Page 1 of 2

song structure

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:55 pm
by hippy dave
...i can't be arsed :cow:
somebody write a clever program to structure my songs for me... :roll:

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:24 am
by BLista
:lol:

i've heard the PS2 is a really powerful music maker, try that one :lol:

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:30 am
by northernlight
take drugs and lock yourself up for two days

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:36 am
by BLista
buddhaboy wrote:take drugs and knock yourself up for two days
self insemination..... :lol:

what about the tunes tho?

ahh...make sweet music yeah :lol:

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:54 pm
by northernlight
B-Lister wrote:
buddhaboy wrote:take drugs and knock yourself up for two days
self insemination..... :lol:

what about the tunes tho?

ahh...make sweet music yeah :lol:
:chin:

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:02 pm
by Joebot
i know what you mean!


:x

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:06 pm
by hippy dave
buddhaboy wrote:take drugs and lock yourself up for two days
drugs are bad, mmkay?

then again, somebody did send me a couple of tabs for my birthday, i guess it's my duty to dispose of them before they fall into the hands of innocent kiddies :shock:

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:27 pm
by foxington
nah it's dead easy if you put your mind to it - find a song you like the arrangement of, whack it in a spare audio channel in your sequencer, copy the arrangement roughly then remove the song and tweak as necessary :D

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:35 pm
by hippy dave
strategy wrote:nah it's dead easy if you put your mind to it - find a song you like the arrangement of, whack it in a spare audio channel in your sequencer, copy the arrangement roughly then remove the song and tweak as necessary :D
good tip :bo: cheers!
i've been listening to tunes with my brain switched on, to get ideas, but hadn't thought of loading them into my sequencer for easier plagiarising :D

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:57 pm
by alex_virr
strategy wrote:nah it's dead easy if you put your mind to it - find a song you like the arrangement of, whack it in a spare audio channel in your sequencer, copy the arrangement roughly then remove the song and tweak as necessary :D
thats a nice tip James - I find being able to count to 8 helps too. :lol:

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:26 pm
by northernlight
youthful_implants wrote:
strategy wrote:nah it's dead easy if you put your mind to it - find a song you like the arrangement of, whack it in a spare audio channel in your sequencer, copy the arrangement roughly then remove the song and tweak as necessary :D
thats a nice tip James - I find being able to count to 8 helps too. :lol:
good ones!

listening back to the tune i wrote this weekend the drugs idea isn't that good :-(

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:43 am
by hippy dave
buddhaboy wrote:the drugs idea isn't that good :-(
mmmkay.

i've got as far as the first breakdown, which i'm actually looking forward to filling out :D and the drop even more so... then after that it shouldn't take so long to lay the rest out as i have most of the elements in place, just need plenty of tweaking and some added extras to keep it interesting... :bo:


*edit* oh, quick opinion poll, even tho i haven't taken the time to reach my own opinion yet... so far for the breakdown i've got the sub bass line under it, without the lead bass... is that alright, or would it generally be better to lose the sub for the breakdown to make more of a rumbly impact for the drop?

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:31 am
by hayes
hippy dave wrote:[. is that alright, or would it generally be better to lose the sub for the breakdown to make more of a rumbly impact for the drop?
if it works go with it but its generally about having some "whooomph"left to throw in at that drop and the deeper tones will do that.

but if the sub noise has enough character to carry in a more soloed area of the tune it could have areal good impact but often subs sound a little odd on there own.

but then i dont know, how does it sound to you?

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:27 am
by hippy dave
dunno, it does have enough of a twang to it to make its presence felt on its own, think it would make a nice backing to layer all the fancy buildy shit over (can you tell i'm still drunk?), but yeah i'm still worried about losing the opportunity for "whooomph" on the drop...

*edit* experimenting with highpassing the sub for the breakdown, so there's still some extra lows for the drop, but i'm not sure if there's enough scope without losing the feel of having it there in the first place. then again maybe it'd work if i nudged the volume up while it's highpassed.... :chin:

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:16 am
by hippy dave
yeah i'm going with that (hp & volume), works nicely - & still a big impact on the drop :D

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:18 pm
by foxington
never forget, you've got to take it out to put it back in again ;)

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:44 pm
by hippy dave
for some reason the word 'fnar' springs to mind...

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:26 am
by djmoose
To me, and again, I'm no huge producer, but I had to sit down and say, ok, I'm going to write out the arrangement for these tracks. Lately, I try to do one monkface! or so a week. I have an excel spreadsheet with different colored cells that represent different parts, intro, outro, buildup, chorus, bridge, etc etc.

I take it a step further and add on each part what comes in and what comes out, what kind of fills, etc etc.

It hard to think about that stuff unless you make an effort to especially listen. I'm assuming that after a while you'll learn things to do, etc etc.

I was excited to see arrangement on the cover of a Future Music mag a few months ago...however the article was lackluster and didn't help too much.

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:32 am
by hayes
djmoose wrote:T
I was excited to see arrangement on the cover of a Future Music mag a few months ago...however the article was lackluster and didn't help too much.
aye, that was pants and only went through basic and traditional structure.

I have great problems with actually finishing track, partly due to lack of quality kit at home but mostly because i never get around to completing the structure in full.

Essentially i get a bit too excuted and complex in writing all the parts that the sequencing and layout can seem an overcomplicated chore...

I normally have the key breakdowns/fills/timings in my head when writing so lately Ive been getting these down first then forcing myself to structure the rest in a pretty traditional fashion.

Its the bit i hate most but i have found that after forcing myself through that hurdle i can get back to the enjoyable bit of creating the changes and builds to fit astructure that will work better as a record.

Otherwise im always stuck with 3 different bits in a sequencer and they never get stuck together.

Seems to be working so far in that im actually get ma sh** nearer to completion....

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:35 am
by foxington
as soon as i've got a few parts layed down that i'm happy-ish with, i try and get a rough arrangement down - it's much easier to add to your arrangement as you go along rather than wait til you've got 25 tracks then try and arrange it all, plus it's easier to see what you need to add in if you have a rough layout to work with :)