Full sized version
-Kim.
The "Sunlight" Production Diary
-
- KVRAF
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
Unlike The Undone Production Diary, I'm posting this one more-or-less as it happens. I write "more-or-less" because I'm not waiting for the final product before I post the whole lot, but it's not quite real time. I'm posting Day 1 right now, but I've just finished Day 3. I aim to catch up over the next few days. Anyway, on to the show...
Day 1
Download audio
And it begins again. The image in the previous post is Maxine's scribblings that became the lyrics for this song. This one is much shorter than "Undone", in that we only have two verses and we only recorded two and a half takes (verse two got three takes) of the whole thing. Very quick, especially compared with Undone's four or five takes (each with a different singing style) with three full verses. For this song, both takes were pretty much the same style. You can hear one of the takes in today's audio clip (the other two are muted). I think this one will have a much better chance of keeping to 3:30.
Another major difference between this song and the previous two is that it's much faster. We thought we'd try bumping up the tempo to 120 to make it a bit more upbeat. As you'll find out later, it didn't work.
You might also notice that Maxine sings with a bit more melody this time around. Rather than merely shaping each phrase, she's including more melodic movement across groups of phrases. I was actually slightly worried about this, thinking it might lock me into a certain harmonic progression. Again, as you'll find out later, this wasn't the case. I even managed to sneak some 6/4 in there...
Day 2
Download audio
I've optimised the vocals and added the rhythm section. Because of the relative lack of material, I was able to do this much quicker than last time. As before, I've started with the lead vocal, then the snare, followed by the kick, and then the bass.
So much for bumping up the tempo to 120.
What you can't hear is that I also wrote a piano part outlining the chord progressions. It was just temporary - while I was optimising the vocals. I actually removed the piano once I started adding the rhythm section, thinking I wouldn't use it. Turns out I added a slightly different piano part later on (the next day, actually).
You'll notice that there's three versions of the chorus in today's audio snapshot. The first two are slight melodic variations. I'm trying this out to reduce the effect of verbatim duplication becoming too noticeable. The biggest difference is in the 2nd and 4th lines.
The third chorus follows a somewhat different chord sequencer, (starting on Eb instead of Gm). Unfortunately it's not so obvious in today's audio snapshot, seeing as the piano part is muted. I'll be using it to return from the bridge to the final choruses. I'm aiming to make it exciting by juxtaposing a familiar melody against unfamiliar backing. Let's see if I pull it off.
Oh, and yes... I realise it's already sounding like cliche'd 90s music. It's actually reminding my of Mezzanine-era Massive Attack. It's not my intention to do a direct rip (this time) - I'll be adding guitars and choirs and things. It just turned out that way because I wanted to take a turn from the acoustic kick and snare. With the guitars, Undone was veering a little too hard into rock territory. 
Day 3
Download audio
I've started to add some instruments - mainly the piano, guitars, choir, and extra percussion. I've also arranged the sections roughly into their final order.
It's feeling very awkward at this stage. The pieces don't feel right, they don't seem to fit together or flow. I get the occasional glimpse of the final product, but it's fleeting. I get the sense this song is going to fight me hook and nail to the end.
At 2:42 you can hear the alternate version of the chorus I wrote about yesterday. Hear how it opens differently but moves smoothly back into the main chorus. I like this, I hope it works.
Listening back tonight, I'm not sold on the snare either. It might be a bit too snappy. I might experiment with spreading the transient by laying some claps or something with it.
Day 4
Download audio
It's starting to take a bit more shape here. It's been a combination of adding smaller details and ruthless cutting (more to come too!).
The smaller details are things like the the reversed drums and "whoosh" noise. Ok, I've overdone the whoosh this time around! That's already been tamed back. The "rain" piano is another smaller detail that was added - it's the granulated piano playing very high notes. You can hear it at 0:54 and 0:58. and all through the end of the bridge starting at 2:28.
A question I've just thought of though is this - do the small details make the song better, or do they merely distract the listener from its failings? I suspect it's more the latter than the former. I shouldn't jump too fast to "fix" a song by simply adding more "stuff". Fortunately I like this song, I just feel there's a more fundamental fix that I can't hear, that is just beyond my grasp.
I've also trimmed a few bars here and there (can't quite remember where) to tighten the whole thing up a bit. Again, tightening up a song doesn't fix any fundamental problems - it just reduces the dead space so the listener doesn't spend so much time waiting. A useful technique to use, for sure, but it's not a band-aid.
You can also hear in this version I've started to flesh out the bridge. Really basic stuff here - just repeat a vocal phrase and add progressively more and more Replicant. If I had more vocal material to work with, I'd do something a little more involved (such as the bridge/3rd verse in Undone). In this song, however, I'm trying to take advantage of the relative stagnation of the bridge to emphasise the sudden movement when the chorus comes back at 2:28. It's a sudden switch from a shallow cyclic sound to a deep mobile sound. Of course, it's not quite there yet, but that's what I'll be moving towards.
Day 5
Download audio
More details. Trying desperately to save this dying beast. Rain. Reversed pianos. "Back of hall" reflections in the chorus. Mellotron choir. And Replicant back to work in the bridge.
This was getting very close to the point at which I couldn't do much more to the music.
You might notice that I've removed the repeated vocal lines at 0:14, 0:34, and 3:16. That was the result of a frank discussion with Maxine about the song. Without reliving the experience, the short version is that she wasn't impressed. She made three points:
1) The repeated vocal lines make it too pretentious. I can't say I quite understand this one. Regardless, those lines simply had to go. In retrospect, I think it was the right decision. I'd used those extra lines for two reasons: Firstly, I like the performances (never a good enough reason on its own), and secondly (and more importantly) it was an attempt to get the most mileage out of the small amount of vocal material I had. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I learned that lesson. If I wanted to use more vocal material, we should have written more vocal material (which we should have done). In contrast to Undone, where we had too much vocal material (which blew out the length of the song), this time we erred on side of not having enough. Snip, snip.
2) It's too hip hop. Not exactly, but close enough. I have an aversion to four-on-the-floor rhythms (I find them incredibly boring), so I have a tendency to use syncopated rhythms everywhere. This has two implications. Firstly, it makes it a little more difficult to balance stability against instability. If the "stable" rhythms are already syncopated, it doesn't leave much room to move in the direction of instability (at least in the pop song format). Now, I'm not going to go back and turn this into "What You Waiting For?", but I will rethink my stability reference point, and think about making it more stable. Dynamic range doesn't just apply to volume or level, it applies to all composition techniques. The second implication is that the rhythm (and subsequently, the vibe) of the song didn't match with what Maxine was singing. She listens to a lot more indie rock and girl punk, and so her "internal rhythms" are much straighter than mine (it turns out I listen to too much hip hop). This probably also contributed to the dissonance.
3) There's too much chorus. Half the song is chorus. Partly this is simply the pop song format, but it's exasperated by the lack of vocal material. Often pop songs will actually have a "chorus-a, chorus-b" arrangement, where chorus-a might act as a lead-in or build-up, or chorus-b is an elaboration or continuation of the (extra-musical) thematic material. Of course, it's too late at this stage to attempt such an arrangement, but we'll be having a go at it next time.
In the meanwhile though, things are looking up...
Day 6
Download audio
Ok, we're getting there. This is the corner. I'm starting to feel like this song has legs.
The first thing I did was slightly de-hiphop-ify it. It's not a complete change to rhythmic language, but I've massaged some of the sections (first verse and 2nd and third choruses, mainly) to emphasise the "rhythmic tonic". I've done this by modifying the kick rhythm, and adding some straight toms in the mid-background. I'm much happier with it now. You can hear that the dynamic range between stable rhythm and unstable (or muted) rhythm is noticeably greater. More range, more exciting. I'm still not 100% happy on the tone of the toms themselves - they're a bit too "pasty". Normally I'd go for a tighter and deeper sound, but it'd be lost in this mix (without making it a feature, which would then turn the whole mix over). I also added a straight-8ths synth arpeggio in the background of the chorus. I really like the way this adds some solidity to the overall texture. It's a bit 80s... we'll see if I hate it tomorrow.
I've also added yet more details - particularly at 0:32 and 2:16. These are actually ambient synth FX "loops" from Sonic Reality's RAW. I don't usually use loops, preferring to design my own rhythms and sounds. However, these are more like ambient textures (that just happen to be rex-sliced and loopable). They were actually just what I needed to emphasise and enhance what was already there. They just sit in the background, adding "more". I also added another Replicant track in the bridge (bringing it to three in total). This one uses Replican'ts LP filter motion... listening back now I think it's a bit strong. I'll probably turn that down tomorrow. I'm actually really liking the way the chorus explodes back at 2:16. I'm thinking I might (in the mix) gradually collapse the stereo field to mono throughout the bridge, then suddenly (and temporarily, of course!) turn on the super-wide when the chorus explodes back.
The other thing I've done is cut one of the chorus repetitions at the end. It was just getting too much. As always, it sounded too short at first after I cut it, but now it feels right. We're still clocking in at around 3:30, so it's not a problem.
You might also notice right at the end I've gradually applied a bandpass filter to the piano as the other instruments drop out. Not a big deal, but I just thought it was far too heavy without it. It took a bit of fiddling to get the frequency and width just right, but I think the end is much smoother now.
We could be almost finished!
Day 7
Download audio
Ok, that's it. Time to mix this sucker. I've used the same process that I've written about elsewhere. No need to repeat myself again.
Of particular note is the stereo width automation over the bridge. It gradually collapses to mono, then at 2:16 the side channel is boosted by about 8db. It's probably too effective. Listening back, I think the bridge is actually the wrong way around - it currently gets smaller and smaller over time. I suppose it's a little like a spring building up tension, does anyone hear it? I'm not really sure that it works. Next time I'll try the bridge the other way around - starting small and building up to the climax.
Not much more to say here. I'm glad the end is in sight.
Day 8
Music Cafe topic (with download).
That's it! Just a little eq and dynamics to bring it closer to a commercial sound. I didn't slam this one quite as hard as Undone, because the aesthetic is more Massive Attack or Lamb than Garbage or Gwen Stefani.
-Kim.
Day 1
Download audio
And it begins again. The image in the previous post is Maxine's scribblings that became the lyrics for this song. This one is much shorter than "Undone", in that we only have two verses and we only recorded two and a half takes (verse two got three takes) of the whole thing. Very quick, especially compared with Undone's four or five takes (each with a different singing style) with three full verses. For this song, both takes were pretty much the same style. You can hear one of the takes in today's audio clip (the other two are muted). I think this one will have a much better chance of keeping to 3:30.
Another major difference between this song and the previous two is that it's much faster. We thought we'd try bumping up the tempo to 120 to make it a bit more upbeat. As you'll find out later, it didn't work.
You might also notice that Maxine sings with a bit more melody this time around. Rather than merely shaping each phrase, she's including more melodic movement across groups of phrases. I was actually slightly worried about this, thinking it might lock me into a certain harmonic progression. Again, as you'll find out later, this wasn't the case. I even managed to sneak some 6/4 in there...
Day 2
Download audio
I've optimised the vocals and added the rhythm section. Because of the relative lack of material, I was able to do this much quicker than last time. As before, I've started with the lead vocal, then the snare, followed by the kick, and then the bass.
So much for bumping up the tempo to 120.
What you can't hear is that I also wrote a piano part outlining the chord progressions. It was just temporary - while I was optimising the vocals. I actually removed the piano once I started adding the rhythm section, thinking I wouldn't use it. Turns out I added a slightly different piano part later on (the next day, actually).
You'll notice that there's three versions of the chorus in today's audio snapshot. The first two are slight melodic variations. I'm trying this out to reduce the effect of verbatim duplication becoming too noticeable. The biggest difference is in the 2nd and 4th lines.
The third chorus follows a somewhat different chord sequencer, (starting on Eb instead of Gm). Unfortunately it's not so obvious in today's audio snapshot, seeing as the piano part is muted. I'll be using it to return from the bridge to the final choruses. I'm aiming to make it exciting by juxtaposing a familiar melody against unfamiliar backing. Let's see if I pull it off.
Oh, and yes... I realise it's already sounding like cliche'd 90s music. It's actually reminding my of Mezzanine-era Massive Attack. It's not my intention to do a direct rip (this time
) - I'll be adding guitars and choirs and things. It just turned out that way because I wanted to take a turn from the acoustic kick and snare. With the guitars, Undone was veering a little too hard into rock territory. Day 3
Download audio
I've started to add some instruments - mainly the piano, guitars, choir, and extra percussion. I've also arranged the sections roughly into their final order.
It's feeling very awkward at this stage. The pieces don't feel right, they don't seem to fit together or flow. I get the occasional glimpse of the final product, but it's fleeting. I get the sense this song is going to fight me hook and nail to the end.
At 2:42 you can hear the alternate version of the chorus I wrote about yesterday. Hear how it opens differently but moves smoothly back into the main chorus. I like this, I hope it works.
Listening back tonight, I'm not sold on the snare either. It might be a bit too snappy. I might experiment with spreading the transient by laying some claps or something with it.
Day 4
Download audio
It's starting to take a bit more shape here. It's been a combination of adding smaller details and ruthless cutting (more to come too!).
The smaller details are things like the the reversed drums and "whoosh" noise. Ok, I've overdone the whoosh this time around! That's already been tamed back. The "rain" piano is another smaller detail that was added - it's the granulated piano playing very high notes. You can hear it at 0:54 and 0:58. and all through the end of the bridge starting at 2:28.
A question I've just thought of though is this - do the small details make the song better, or do they merely distract the listener from its failings? I suspect it's more the latter than the former. I shouldn't jump too fast to "fix" a song by simply adding more "stuff". Fortunately I like this song, I just feel there's a more fundamental fix that I can't hear, that is just beyond my grasp.
I've also trimmed a few bars here and there (can't quite remember where) to tighten the whole thing up a bit. Again, tightening up a song doesn't fix any fundamental problems - it just reduces the dead space so the listener doesn't spend so much time waiting. A useful technique to use, for sure, but it's not a band-aid.
You can also hear in this version I've started to flesh out the bridge. Really basic stuff here - just repeat a vocal phrase and add progressively more and more Replicant. If I had more vocal material to work with, I'd do something a little more involved (such as the bridge/3rd verse in Undone). In this song, however, I'm trying to take advantage of the relative stagnation of the bridge to emphasise the sudden movement when the chorus comes back at 2:28. It's a sudden switch from a shallow cyclic sound to a deep mobile sound. Of course, it's not quite there yet, but that's what I'll be moving towards.
Day 5
Download audio
More details. Trying desperately to save this dying beast. Rain. Reversed pianos. "Back of hall" reflections in the chorus. Mellotron choir. And Replicant back to work in the bridge.
This was getting very close to the point at which I couldn't do much more to the music.
You might notice that I've removed the repeated vocal lines at 0:14, 0:34, and 3:16. That was the result of a frank discussion with Maxine about the song. Without reliving the experience, the short version is that she wasn't impressed. She made three points:
1) The repeated vocal lines make it too pretentious. I can't say I quite understand this one. Regardless, those lines simply had to go. In retrospect, I think it was the right decision. I'd used those extra lines for two reasons: Firstly, I like the performances (never a good enough reason on its own), and secondly (and more importantly) it was an attempt to get the most mileage out of the small amount of vocal material I had. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I learned that lesson. If I wanted to use more vocal material, we should have written more vocal material (which we should have done). In contrast to Undone, where we had too much vocal material (which blew out the length of the song), this time we erred on side of not having enough. Snip, snip.
2) It's too hip hop. Not exactly, but close enough. I have an aversion to four-on-the-floor rhythms (I find them incredibly boring), so I have a tendency to use syncopated rhythms everywhere. This has two implications. Firstly, it makes it a little more difficult to balance stability against instability. If the "stable" rhythms are already syncopated, it doesn't leave much room to move in the direction of instability (at least in the pop song format). Now, I'm not going to go back and turn this into "What You Waiting For?", but I will rethink my stability reference point, and think about making it more stable. Dynamic range doesn't just apply to volume or level, it applies to all composition techniques. The second implication is that the rhythm (and subsequently, the vibe) of the song didn't match with what Maxine was singing. She listens to a lot more indie rock and girl punk, and so her "internal rhythms" are much straighter than mine (it turns out I listen to too much hip hop). This probably also contributed to the dissonance.
3) There's too much chorus. Half the song is chorus. Partly this is simply the pop song format, but it's exasperated by the lack of vocal material. Often pop songs will actually have a "chorus-a, chorus-b" arrangement, where chorus-a might act as a lead-in or build-up, or chorus-b is an elaboration or continuation of the (extra-musical) thematic material. Of course, it's too late at this stage to attempt such an arrangement, but we'll be having a go at it next time.
In the meanwhile though, things are looking up...
Day 6
Download audio
Ok, we're getting there. This is the corner. I'm starting to feel like this song has legs.
The first thing I did was slightly de-hiphop-ify it. It's not a complete change to rhythmic language, but I've massaged some of the sections (first verse and 2nd and third choruses, mainly) to emphasise the "rhythmic tonic". I've done this by modifying the kick rhythm, and adding some straight toms in the mid-background. I'm much happier with it now. You can hear that the dynamic range between stable rhythm and unstable (or muted) rhythm is noticeably greater. More range, more exciting. I'm still not 100% happy on the tone of the toms themselves - they're a bit too "pasty". Normally I'd go for a tighter and deeper sound, but it'd be lost in this mix (without making it a feature, which would then turn the whole mix over). I also added a straight-8ths synth arpeggio in the background of the chorus. I really like the way this adds some solidity to the overall texture. It's a bit 80s... we'll see if I hate it tomorrow.
I've also added yet more details - particularly at 0:32 and 2:16. These are actually ambient synth FX "loops" from Sonic Reality's RAW. I don't usually use loops, preferring to design my own rhythms and sounds. However, these are more like ambient textures (that just happen to be rex-sliced and loopable). They were actually just what I needed to emphasise and enhance what was already there. They just sit in the background, adding "more".
I also added another Replicant track in the bridge (bringing it to three in total). This one uses Replican'ts LP filter motion... listening back now I think it's a bit strong. I'll probably turn that down tomorrow. I'm actually really liking the way the chorus explodes back at 2:16. I'm thinking I might (in the mix) gradually collapse the stereo field to mono throughout the bridge, then suddenly (and temporarily, of course!) turn on the super-wide when the chorus explodes back.The other thing I've done is cut one of the chorus repetitions at the end. It was just getting too much. As always, it sounded too short at first after I cut it, but now it feels right. We're still clocking in at around 3:30, so it's not a problem.
You might also notice right at the end I've gradually applied a bandpass filter to the piano as the other instruments drop out. Not a big deal, but I just thought it was far too heavy without it. It took a bit of fiddling to get the frequency and width just right, but I think the end is much smoother now.
We could be almost finished!
Day 7
Download audio
Ok, that's it. Time to mix this sucker. I've used the same process that I've written about elsewhere. No need to repeat myself again.
Of particular note is the stereo width automation over the bridge. It gradually collapses to mono, then at 2:16 the side channel is boosted by about 8db. It's probably too effective. Listening back, I think the bridge is actually the wrong way around - it currently gets smaller and smaller over time. I suppose it's a little like a spring building up tension, does anyone hear it? I'm not really sure that it works. Next time I'll try the bridge the other way around - starting small and building up to the climax.
Not much more to say here. I'm glad the end is in sight.
Day 8
Music Cafe topic (with download).
That's it! Just a little eq and dynamics to bring it closer to a commercial sound. I didn't slam this one quite as hard as Undone, because the aesthetic is more Massive Attack or Lamb than Garbage or Gwen Stefani.
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRian
- 1184 posts since 27 Apr, 2004 from Houston, Texas
Day one already sounds great.
please don't take this the wrong way....cause I only say this to at least make you think about things from a different perspective.
...but I am just afraid that you are going to kill this with 90's style guitar riffs/tones and cliché sequenced samples/synths. I think you guys are super talented but are going for a somewhat "dated" sound.
I agree with pw and his comments about Day one from your last track. There is just something "fresh" there in the early days that is just totally lost because of the track layering and overproduction.
That being said, good luck and I look forward to the progression.
please don't take this the wrong way....cause I only say this to at least make you think about things from a different perspective.
...but I am just afraid that you are going to kill this with 90's style guitar riffs/tones and cliché sequenced samples/synths. I think you guys are super talented but are going for a somewhat "dated" sound.
I agree with pw and his comments about Day one from your last track. There is just something "fresh" there in the early days that is just totally lost because of the track layering and overproduction.
That being said, good luck and I look forward to the progression.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
Thanks, I appreciate it. One of the best reasons to post here is to get different perspectives.seamoss wrote:Day one already sounds great.
please don't take this the wrong way....cause I only say this to at least make you think about things from a different perspective.
Really? Whatever gave you that idea?seamoss wrote: ...but I am just afraid that you are going to kill this with 90's style guitar riffs/tones and cliché sequenced samples/synths.
Seriously though, this is absolutely a matter of taste (It's absolutely subjective?
). I compose music that I like - in fact that's why I compose music. I'm influenced by most music available to me, from romantic orchestral music, to hip hop, to heavy metal, to dance. Likewise, there are elements from the 60s, 70s, 80s (and 90s!) that wind their way into my work. Whether that's noticable in the end product is another matter entirely.I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't intend to make cliche'd 90s music. I intend to make music I like. I just happen to have spent a lot of the 90s listening to music.
Besides, I'm not really sure how this decade isn't just 90s + more technology.
Well, track layering and overproduction is certainly my style, and you can probably bet that anything fresh will be killed, cooked, and seasoned by the time I'm through with it.seamoss wrote: I agree with pw and his comments about Day one from your last track. There is just something "fresh" there in the early days that is just totally lost because of the track layering and overproduction.
Actually - I have an idea.
If I made the vocal takes available without the piano, would anyone here be interested in using them to compose a song that retains the "fresh" or "free" vibe people keep talking about?
Thanks. I look forward to your response to my 90s cliches.seamoss wrote: That being said, good luck and I look forward to the progression.
-Kim.
-
- KVRian
- 1022 posts since 14 Feb, 2005 from Concord, CA
hell yea, i would be willing to do at least a remix, might not be free, and 'fresh' but i would like to put my own twist. Am interested to hear what you come up with tho.Kim (esoundz) wrote:
Actually - I have an idea.
If I made the vocal takes available without the piano, would anyone here be interested in using them to compose a song that retains the "fresh" or "free" vibe people keep talking about?
-Kim.
.:my music and stuff.:Ephesians 6:12.:http://www.myspace.com/atdigs:.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
Day 2
Download audio
I've optimised the vocals and added the rhythm section. Because of the relative lack of material, I was able to do this much quicker than last time. As before, I've started with the lead vocal, then the snare, followed by the kick, and then the bass.
So much for bumping up the tempo to 120.
What you can't hear is that I also wrote a piano part outlining the chord progressions. It was just temporary - while I was optimising the vocals. I actually removed the piano once I started adding the rhythm section, thinking I wouldn't use it. Turns out I added a slightly different piano part later on (the next day, actually).
You'll notice that there's three versions of the chorus in today's audio snapshot. The first two are slight melodic variations. I'm trying this out to reduce the effect of verbatim duplication becoming too noticeable. The biggest difference is in the 2nd and 4th lines.
The third chorus follows a somewhat different chord sequencer, (starting on Eb instead of Gm). Unfortunately it's not so obvious in today's audio snapshot, seeing as the piano part is muted. I'll be using it to return from the bridge to the final choruses. I'm aiming to make it exciting by juxtaposing a familiar melody against unfamiliar backing. Let's see if I pull it off.
Oh, and yes... I realise it's already sounding like cliche'd 90s music. It's actually reminding my of Mezzanine-era Massive Attack. It's not my intention to do a direct rip (this time) - I'll be adding guitars and choirs and things. It just turned out that way because I wanted to take a turn from the acoustic kick and snare. With the guitars, Undone was veering a little too hard into rock territory.
-Kim.
Download audio
I've optimised the vocals and added the rhythm section. Because of the relative lack of material, I was able to do this much quicker than last time. As before, I've started with the lead vocal, then the snare, followed by the kick, and then the bass.
So much for bumping up the tempo to 120.
What you can't hear is that I also wrote a piano part outlining the chord progressions. It was just temporary - while I was optimising the vocals. I actually removed the piano once I started adding the rhythm section, thinking I wouldn't use it. Turns out I added a slightly different piano part later on (the next day, actually).
You'll notice that there's three versions of the chorus in today's audio snapshot. The first two are slight melodic variations. I'm trying this out to reduce the effect of verbatim duplication becoming too noticeable. The biggest difference is in the 2nd and 4th lines.
The third chorus follows a somewhat different chord sequencer, (starting on Eb instead of Gm). Unfortunately it's not so obvious in today's audio snapshot, seeing as the piano part is muted. I'll be using it to return from the bridge to the final choruses. I'm aiming to make it exciting by juxtaposing a familiar melody against unfamiliar backing. Let's see if I pull it off.
Oh, and yes... I realise it's already sounding like cliche'd 90s music. It's actually reminding my of Mezzanine-era Massive Attack. It's not my intention to do a direct rip (this time
) - I'll be adding guitars and choirs and things. It just turned out that way because I wanted to take a turn from the acoustic kick and snare. With the guitars, Undone was veering a little too hard into rock territory. -Kim.
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
well at least someone has a messier handwriting than I have. 
as for the sound/song, it's a clean draft with good potential. Just don't drown the idea in production trickery. was just jamming with this dirty mellotron (could've been megatron) sound and played on the lower registers that kind sound might work really well here.
as for the sound/song, it's a clean draft with good potential. Just don't drown the idea in production trickery. was just jamming with this dirty mellotron (could've been megatron) sound and played on the lower registers that kind sound might work really well here.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
It's not so much "writing" as it is "scrawl".Kingston wrote:well at least someone has a messier handwriting than I have.
I think this one's going to be a little less over-the-top as Undone. I was actually thinking about adding a mellotron choir. I might still, if I can squeeze it in between the distorted guitars and four-part Miroslav choir.Kingston wrote:as for the sound/song, it's a clean draft with good potential. Just don't drown the idea in production trickery. was just jamming with this dirty mellotron (could've been megatron) sound and played on the lower registers that kind sound might work really well here.
-Kim.
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
Day 3
Download audio
I've started to add some instruments - mainly the piano, guitars, choir, and extra percussion. I've also arranged the sections roughly into their final order.
It's feeling very awkward at this stage. The pieces don't feel right, they don't seem to fit together or flow. I get the occasional glimpse of the final product, but it's fleeting. I get the sense this song is going to fight me hook and nail to the end.
At 2:42 you can hear the alternate version of the chorus I wrote about yesterday. Hear how it opens differently but moves smoothly back into the main chorus. I like this, I hope it works.
Listening back tonight, I'm not sold on the snare either. It might be a bit too snappy. I might experiment with spreading the transient by laying some claps or something with it.
-Kim.
Download audio
I've started to add some instruments - mainly the piano, guitars, choir, and extra percussion. I've also arranged the sections roughly into their final order.
It's feeling very awkward at this stage. The pieces don't feel right, they don't seem to fit together or flow. I get the occasional glimpse of the final product, but it's fleeting. I get the sense this song is going to fight me hook and nail to the end.
At 2:42 you can hear the alternate version of the chorus I wrote about yesterday. Hear how it opens differently but moves smoothly back into the main chorus. I like this, I hope it works.
Listening back tonight, I'm not sold on the snare either. It might be a bit too snappy. I might experiment with spreading the transient by laying some claps or something with it.
-Kim.
-
- KVRian
- 1022 posts since 14 Feb, 2005 from Concord, CA
When I feel a song is herky jerky and not feeling right but you still beleive in the song, redo all of the musical elements with a completly diff outlook on the song, completly remix it. it gives you a whole fresh perspective and you maybe want to fuse both the ideas together back into one cohesive piece again.Kim (esoundz) wrote:Day 3
Download audio
I've started to add some instruments - mainly the piano, guitars, choir, and extra percussion. I've also arranged the sections roughly into their final order.
It's feeling very awkward at this stage. The pieces don't feel right, they don't seem to fit together or flow. I get the occasional glimpse of the final product, but it's fleeting. I get the sense this song is going to fight me hook and nail to the end.
At 2:42 you can hear the alternate version of the chorus I wrote about yesterday. Hear how it opens differently but moves smoothly back into the main chorus. I like this, I hope it works.
Listening back tonight, I'm not sold on the snare either. It might be a bit too snappy. I might experiment with spreading the transient by laying some claps or something with it.
-Kim.
TBH, hearing day 3, its sounding like it has no soul, no element that justifies the cool singing style of the vocalist, the music is just there...it has no emotion or impact. I know obviously this is only day three, but
I don't mean to give you this dose of negativity, but....the vocals are really good and deserve that edge and of course, thats just my opinion..:my music and stuff.:Ephesians 6:12.:http://www.myspace.com/atdigs:.
-
- KVRian
- 587 posts since 22 Nov, 2005 from Music-journalist/freelance audioengineer from Helsinki, Finland
any possibilities, that when this is done, could you edit them all to one post?
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
That might be easier, but it kind of makes sense chronologically to have the mp3s appear at the "Day 1", "Day 2" sections...
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
Day 4
Download audio
It's starting to take a bit more shape here. It's been a combination of adding smaller details and ruthless cutting (more to come too!).
The smaller details are things like the the reversed drums and "whoosh" noise. Ok, I've overdone the whoosh this time around! That's already been tamed back. The "rain" piano is another smaller detail that was added - it's the granulated piano playing very high notes. You can hear it at 0:54 and 0:58. and all through the end of the bridge starting at 2:28.
A question I've just thought of though is this - do the small details make the song better, or do they merely distract the listener from its failings? I suspect it's more the latter than the former. I shouldn't jump too fast to "fix" a song by simply adding more "stuff". Fortunately I like this song, I just feel there's a more fundamental fix that I can't hear, that is just beyond my grasp.
I've also trimmed a few bars here and there (can't quite remember where) to tighten the whole thing up a bit. Again, tightening up a song doesn't fix any fundamental problems - it just reduces the dead space so the listener doesn't spend so much time waiting. A useful technique to use, for sure, but it's not a band-aid.
You can also hear in this version I've started to flesh out the bridge. Really basic stuff here - just repeat a vocal phrase and add progressively more and more Replicant. If I had more vocal material to work with, I'd do something a little more involved (such as the bridge/3rd verse in Undone). In this song, however, I'm trying to take advantage of the relative stagnation of the bridge to emphasise the sudden movement when the chorus comes back at 2:28. It's a sudden switch from a shallow cyclic sound to a deep mobile sound. Of course, it's not quite there yet, but that's what I'll be moving towards.
-Kim.
Download audio
It's starting to take a bit more shape here. It's been a combination of adding smaller details and ruthless cutting (more to come too!).
The smaller details are things like the the reversed drums and "whoosh" noise. Ok, I've overdone the whoosh this time around! That's already been tamed back. The "rain" piano is another smaller detail that was added - it's the granulated piano playing very high notes. You can hear it at 0:54 and 0:58. and all through the end of the bridge starting at 2:28.
A question I've just thought of though is this - do the small details make the song better, or do they merely distract the listener from its failings? I suspect it's more the latter than the former. I shouldn't jump too fast to "fix" a song by simply adding more "stuff". Fortunately I like this song, I just feel there's a more fundamental fix that I can't hear, that is just beyond my grasp.
I've also trimmed a few bars here and there (can't quite remember where) to tighten the whole thing up a bit. Again, tightening up a song doesn't fix any fundamental problems - it just reduces the dead space so the listener doesn't spend so much time waiting. A useful technique to use, for sure, but it's not a band-aid.
You can also hear in this version I've started to flesh out the bridge. Really basic stuff here - just repeat a vocal phrase and add progressively more and more Replicant. If I had more vocal material to work with, I'd do something a little more involved (such as the bridge/3rd verse in Undone). In this song, however, I'm trying to take advantage of the relative stagnation of the bridge to emphasise the sudden movement when the chorus comes back at 2:28. It's a sudden switch from a shallow cyclic sound to a deep mobile sound. Of course, it's not quite there yet, but that's what I'll be moving towards.
-Kim.