Musical structure — how to think of it?

[Functional]

This has been probably always my biggest issue. It's easy to do short clips (let's say 2 - 3 minutes long) but once I reach to a certain point, it seems impossible for me to come up with anything interesting to continue with. For example, in the link below is one of my projects that I really like, but it makes me sad at the same time as I can't come up with anything interesting past that point; leaving me with... this.

http://picosong.com/Xz74/

I know there are simple song forms that one could follow, but stuff like these two examples below interest me much more;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZX02E0lugo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IgEzWD6XuE

...and I can't understand them practically at all in terms of their structure.

[mehum]

I think the clip you linked to sounded very good.

As for approaches to structure the best way is to try things out in combination with analyzing the works of others.

If you have problems getting anywhere the simple tried and tested structures and patterns are a good starting point.

Most non-vocal electronic music follows a pattern of repetition with variation. You can hear it everywhere and certainly in the examples you posted. Often the variation is connected to some sort of energy leveI and in dance music this commonly changes every 8th or 16th bar.

In the tracks you posted there's more of a free form to this, which I suppose has its roots in kraut, jam- and space music from the 70's.
Basically you have a repeated rather simple pattern, often in form of a beat and/or bass line over which you add and remove melodies, sound effects, rhythms, chords, solos etc. Occasionally you break it down or switch to another foundation so as not to fall into tedium

[mehum]

To break down your examples...
The great drive by has the pad chords and distant drums providing the foundation. They're basically repeated all the way through. The chords sometimes changes slightly to closely related chords and in the same vein the drums alter the pattern at times and makes subtle changes in intensity or makes a break.
You could do an exercise and count the bars but it would be meaningless. It's pretty much free form.
Over this foundation there's a lot of noises and little things happening but there's no real structure here and they rarely repeat. You can probably see them as representing stuff you drive by

[mehum]

In Falling the same way the foundation is first based on a repeating organlike bass and synth pattern. The sounds coming in and out are a bit more recognizable and somewhat repeated but still very much free form.

There's a bit of a transition to where the drums take over the role as foundation and is later joined by the bass and synth combo from before.

The pads form a kind of harmonical foundation although they seem rhythmically quite disconnected. They space out sometimes to non-obvious chords but always come back to the same minor chord.
Other sounds fly by but they're not really important to the structure. One key difference between the two tracks is that these sounds are featured several times throughout the track. You find yourself recognising sounds from before. It's possible there's a structure to this but it will be meaningless to the listener.

There might be more to this, structures and patterns "hidden" , but I don't think they're important. That kind of stuff is for each composer to find out themselves

As you can see the basic pattern is still "repetition with variation" although in a rather free form.

If you really want to dig into hard to understand structures, try free form jazz Basically "variation without repetition"...

[Tarekith]

Try these ideas:

http://innerportalstudio.com/articles/A ... gSongs.pdf

Good way to go from simple loops to more fleshed out songs.

[gnosis123]

I know there are simple song forms that one could follow, but stuff like these two examples below interest me much more;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZX02E0lugo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IgEzWD6XuE

...and I can't understand them practically at all in terms of their structure.

I would say neither track really has a structure. Both are based a basic underlying loop, and the sense of movement (though there isn't much) is created by laying other loops on top. Neither really goes anywhere, which is totally fine - it's just not what I'd think of as structured: a musical statement that is somehow expanded or developed.

For example, staying in the ambient space, do you know "The Pearl" by Eno and Budd? All its tracks have a straightforward, minimal structure, but are very moody and effective.

[xoxos]

when i was 25 coming up with music was kind of like laying an egg. by 35 it was easier (i called it "dire ear" because it flows and flows). at 45, the idea garden needs to be heavily cut back to produce a single "song". someone said musicians do their best at 65. (i'm not sure it's founded on the same notion of music-life relation i have).

just grow older bro.


adds: work with what you got (discretised from what someone else got) and experiment. for me, a big part of what i consider "progress in ability" has been realising that some stuff is what it is and isn't what it isn't.. eg. a 2 bar idea may be a great 2 bar idea/"proposition for development of perspective" but has no further application.. and other ideas, like.. the appeal a song has may be appeal.. and that personally my ideas about music and appeal were wrong, earlier in life. then i learned about the secret masters.

[Functional]

I think the clip you linked to sounded very good.

As for approaches to structure the best way is to try things out in combination with analyzing the works of others.

If you have problems getting anywhere the simple tried and tested structures and patterns are a good starting point.

Most non-vocal electronic music follows a pattern of repetition with variation. You can hear it everywhere and certainly in the examples you posted. Often the variation is connected to some sort of energy leveI and in dance music this commonly changes every 8th or 16th bar.

In the tracks you posted there's more of a free form to this, which I suppose has its roots in kraut, jam- and space music from the 70's.
Basically you have a repeated rather simple pattern, often in form of a beat and/or bass line over which you add and remove melodies, sound effects, rhythms, chords, solos etc. Occasionally you break it down or switch to another foundation so as not to fall into tedium

First of all, thanks. I like it as well for the most part, though obviously certain things I eventually seemed to dislike. Regarding the patterns; it sort of disturbs me that usually when I read about structures, I hear the term "energy". To the more common EDM music, it nearly always revolves around energy - but I personally so far haven't adopted that mindset specifically. However, the point about switching foundation is something that I could work upon.

Though I'd also like a vocalist for some sort of a techno project in spirit alike to Andy Stott, but right now I need to focus on non-vocal music, because I think that's the best practice for now. Plus it's probably hard to find someone interested in anything like that where I live, as I'd imagine they would be slightly disappointed to hear that it's not going to be anything commercial.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXVTTQhup6M

To break down your examples...
The great drive by has the pad chords and distant drums providing the foundation. They're basically repeated all the way through. The chords sometimes changes slightly to closely related chords and in the same vein the drums alter the pattern at times and makes subtle changes in intensity or makes a break.
You could do an exercise and count the bars but it would be meaningless. It's pretty much free form.
Over this foundation there's a lot of noises and little things happening but there's no real structure here and they rarely repeat. You can probably see them as representing stuff you drive by

Thanks. I did think of it somewhat similar, but just hard to put it in like this. It indeed does give this feeling as if you were on a ride that goes through all these abstract sounds and noises. It's that kind of genius that I really enjoy in music, but obviously right now I need to focus more into actually coming up with finished product and practice overall. I've developed better sense as a sound designer of the possibilities, but it's still bit hard for me to transform into music. Take in for example Amon Tobin, who can be better described as a sound designer rather than a musician. Though a huge part of his art revolves around manipulating samples with the Continuum keyboard & actually going through the field recording processes.

In Falling the same way the foundation is first based on a repeating organlike bass and synth pattern

This is sort of a mystery to me, as how can one truly come up with that kind of a loop and make it work. It's very modest yet it seems like there infinite details. If I had to guess, I think it has more to do with the background. As all of these elements blend in, I guess they become less distinct? But even then the synth is still distinct in my opinion 'til it starts to get into lower volumes and it doesn't bore at all.

Try these ideas:

<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://innerportalstudio.com/articles/A ... .pdf</span>

Good way to go from simple loops to more fleshed out songs.

Thanks. That does uncover something, but the issue I mentioned previously is thinking in terms of energy. But however, it did mention planning, which is something I hardly do. Eg, whenever I start doing something, I don't really have any sort of goals. I could try to incorporate this sort of thinking and see where that could lead me to, it does seem sort of logical yet I've never considered that.

I would say neither track really has a structure. Both are based a basic underlying loop, and the sense of movement (though there isn't much) is created by laying other loops on top. Neither really goes anywhere, which is totally fine - it's just not what I'd think of as structured: a musical statement that is somehow expanded or developed.

For example, staying in the ambient space, do you know "The Pearl" by Eno and Budd? All its tracks have a straightforward, minimal structure, but are very moody and effective.

Personally I feel like both of them are going "somewhere", but I guess this actually works by leaving that up to my imagination. For example, in Falling The Same Way, I've always felt it as this dramatic work about how universe begins to expand, imagining myself how all the clusters start to eventually form after the big bang 'til it gets closer and closer to earth itself. As the drums begin to take their role, that's where I start imagining these pictures about tragedies that humans have had and will have, sort of as in pictures. And then eventually it all fades away and universe will only get calmer and calmer, without us.

But I guess indeed that there are only so few hints in structure that really moves your imagination.

And I haven't heard The Pearl, though I'll check it out certainly!

when i was 25 coming up with music was kind of like laying an egg. by 35 it was easier (i called it "dire ear" because it flows and flows). at 45, the idea garden needs to be heavily cut back to produce a single "song". someone said musicians do their best at 65. (i'm not sure it's founded on the same notion of music-life relation i have).

just grow older bro.


adds: work with what you got (discretised from what someone else got) and experiment. for me, a big part of what i consider "progress in ability" has been realising that some stuff is what it is and isn't what it isn't.. eg. a 2 bar idea may be a great 2 bar idea/"proposition for development of perspective" but has no further application.. and other ideas, like.. the appeal a song has may be appeal.. and that personally my ideas about music and appeal were wrong, earlier in life. then i learned about the secret masters.

I'll grow older without a doubt, but it means little if you're not going to do anything while you grow.

[Stanoli]

Solution:
Stick to EDM:
1 Bassdrum Pattern. 1-3 chords + 1 Melody (preferably white keys), repeat it, done

[mehum]

No problem, I like doing these kind of exercises from time to time. Analyzing music is a great way to understand and learn. The worst thing was writing it on my phone since I was commuting from work

I think the "energy" thing holds true even for ambient music. Definitely for the second example but also for the first. Just think about how different it becomes when the drums come in or stop. That is one of the most effective switches of energy level. It's certainly not isolated to just electronic music either. Some flavors of "classical" music follows almost the same exact pattern, revolving around one or more themes. Ravel's Bolero is a modern orchestral work that goes all out in this respect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KgpEru9lhw

Pop and rock music certainly revolves a lot around energy levels as well but generally in a less subtle way, with the choruses being the climax (or The Drop as I hear it commonly called among the youngsters ) and often with a softer first verse or a broken down verse before the last chorus and so on.

So even if you're making ambient music I think it's useful to have that concept of energy, perhaps just to be able to not make changes in energy level Brian Eno was mentioned above, and his Music for Airports, for example, probably has no change in energy level at all.

Anyway, just to get started, try just dragging everything out
Start with what you have, loop each part four times or so, rearrange and just see how it works. You might find you get a basic structure down but then need variation to keep it interesting. Or you might find you want a completely different part somewhere. There's a lot of trial and error before getting things "just right". I don't think I'm there myself, I make finished songs way to seldom to get any real training...
So just try things out and be a bit more analytic while listening to other music

By the way, do you really need to find a singer in your own area? You might try and work over the web instead. Of course it might still be hard to find someone who's both talented enough and having a career (and perhaps expecting payment) but certainly not impossible.
And thanks for Andy Stott, hadn't heard of him before. Kind of reminds me of Björk's more experimental pieces.