Jump to content
IGNORED

anybody want to start a topic about music production feels or philosophy rather than tech


Ragnar

Recommended Posts

 

I feel I have got a lot of direct and less direct feedback about song lengths being a little too long.

 

On one hand I am not so sure how to take this because I like plenty of stuff that clocks in at 8-12 minutes (Stars of the Lid comes to mind) just because that type of music seems to be nicer to "get into". On the other hand most commercially successful things seem to have way shorter running lengths for songs too. I think it depends very much on whether you are passively (i.e. having it play somewhere in the background when you're working) or actively listening.

 

 

I am pretty sure I have to cut things down because listening to my old stuff I do get really bored when it takes ages for the song to get anywhere, but damn it's hard to cut a part away when it's still kind of "working" for me even though technically it's just the same melody parts just repeating.

 

Anyone else have this problem & if so, how do you solve this dilemma?

Very good post and keen to hear other thoughts. My tracks generally tend to be quite long too but have a few different movements. I've been now just writing little diddies that seem pointless without context. I could write a 15 minute track , or 7 2 min tracks and get much more satisfaction from a longer track with room to develop tension and release compared to what just seems like sketches

 

 

Yeah this resonates a lot with me, because my process usually involves first recording hours of a jam session, then cutting and mixing it up into a finished thing. More often than not there's different sections and movements that aren't so obviously separable into concrete tracks.

 

Now I am mixing a couple of those where the original running length is like 25 minutes, but each one is like 3-4 parts melding and evolving together. I am trying to make them shorter but at the same time preserving the flow and pacing so it's not just a blurry slideshow of different parts. So far I am finding it an interesting way to approach the material and every time I open the project I manage to take away at least 30-60 seconds of stuff that seems dragging too much or where nothing is happening. Down to around 19 minutes now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Do you listen to any of DJ Sprinkles/Terre Thaemlitz's material? He/she can do longer House trawks that build beautifully with all manner of soundscapes lurking & operating beneath.

 

There's no audio for it but the B-Side to this, "Complete" Spiral" (w/Mark Fell), is one of my favourite House tunes because they give it enough time & focus to build a groove that's endlessly subtle & savage. Good mixing tool too.

 

https://www.discogs.com/DJ-Sprinkles-Mark-Fell-Complete-Spiral-EP/master/1388753

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really know if I have consciously listened to any of Thaemlitz' stuff because I tend to mostly listen to mixes on soundcloud/mixcloud and I rarely check the tracklist (if there is any even). It's more like that since I am mostly exposed to this kind of music through the mixes, then for me there is a certain kind of a mystique always, because I don't know how the songs actually sound on their own.

Conversely, when I make music I probably try to get to a result which in some way sounds like a mixtape, meaning that there sort of are different songs but they blend into each other and its difficult to break them loose later on. Thus I end up with a 20 minute stream of consciousness, which is OK too, because after all I personally very often go for longer dj sets or mixtapes when I listen to something at work or at home.

 

Not sure if this is a similar example to yours, but I think this is my all time favorite 4-4 tune in terms of slow buildup and soundscapes and all that really trippy stuff. Whenever I am worried about tracks being too long, I think about this one. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, long tracks with slow buildups can definitely just... work. We just have to learn to define the difference between those that work and those that don't.

 

I think one of the biggest common denominators is the level of cinematic quality to the sound. If an epic cinematic visual easily comes to your minds eye, I find it tends to work a lot better.

 

Or perhaps that it's simply a matter of the level of inspired thought, visual or not. You mentioned It would explain why the same song of this nature listened to by two people who both enjoy the song's genre can be incredible to the one person, but not the other. So doing things like intentionally placing vocal samples and/or symbolic sounds to inspire a story or train of thought wouldn't work for everyone. We could try to find something that caters to a specific audience though. The best way to do that is, again I suspect, cinematic quality.

 

There's also taking into consideration what Legowelt said about making sounds that are perfect (digital) vs imperfect (analogue). In essence, the imperfect sounds make the listeners brain process more. So it's inspiring thought, even if subconscious. So analogue and organic sounds mixed in should be a big help. Put your various tape machines, analogue synths and field recorders to work.

 

I'm sure that's only one part of many parts that could make it work. My two cents anyways. 98 more cents to go and we're laughing while pumping out consistent 90 minute tracks that the people are buying new underwear for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or perhaps that it's simply a matter of the level of inspired thought, visual or not. You mentioned It would explain why the same song of this nature listened to by two people who both enjoy the song's genre can be incredible to the one person, but not the other. So doing things like intentionally placing vocal samples and/or symbolic sounds to inspire a story or train of thought wouldn't work for everyone. We could try to find something that caters to a specific audience though. The best way to do that is, again I suspect, cinematic quality.

 

You could say it is cinematic quality, in more broad terms I think it means that the music is just sparking something in the listener that's making them enjoy the music, take them on a mind trip, etc. :)

 

Another thing that occurred to me is that enjoying stuff with different lengths depends very much on both how the listener is feeling right now and what they are used to in general. For example: you really can't fit many different moods & melodies in a 4 minute pop track, but on the other hand if you are used to listening to short & sweet things, then a 8 minute track with a gently rolled out pacing will seem slow and boring in comparison. And if you're feeling tired you probably don't want to listen to something meant for a dancefloor.

 

So I think if I wanted to cut down my track lengths, I should try not to be in a tired mindset and I should prep myself by listening to more shorter stuff that is similar to what I am trying to achieve. Basically tricking my head to think quicker pacing is more natural. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

variety innit, you can always mix things up, moods & structure that compliment what you're expressing or feeling at the time

 

case in point, that background (or similarly titled) sequence you linked above somewhere could work with any number of compositional (fuck you google that's a legit word) structures/outcomes

 

you can intuit through these processes with patience & by giving breathing time for ideas to develop, ie not forcing it too much, experiment as much as time allows, if it gets a bit samey which many repeated interactions & listening to will def foster, just file it/back-up & come back to it another time

 

succinct works in the appropriate context, but layering various elements & sculpting ideas can achieve that just as well

 

from what i've heard just don't bin anything outright cos you've got some intriguing sounds coming....hence keep experimenting & see if there are collaborations you can develop, cos fresh ears always add an alternative & fresh perspective on what's what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started to think about music as like layers of a painting or similar visual art. Grabbing a load of different sounds, layering them in different ways, different textures, different colors. adding and removing them from bar to bar, pattern to pattern. Playing with layers that are either sparse, dense, or making a collage of audio. Sometimes big layers, small details on top. For that it means the methodology is to curate and find lots of sounds, some subtle, some not so subtle, and layer them and structure them in different ways. Playing with pattern in a more general sense than the overall song structure.

 

My old way of thinking was more like telling a story. Okay first this synth sound comes in, then this one, then this one, and they a singing a story and it follows a structure and has a melody and a beginning, middle, and end, it has sections. I like removing the normal music terminology from the song structure and just thinking of things in the terms of painting (I'm not a painter so I don't really know what I'm talking about), it allows me to let go of normal constraints in how I think about music. This kind of thinking also helps me enjoy artists like flying lotus and autechre a LOT more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the magic of the human brain - just like you can think of images as both vectors (bunch of lines with directions, lengths and colors) or rasters (X by Y pixels side by side, column by column). With one interpretation it becomes easier to explore and think about the image in a certain way and another interpretation will offer new but radically different tools for your head to use and make it easier for the creative energies to get loose and build something new and amazing. :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started to think about music as like layers of a painting or similar visual art. Grabbing a load of different sounds, layering them in different ways, different textures, different colors. adding and removing them from bar to bar, pattern to pattern. Playing with layers that are either sparse, dense, or making a collage of audio. Sometimes big layers, small details on top. For that it means the methodology is to curate and find lots of sounds, some subtle, some not so subtle, and layer them and structure them in different ways. Playing with pattern in a more general sense than the overall song structure.

 

Xenakis mastered this approach a long time ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8suVSzQmwA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started to think about music as like layers of a painting or similar visual art. Grabbing a load of different sounds, layering them in different ways, different textures, different colors. adding and removing them from bar to bar, pattern to pattern. Playing with layers that are either sparse, dense, or making a collage of audio. Sometimes big layers, small details on top. For that it means the methodology is to curate and find lots of sounds, some subtle, some not so subtle, and layer them and structure them in different ways. Playing with pattern in a more general sense than the overall song structure.

 

My old way of thinking was more like telling a story. Okay first this synth sound comes in, then this one, then this one, and they a singing a story and it follows a structure and has a melody and a beginning, middle, and end, it has sections. I like removing the normal music terminology from the song structure and just thinking of things in the terms of painting (I'm not a painter so I don't really know what I'm talking about), it allows me to let go of normal constraints in how I think about music. This kind of thinking also helps me enjoy artists like flying lotus and autechre a LOT more. 

I guess you could think of it as a delicious soup or chili con carne, too. Add some reverb (salt), add some distortion (pepper), some more beans (kick drums) etc

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.