I Just... Can't Help Myself!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Varney
  • Start date Start date
Dr. Varney

Dr. Varney

Pimp
I anticipate a number of differing responses to the question; I'm interested in your opinions. There are rules but this is music and rules can be broken in music, right?

I just can't seem to write a song, without mixing as I go along. In fact, I can't seem to resist the urge to EQ and apply FX to my instruments, to shape 'em up, before I even start hitting notes. Why? I suppose I just need to hear how I envisage them sounding, before using them.

Also... Every book, every IT resource I've looked at on song writing, advocates getting the structure down before adding more instruments. I find myself writing the first part, getting it to sound how I want; then going onto the next part and so forth...

Why am I asking what you think? Well, I get the impression this isn't how most of you construct music and, well... I'm just curious...

Bad habit that needs breaking - or stick to the way that is most comfortable? Pros and cons... You have your say.

Happy New Year!

Dr. V
 
The thing that concerns me is why you're not actually capturing the sound you wanted in the first place.

Effects aside...

Otherwise, undoubtedly, you're generally better off messing with EQ and such in the context of the mix. It's for "tailoring" - Not construction. The core sound should be the sound you want. If it needs EQ to sound 'right' on its own, it's not the right sound (or perhaps the right mic, mic placement, etc., etc., etc.).
 
Erm... When I said 'instruments', I meant VSTs. They're all VSTs (unless I'm recording a guitar or a voice or stamping on some jelly or dried leaves).

I should also mention, these things are mainly synthesizers... Spacey kinda sounds... Abstract... They can sound like anything (or nothing on earth).

Also, when using a VST 'drum machine', I'll EQ that and maybe add reverb to get a little feeling of air around it.

Dr. V
 
I find the recording process to be very much a part of songwriting. That's the beauty of recording at home, you have the time and patience to write and rewrite and experiment and adjust and rewrite and arrange and tweak and edit and rewrite until you get something you like. When you hear your tune together for the first time, it's easy to go back and make changes without the stress of a clock ticking off an hourly rate.

Keep doing what you're doing. You'll fall into a work flow that will be easy and productive for you.
 
I completely get where you are, your concerns and why you do what you do.

While in a traditional setting there are distinct roles, you have your songwriters, musicians, engineers, producers, and even synth techs/sound designers (yeah, some musicians and studio composers actually have such people on their payroll), for many of us on this site, and many people doing electronic music, all those roles are rolled into the same person, so it is difficult, and sometimes even impossible to distinguish one from the other.

Perhaps when one does a typical rock music, it is still easy to divide the process into distinct stages, i.e. songwriting, practicing, arranging, tracking, mixing, and maybe mastering.

However, with certain electronic genres, dealing with abstract sounds and such, it is even more difficult to separate the writing/recording/mixing/sound design aspects from one another simply because by their nature they are quite intertwined. So, given this, I don't particulary see anything "wrong" with your process. Often times I do what you do too, where the tune creation, mixing and sound design are one and the same... Actually oftentimes, mixing and sound design go hand-in-hand for me.

One caveat with this is falling into the trap of perfecting a section, while losing sight of the overall tune, kinda like looking at the trees and missing the forest.

There are a couple of dangers with this. One is, assuming that you have a section on an endless loop while you are "perfecting" it, you run into the danger of actually getting bored before you are finished, just because you become overly familiar with the section. You may end up with a lot of perfect loops that go nowhere, and in the end nothing to show for. The other, which is somewhat related, is getting into a rut and hitting a brick wall, not knowing "what to do next", because you have gotten to the point where you expect to hear the beginning of the section after the section ends, that you can't get yourself out of that, simply because that's what you have memorized.

Having said that, if you don't find yourself getting into that trap of "endless loop", then go with what works.

If you find yourself getting in that trap, there are some things you can do to break the habit. Here are some things that work for me, you might come up with some that work better for you:

  1. Take a step back from the computer, if you are good with notation and music dictation, grab a music manuscript paper, and notate it. This doesn't even have to be a full blown score, but can be something like motifs, transitional elements, rhythmic patterns. You can even make notes for yourself such as "Reedy, filtered sweep", "repeat this for this many times, duplicate part with subliminal high-pitched distant sound a fifth apart", "transition to key:..." and then write some other motif in that key.
  2. Before you begin writing, think of the sounds that you hear in your head, and try to design them as close as you can. Build a library of the sounds that will be used in that tune before you write a single note, and then just go for it.
  3. Accept "good enough for now" and move on. A perfect part in itself doesn't mean anything if it doesn't work with what comes afterwards. Once you have the complete tune structure, then you can start perfecting the overall sound, mix, add parts, subtract parts... you might find that you want some sound FX here and there to spice things up... maybe even use them to tie sections together.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Noisewreck - that does help... A lot. You seem to know, intuitively, where I'm coming from - and yes - that rut... I often fall into it, to be honest. Lots of great loops, which seem to go nowhere... So that is sound advice and some stuff I hadn't thought of. Many thanks!

You see, I've started re-writing one song, by taking the systematic approach. It's turned out an entirely different song. Not in a bad way but still, I have no 'intentions'. It all seems to be happening without a plan.

Perhaps I should add, I don't read or write 'music'. I just make it, by ear. This is why I'm feeling my way, quite successfully it seems, in the dark. I like it this way. It's exciting, as I have no idea what will happen when I sit down at the keyboard.

That's all I can say this minute. I'll be back to this thread, when I've had more of a think.

Cheers!

Dr. V
 
Sounds to me like you are doing a lot of experimenting and exploring rather than actually writing...
…but that is also an important part of creating. Often it is one or two things that will trigger a bigger idea...maybe a synth patch, maybe even some weird FX...so that's fine. You should spend as much time doing that as much as you like.

One thing though...once you DO hit on something that starts to gel, it may be better at that point to put away all the ear candy, and just grab a guitar and lay out the song....get the framework down (you can always adjust as you go along)...that way, when you get back to the synths and FX, you will be using them with a more focused purpose at that point rather than just doodling endlessly.

It's OK if songs evolve as you go along...you just don't want to be hunting blindly and stringing along irrelevant bits and pieces the whole time.
Basically...find the central theme and then play off that theme as much as you like.
 
Thanks, Miro. Yes, I am experimenting at the moment. That sounds like good advice. I'll definitely keep what you've said in mind.

Cheers!

Dr. V
 
well. seems I've been reading your posts since you first started getting serious about recording and that hasn't been too long has it?
So at this point you're still having as much fun with the process of recording as with the music itself.

I'd do whatever made me happy and made it fun.
You'll refine your process as you go along but basic answer ..... yes, it's ok to break 'rules' , especially since they're more guidelines than rules.
The industry abounds with artists who have their own peculiar unique way of doing things.
DO what works best for you.
 
I'm sure people get tired of me saying this, it actually came from Jim Henson, the Muppets guy: there's only 1 rule: NO RULES!

So it doesn't matter how you work as long as you get the job done.

I look at what I really do as "carving air". I've thought of getting business cards made up as an Air Carver. That's all you're doing. You're not just doing an F chord, it's this type of air tweaked a certain way. When you paint the medium is a canvas and oil, for us it's air. Playing the room.

I'll bet very nearly 100% of your favorite songwriters never read a book or an IT on songwriting. Music doesn't translate into words very well.

So get out your tools and carve some air.
 
I have the same problem, and im not even doing electronic music but all kinds of different genres from pop to metal to orchestral.

It's pretty much always the same. I may for example start tweaking some distorted rhythm guitar to perfection (and with vst's it isnt easy!) before I have anything else done besides just the chorus part to some extent, and after spending ten hours with that Ive not really achieved anything. Instead I've got so frustrated that I have just lost all my inspiration for that song so I quit. Oh, and guess what I do first the next time I come back to that song? Well I start tweaking that damn guitar! :mad:

And let's say I have good luck and I get it sound like I want. I finish the song otherwise and find out that its beter without that guitar track, there is absolutely too much going on. But Ive spend so much time with it, so there is no chance Im taking it away anymore. And the same thing goes with a couple of other tracks and I end up with a not so good sounding mess where ten different melodies and harmonies battle with each other.

I think the most annoying thing is that you know what is going wrong but you STILL make the same mistake over and over again. :(

But fortunately Im just turning to 20 so I should still have some time left to learn. :)
 
dintymoore said:
I look at what I really do as "carving air".

So get out your tools and carve some air.
Click to expand...

Dinty, I love your analogy! I visualise sculpting in 'air' as well. Weird!

Not all of my projects come off as 'songs'. Sometimes just a texture or a rythym. I'd say roughly 80% of what I do here, doesn't necearily come off as a 'song'. I save everything I do on hard drive and often come back to listen. Sometimes these 'musical blobs' can inspire me to... Make another blob, or develop it as a song (or part of).

For the future, I would like to start laying out structures, like bones, which I'd flesh out in successive 'passes', across the whole thing.

The main thing is, you have all confirmed what I was thinking about 'rules'. It's very helpful to get that sort of encouragement.

Dr. V
 
Good Morning Doc, I think what ever works...go for it! I have a studio in my basement that my brother and I have accumulated over the 30 plus years we have been rockin together and I do all of the recording (drummers cant help...lol). I have a question for you though since we record improv only for like like 6 years...we want to multitrack..we just got one and it sits there. we like our on the spot live stuff but I am bored with that these days. Do I record the instruments all mono? I like the stereo effects we have going...I have a 24ch mixer and the drums sub mixed on a 12 ch and sent to the 24. I like my live stereo mix but am the reason we arent multi tracking because I have no clue as to how to attempt mono recording. I have 4 sub outs from the 24 that I send to the MT. is that standard way of doing it? If so how do i get my stereo mix back?
 
Musical blobs

by live recording our creative moments we have too many BLOBS and no structure. Good analogy with the Blobs.
 
Dr. Varney said:
Why am I asking what you think?
Click to expand...
That's a very good question. I think you're probably looking for support and affirmation more than a scholarly answer, which many here do in their own way, and that's fine. Here it is; if how you're doing it now is what works for you, then don't worry about it, just keep on plugging. If you find your current methods to be problematic; e.g. never quite actually finishing a project or song, hitting the same kind of roadblocks every time, etc., then maybe some discipline by the book might be worth at least trying.

For the more analytical side of the answer, I'm going to throw down a broad categorization here, but before the flamethrowers get lit up, let me say it's meant to be more illustrative than literal. In real life things are usually not this black and white:

There are those in this racket who are more interested in the music, and those who are more interested in the sound.

The former tend to be the ones who will write their songs on paper or n acoustic guitar (or whatever is handy), usually well before thy hit the record button (not counting scratch recordings made just to check their ideas, which I consider more part of the song creation process than the actual recording process.) There it's about the song, usually starting with either a riff, chord structure or lyrics and the "sound" will fill in later.

The latter tend to gravitate more toward your methodology, where the "sound" or "tone" becomes a driving force of increased importance rivaling the rest of the song content; one may start with a riff or a theme, but the emotion of how it sounds can be just as - if not more - important than the actual structure of the song.

What's right or wrong? Whichever one works for you, of course; though I'd personally suggest that extremes in either direction are probably not the most productive of approaches.

And finally, a quick true story: My oldest friend, with whom I built my first home studio back when I was 19, was big on the analog synths (ARP, Sequential Circuits, PAIA modules, etc.). Nowadays it's VSTi emulations. He just a couple of weeks ago e-mailed me a picture of his new home rig with nice new MIDI keyboards, new home-crafted overbridge for holding his dual-monitor, dual-PC workstation, etc. Very nice stuff. The only text caption he included in his e-mail simply said: "Now if I could only learn how to play."

:)

G.
 
Last edited:
A lot of good responses in this thread.

Just as an example of how differently we all do things, I very rarely tweak anything.
For me, I don't care about what someone else thinks of my recordings at all.
I just want to see what some idea I have sounds like.
So I record stuff ..... often using mostly 1st and 2nd takes ..... mix it however I feel at the moment and when I'm done, I'm done.
I've never gone back and remixed anything because of any comments anyone else makes ....... I might remix something because I felt the need but usually, once I'm finished with a song I'm finished.

My goal is simply "I wonder what THAT would sound like?" so the only person I'm recording for is me.
It works for me but would not be the way to go for mostly everyone else ......
 
Tweak

I admit I am a knob tweaker. I over-listen to our friday night Live Improv and critisize the crap out of it. I try to get the drum snare more snappy and clear, I try to get the bass out of the guitar and lay it on the bass and kick where it belongs, I try to get the vocals to stand out better, I am forever over critisizing my own methods as I mostly go by trial and error. I think this has worked since I listen to my older stuff and it sounds like a blanket laying on the speakers. My music is for ME like you say, but I know I am at a disadvantage because I dont have a formal education in music at all. I am a guitar player for 34 years who has always been interested in recording what my brother and I play. Now that we have age on our side( IF thats possible)..and we have a bit of equipment outside of a 4 track tape..I record all of our live improvised material (Blobs) and we plan to use the best of the best to actually structure material for multitracking. (A whole different universe from what I hear. If I wasnt such a chicken S^&T I would already have some tracks layed down but we are drawing near.
tweaker or no...do what sounds good to your ears. no rules. just my opinion...welcome yours!
Cerg
 
My writing process starts mostly with a project in my DAW and a few riffs. I program my drums, and the beats are written in the DAW so I can hear them with the music. I like the ability to snip and chop and change things in a DAW. Experimentation with different structure...is that riff repeated to many times? Does this need a pre chorus? Perhaps those drums would sound better in half time? etc etc. I screw around with the EQs and effects while doing it, sure. But at that point all the tracks are scratch tracks, so it has no bearing on the final result beyond giving me some scope.

A lot of random knob twiddling aswell has yielded some pretty unexpected but cool stuff.
 
I didnt read all the responses...all Ill say is the end product is whats important not how its reached..everyone is different

I think many homerecorders mix as they go..I know I do, and that the song mutates out of a couple of bars on a guitar or synth or even a drumbeat...not becasue of some master plan..

I have two songs pretty much completed but due to man flu and logistics they dont have vocals..Ill adjust where needed to get the vocals to fit in then tweak at the EQs and reverbs etc..but they are pretty much good to go
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top