second, he didn't like my Demo #5 version with the tempo change on the bridge or how the bridge ended with the instruments held before the tempo dropped back down again. Third, he didn't like the similarity between the chord resolution of each line of the verses to the chord resolution of each line of the verses in another song that will be on my album. Fourth, he said that it's just a conventional song that is comparable to hundreds if not thousands of other songs that have been written since the mid-40s. Furthermore, he said that no one writes songs like this anymore and that the only people who will like listening to this song are mostly old people who have a fond memory of similar songs from the past. Simply put, he said that this is a traditional song that needs to have a traditional length of around 4:00-4:30. This is another reason why he wants to increase the tempo to 120 bpm. However, he also wants to slow down the drums and the guitars so that the song doesn't sound rushed like it did when you increased my demo to 125 on Youtube. In fact, he created a one-verse demo of this song in his studio to demonstrate what he has in mind for this song. So, I decided to create a video version of his demo that I also uploaded to my Youtube channel so that I could share it with you and others on this forum. You can listen to it at the following link:

https://youtu.be/3X1cUktjLiM


I know that the notation on my lead sheet in the video of my demo isn't exactly correct because the triplets symbol over the measure is only supposed to be used for three quarter notes, but I had to do it this way for consistency sake and to save myself a lot of time that I would have spent switching back and forth between triplets mode and non-triplets mode. The only other way I could have made it clear how the lyrics are supposed to be sung was to change the tempo to 159 and the time signature to 3/4. This is what I did in Synthesizer V so that Eleanor would sing all the words the way they're supposed to be sung. Here's a link to a video I made of her doing this:

https://youtu.be/p1nd7GBKTiA


I do believe in myself and I do believe in this song. Consequently, I plan to release multiple versions of it at different tempos and lengths. The version my producer will be creating for my album will be about 4:45 in length. I'm also thinking of following David Snyder's suggestion to create a version that is around 3:15-3:30 in length by only having two verses and only one chorus at the end. (I've already created a lead sheet of this version at 124 bpm.) Plus, today I realized that I could change three words in the first verse to make a male-female relationship version of this song in addition to the current version. So, I have lots of options, and I intend to explore them all and will continue this discussion for as long as necessary to accomplish this. Thanks for being a part of it.

Thanks for joining the discussion, David, and thanks for your suggestions. I don't fully understand what you're asking me to do because I've only been using BiaB since Jan. 2019, so I'm not a "power user" like you are. But I will tell you that I've already used MuseScore to create a new lead sheet of my song "Eternity" with only two verses and one final chorus (the short one) at 120 bpm and at 124 bpm. This reduced the total length of my song to around 3:30. I also increased the bridge tempo by 4 bpm and cut the intro in half in order to shave a few more seconds from the length. Now that I have a lead sheet "template" to use as my reference, I can delete all of the extra bars in BiaB so that it will match my lead sheet rather than starting over with a fresh XML file import. Once I do this, I can begin to experiment with P&W various styles, as you suggested. However, because I don't fully understand a few of your suggestions, perhaps you would be interested in tinkering with this song yourself in BiaB if I send you a copy of the SGU file and the vocal track. If you're interested, let me know. In the meantime, I'll start tinkering with it myself. Thanks again!

David, to start off my second reply to your comment, I want to thank you for the suggestion you gave me to shorten my song by cutting out some of the sections and rewriting the bridge (so that it's 4 bars instead of 8) and to try out some of the P&W styles with "power push" drums on this shorter version in order to create an alternate version of my song because I was able to accomplish nearly all of these things over the last few days and have a new short "rock version" demo to share with you and others here. But first I want to say that, before I saw your comment last week, I had concluded that I was essentially finished with the "country folk" version of this song when I created my 9th demo---until a few days later when I started to make some changes to the chords in the chorus that my producer had recommended to me in a session the previous week when he had agreed to produce this song for my album. Prior to that, I had not even considered the possibility that the chords in the chorus may need to be refined because my focus with this song has been exclusively on finding the best way to make the melody and lyrics in the bridge sound their best in relation to the melody and lyrics in the rest of the song.

So, when I discovered that the chord changes my producer had recommended for the chorus were having an adverse effect on the mood and feel of the song when I listened to them in addition to what the increased tempo of 120 bpm had done, I was compelled to ask him if those chord changes were really necessary. This resulted in us having another two-hour "wrangling" session that concluded with him agreeing to keep my chords mostly intact for the first chorus and to only make some chord changes in the second chorus. However, the last chorus in his arrangement will have all of the chord changes that he recommended. Plus, depending on how his arrangement turns out, he still has the option to make the same changes to the second chorus and even the first chorus. Unfortunately, when I tried this past weekend to make gradual chord changes to the choruses in my 100 bpm demo versions that I've been sharing here and elsewhere, I still wasn't pleased with the results. So, now I'm trying to figure out an alternative solution that will work my original demo version.

But getting back to the suggestions you made in your comment above, I wasn't able to find a single P&W style with or without "power push" drums that appealed to me when I tested them on this song after I cut out the sections you mentioned, changed the tempo to 120 bpm, and wrote a new melody and lyrics for the bridge that was as close to 4 bars as possible. So, I decided to sample ALL of the ballad, country, folk, light pop, and medium rock styles to see if any of those would be suitable instead and that would accomplish the objectives that you mentioned. The only style I found that immediately caught my attention because of how well it meshed with this song is the one described as "Pushy Ac Bass Medium Pop Push." I should mention that my producer's chord recommendations also worked really well on this song with this particular style. However, I don't think I was able to create the "energy building" effect within BiaB that you had in mind for the "pre-chorus" transition, which you said required the green button in the chord sheet---aka, "part marker"---because I had already set this up in my previous demos. What I was able to do, though, is use post-processing on some of the tracks in a DAW to create an "energy build-up" transition from the second chorus into the bridge. To me, this makes more sense than the one you suggested because of the 4-bar transition that exists between the second chorus and the bridge vs. the 1-bar or 2-bar transitions that exist between each verse and the subsequent chorus.

Lastly, I should tell you that the only way I could reduce the length of this song to your max target length of 3:15 is by cutting the 4-bar intro, increasing the tempo to 124, and shortening the fade at the end of the song. But because none of these changes will do this song any justice, IMO, I decided to stick with what I have even though the total length is 3:30 instead of 3:15. I think you'll agree when you listen to the demo, which can be done at the following link:

https://youtu.be/Gjo52QrT9XA

I like this version. The bridge is a bit shall we say different and could probably be dropped totally or rework the chords. It resolved back into the song nicely but the bridge felt like it wasn't a part of the song overall.

David gave you good advice on the song.

Thanks for the feedback (and the compliment), Herb! I prefer the longer, full-length bridge myself (and so does my producer), but I wanted to see and hear how a shorter bridge would turn out and sound along with the other changes that David suggested I try as a "test." I'm working on a demo with the full-length original bridge, which I'll share the link to here when I upload it to my Youtube channel.

Tom,

This is GREAT and the difference between night and day.

Now THIS is a church sing-a-long song. Yes, you did it.

I can see a P&W director using this and doing his own band arrangement, but keeping this feel.

It has real drive now and it very catchy and has momentum.

A phenomenal difference.

Great rewrite man.

CONGRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



P.S. The bridge is cool now, but you are tripping over the words a teeny bit (or "she" is.) It may need something simpler word-wise to flow into chorus. Seems a little rushed with that many words. Can you think of something simpler? Overall, though this one is one heck of a dynamite rewrite.

P.S.S. Don't mess with the length now. 3:30 is perfect. Any longer and you will start to ruin it. This is tight.

Thanks, David, for all your compliments on my rewrite of this song. Per your suggestion, I rewrote the lyrics and melody to the bridge again and was able to make it simpler with a better melodic flow. which also enabled me to improve the chord progression as well (as Herb mentioned in his post). Last Monday, I uploaded a demo of this new version, but I didn't have time to respond to your post until now so that I could share it with you. However, before I do that, I want to say that my producer created a rock arrangement of this song with the full-length bridge because he didn't think the shortened bridge was sufficient. His rock version is only eight seconds longer than my demo rock version (including the fade-out at the end) and has a real female vocalist singing the lyrics, so I don't think he "ruined it." Hopefully, you'll agree when you hear it. I'll send you (and Herb) a link to the video when I've had time to create one and upload it to my Youtube channel. In the meantime, here's the link to my new rock demo:

Rock Version Demo #2: https://youtu.be/EE2d1GugEVA