KVR Audio

skipscada · Post by **skipscada** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:08 pm

Just take your 100 short loops and splice 2 and 2 (it leaves you with only 50, but it's stil enough for a handful of albums). Your 50 tracks now have 2 different things going on. Finding ways to make things fit together should get your creativity flowing. It worked for the Beatles.

musikmachine · Post by **musikmachine** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:37 pm

I record 32 to 64 bar sequences.Work them out on the keyboard first.Keep playing until something starts to form,you don't have to get it perfect first time.That already takes you beyond 8 bars.Build them up a layer at the time.Consider them phrases instead of loops.Whats a loop anyway?A number of bars with a number of beats and a number of measures.does it have to be 8 bars long?Why not 16/32/64?Where do you want to go and how do you get there?

nip · Post by **nip** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:37 am

All good and well said but... it also comes down to what kind of music youre trying to arrange.When talking about pop structures the above rules are on spot.
During my journey to electronic music i found out that its another matter entirely.In electronic styles, sound is music on its own.And how different arrangement is then.You dont even have a chorus verse structure to help you during composing.Everything must be flowing and groovy.Instead of chord and/or melody progression ,arrangement comes to sonic experimenting and ever changing modulation of sound.
I think being interesting while being repetitive is a delicate and difficult task to master(speaking personally though).
I would really like to hear if anyone has an apetite for repetitive structures(not neccesarily dance music-just listen to public image limited or neu) and how they deal with it to make it interesting and not boring.

shadoe42 · Post by **shadoe42** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:01 am

One thing I do when writing electronic stuff is not really think in terms of bars of music. I think more.. 'symphonically' for lack of a better term. i think in parts or movements. Even if say the song is only 3 minutes long.What do I want? I want an intro I want a middle and I want an end. So I sit down an noodle out 30 second of intro a couple minutes of middle and then an end. Then go back and start messing with the parts. This doesn't always work and I am not sure I have explained it very well. This is what happens when i try to be coherent at 3 am

infp · Post by **infp** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:59 am

electronic music can be difficult in this aspect, especially when you get wrapped up in just the sonic elements. plus, as making short loops is so simple, getting stuck in that trap happens.

i do a lot of what has already been said here. pick different "parts" or "movements" as the above poster said.
also, create a series of loops which are similar but vary in slight ways. modulate between them ... even if they are subtle differences, the mind does seem to pick up on it and not register it as "repetitive loop". this can be both in melody or rhythm, or just changing the sounds of each instrument.

digitalstasis · Post by **digitalstasis** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:44 am

What I aim to do is making instruments pop in and out, then build on the variability it naturally introduces in tonality, rhythm, texture to make clearly different parts, not unlike the verse/chorus basis.

wrench45us · Post by **wrench45us** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:50 pm

for quite a while I was happy just to have a 4 bar sequence then add another 4 bar sequence. And then I'd have to really stretch to keep that interesting for 4 or 5 minutes.
But lately I've been working out longer sequences before starting to record anything. And I try to have at least 3 related parts before starting recording. Doing that all on one instrument -- like piano -- I find that once I do record I have to strip back all the 'fill' I added while working it out to allow space for other sounds/instruments/beats and then at some point I have all that I worked out ahead of time as the buildup.
Sometimes the break is just a reharmonization. ex my latest piece started on a dm7, so I started the break on the same right hand chord, but put a Bb in the bass instead of the D and let it move from there. I guess that's where having some theory offers some options.

dirty oscillators · Post by **dirty oscillators** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:20 pm

the best thing for me is to not have any rules like "with pop music it should be this way" and "with electronic music it should be that way." it's just too premeditated for me.

wrench45us · Post by **wrench45us** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:55 pm

I have a hard time breaking out of my own patterns without relying on picking up some other guidelines. As it is I have a hard time breaking out of descending patterns.

That's why it's a wide world, eh?

dirty oscillators · Post by **dirty oscillators** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:31 pm

i say, just go for broke. keep it moving and watch out for the suprise when your done. well, i never feel like anything's finished so that might be a bit of an issue....

butter · Post by **butter** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:03 pm

I've had similar issues where things just seem redundant after a while. I changed my workflow by using Cubase to do all of recording/composing and then Live to arrange it. It works well because it's really easy to use tiny snippets in Live and makes complex arranging really easy. When I have an arrangement I'm happy with I mix the tracks down for mixing in Cubase (Live is not a good mixing environment at all IMO). This seems to work for me at least. Sometimes a major workflow change like that can put a lot of the inspiration back.

dirty oscillators · Post by **dirty oscillators** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:17 pm

butter wrote:I've had similar issues where things just seem redundant after a while. I changed my workflow by using Cubase to do all of recording/composing and then Live to arrange it. It works well because it's really easy to use tiny snippets in Live and makes complex arranging really easy. When I have an arrangement I'm happy with I mix the tracks down for mixing in Cubase (Live is not a good mixing environment at all IMO). This seems to work for me at least. Sometimes a major workflow change like that can put a lot of the inspiration back.

+1

i definitely agree with everything you wrote and this is how i work very often. although sometimes i like to just use my hardware sequencer and all my other outboard gear and just record stereo into Cubase. from there i might load it into Ableton to edit anything and then i render the tracks in Cubase.

SBF-325 · Post by **SBF-325** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:21 pm

Oh thats my problem too, but i will try it like tbic wrote because it was one of my thoughts when i thought about it recently. analyze and copy the structure of your favourite song! people will notice if you steal a melody or a sound/sample but not a structure! or do what abba started... double all your tracks, use 3 drumkits, 3 basses, 20 vocals... repetitions won't get boring that fast...

liqih · Post by **liqih** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:36 pm

IMHO you need to have the ability to "sing" on you composition, it doesn't need to be melodic singing but it could be.
You may also sing by mind not really with voice,

the development of the arrangement is usually done in your thoughts, brain, mind, soul,

don't let the machine rules for you

butter · Post by **butter** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:50 pm

dirty oscillators wrote:
butter wrote:I've had similar issues where things just seem redundant after a while. I changed my workflow by using Cubase to do all of recording/composing and then Live to arrange it. It works well because it's really easy to use tiny snippets in Live and makes complex arranging really easy. When I have an arrangement I'm happy with I mix the tracks down for mixing in Cubase (Live is not a good mixing environment at all IMO). This seems to work for me at least. Sometimes a major workflow change like that can put a lot of the inspiration back.
+1

i definitely agree with everything you wrote and this is how i work very often. although sometimes i like to just use my hardware sequencer and all my other outboard gear and just record stereo into Cubase. from there i might load it into Ableton to edit anything and then i render the tracks in Cubase.

I find my inclination to layer sounds is much higher in Live too. My Live compositions always come out so much more detailed and harmonically rich than an ordinary cubase arrangement. I also like that I'm able to just use a single note of something if I want to and layer that with other parts. It's pretty much gotten to where very little of the material I've written is wasted as I've started mixing down most every part of something I've started. So, even if I'm just using one note of a part it's still going to be worth the time it took to write the thing in the first place. Steinberg was starting to get the idea when they introduced the play order feature but it's so inflexible that unless you're doing house or trance (which I'm not) or something that It's not all that useful.

A fundamental problem of arrangement