MikeRobinson

To me, "creating something" really consists of choosing. You start with "an idea that comes from who-knows-where," but what comes next is real work, because there is no pre-ordained outcome. (Unless you approach the project with a specific outcome or type of song in mind.) There's really nothing to say that your last idea is "better" nor "worse" than the next one. There are no road-signs pointing the way. When you set out to create something, your really are "completely on your own," and I suspect that a lot of people find that they are uncomfortable with that. It's a daunting prospect, really.

Okay ... if you completely did not understand the relevance of this topic post, perhaps you will now very-much enjoy this "TED Talk" post about songwriting: ... but it really does manage to bring out an important point about the creative process: that it really is "the product of a series of choices," none of which may have seemed to have pointed to some pre-ordained conclusion at the time that it was made, but which arrived at a pleasing outcome nonetheless. So ... next time "writer's block" seems to want to overtake and then bury you ... "enjoy!"

I think that you've got a delicious vocal performance ... a very nice, melodic intro ... but a general musical arrangement that (IMHO) needs considerably more force, a broader musical spectrum, and timeline-tightening. In this genre, I more-or-less expect a speculative, melodic intro that lasts about thirty seconds ... really, not much more than that ... after which I expect the song to "break free." Maybe a riser, not just a thumping-bass, but instead the introduction of considerably more sound and music, encompassing the whole spectrum including the bass. (Yeah, you can hire an entire symphony orchestra without paying union scale.) Don't let the sound continue to sound "thin." Next, I think that you should have a definite set of ideas that the arrangement can move into at roughly 30-to-45 second intervals. Let one level of complexity evolve into the next, maybe adding instruments. But, always keep your vocalist firmly in mind as you do it ... it's her song. To my ears, the last 45 seconds or so of the present arrangement delve into a "musical trope" that really doesn't feel related to what you'd established even 30 seconds earlier: you indulge in very electronic, very edgy, very high-frequency instruments and the bass isn't there. 2:25 is very different from 2:45-and-beyond, and I don't think it's an improvement. And you've done that before. "EDM has certain musical 'tropes' (IMHO)," and in the take-out of this arrangement we certainly see them: very high-frequency fills, thumping rhythms in the midrange, nothing in the bass, and basically, no melody. Your vocalist has quite been left behind. No, I think that you can find the "driving, fairly mechanical rhythms" that I associate wth the EDM genre, without abandoning the vocalist. I think that you can find an arrangement that has the essential drive without [unnecessarily ...] resorting to the trope. I've watched a symphony orchestra play EDM. It can be done.

Y'know, John, when you talk about "thick skin" and so on ... I really think that we always need to remind ourselves that the actual process of "being creative" is never a "Venus de Milo moment." Your song isn't going to magically appear out of a clamshell, "fully-formed and totally-starkers." 😲 Nope ... it's going to be a choice. In fact, a whole bunch of choices. During which you're going to feel that you are groping along in the dark. And, quite likely, which might wind up with several pretty-good alternatives from which you have to choose just one. (After carefully filing the others away in your "morgue file" – a newspaper term – for use in your next masterpiece.) Of course, nobody ever stands at the podium, accepting their Grammy® Award, talking about that process. The audience only hears the finished song, and really doesn't care about the process. We want to admire Michelangelo's David without ever thinking about chisels and polishing. We want to believe that, one day, "the song just materialized," precisely as we hear it on the radio today. Don't bother us with details. Okay, so that's what the public wants to hear. Let them hear it. Meanwhile ... Meanwhile, don't let mistaken expectations defeat you before you begin. Creativity is not a deterministic process. You're making progress even when you can't see it. There is never "one right answer." It doesn't exist. And also: "keep a [digital] tape recorder running all the time." Likewise, if you've worked on something and you want to "wad it up and throw it in the trash" ... don't wad it up, and put it into a folder named Junque that you never empty. Some of your very best tomorrows might begin with yesterday's trash. These days we are blessed with unlimited storage: make the best of it.

A good place to start is by playing a sort of arpeggiation of the 1/3/5 notes of each chord. Then, as the chords change, arrange things so that you "reach" to a note in the next chord – introducing an interval that isn't a third or a fifth. A sixth, perhaps, which will sound slightly dissonant. You can also use the idea of a "suspension" ... hitting one-step or even a half-step above or below your target and then resolving to the expected note. One idea that you can use is to change the starting note: jam on 1/3/5 then switch up to 3/5/1 then (say) switch down to 5/3/1 and feel free at any time to re-arrange the order. When a chord-change is coming up that's going to produce a different interval and there are quite a few intervals that you can choose from to add interest. (Remember that anytime the base-chord changes, the notes that occur at the point of change will be regarded both in terms of the chord you left, and the chord you arrived at. The same is true of key changes. The "Bb chord" always slightly-suggests "the key of Bb." So, where are the notes that make up the "D" chord, in the key of Bb ... a key in which Bb is the tonic? Even though the influence is very brief, it is felt.) That's your "framework," which has gaps left in it. Now you can start filling-in on that framework, adding short runs and other ornaments to fill in and decorate those gaps. Maybe you take one of those fills, treating it as a mini-melody, and use the same fill (maybe elsewhere in the scale) which the listener will recognize having heard it before. Start the "voice memo" app on your phone and keep it running as you jam with these ideas, then go back and listen ... noticing whatever sounds good to your ear. Lots of good riffs happen by happy accident. But now you can "grab it, stick a pin in it, and put it somewhere else." I think that the best approach will be to come up with a general plan, then jam, then take the best jams and try to work them into your plan. I think the solo should have a recognizable structure, with plenty of room even to improvise while you are playing it.

It's quite imaginative. Just when you think you know what it's going to be, you have that "several seconds slider" and then go off in a new direction which still feels related to what we've already heard. One general comment I'd make is that so far the mix really doesn't include deep bass. You've got a lot of high-range, a certain amount of mid-range tending toward high, and some "bass-like thumps" that to my ear really don't get into bass. What comes to my mind is the long full-measure progressions that you often hear from the double-basses in an orchestra. It becomes a sort of sweep that moves the song along without getting in the way. I think the addition of such a track would be an interesting improvement. You could even put two-note chords down there. When you look at the song on a frequency-display, I think you really want to see action taking place in all three ranges. Even in "techno."

Sounds good! 👍

It's one thing to create "a work of art for your own enjoyment." Quite another to create a viable commercial product. Every one of us has some set of skills and/or experience that we parley into "our daily bread." Music-making, really, can be no different. If your aim is to make a living by consistently producing a musical product that someone will consistently pay for ... after you have first discovered and made contact with that "someone" ... that is now your job. Creative though it may be. As you "create," you're necessarily thinking of more than just yourself. You're thinking about your client. "Commercial" is a good thing. The coffee-shop that I visit each morning is "unabashedly commercial," and so am I if they suddenly start to screw up. 😄 Likewise the also-favorite commercial restaurant that I keep choosing to come back to at lunchtime. These folks aren't pulling coffee-shots or making burritos for their own pleasure. They're doing it to satisfy picky customers like me. And they're always working to perfect their game, because they always know that I – and many thousands of other folks just like me – "am picky!" So, go ahead ... "bring on the 'commercial.'" Strive to write songs for 'picky' people. Like me. And – like you. 👍

Something else that I think is very important to remember about the creative process is that "it is not deterministic!" The final song that you hear – the final lyric if any that was sung – was the product of a choice. And, it wasn't the sort of choice where "there is only one right answer and you stumble around in the dark until <<insert "angelic-choir.wav">> ... "suddenly, there it is." No, there probably were committee meetings. 🤪 Very possibly, a choice was made between several candidates. And then, once the basic concept was approved, a very technical "manufacturing process" happened to actually realize "putting it together!" But I think that this also brings up two other important points: Anytime you are "just noodling around," have your phone recording. Did a tune just pop into your head while you were driving somewhere? Grab that recorder. Keep your phone by your bed. Whenever you decide, "this sucks!" and are ready to rip it in half and dump it ... don't. Put it into a folder that you never empty. And, every so often, go back and have a listen. Every newspaper had what they called "the morgue," and every now and then a headline materialized out of it.

There have been plenty of "legendary songwriting teams" – Rogers and Hammerstein, Rogers and Hart, Lloyd Webber and Stilgoe – where one partner focused on one side of the equation at the total exclusion of the other. And therefore, I predict that "the actual songs that resulted" were a consequence of this dynamic. Probably, the iconic works that we enjoy today were either "a marvelous melody in search of a lyric," or "can you please set this line to music," or, far more likely, both. "The Art of Making Art is ... putting it together ..."

"Simple ... actually ... is the very hardest thing in the world!" Because, if "taking 'creativity' and turning it into a commercially successful piece of art'" was actually as "simple" as it sounds, then today we would have neither "artists" nor "art majors!" 😁 As the old song goes: "the Art of Making Art is ... putting it together." How many "not-final drafts" went into the production of <<name-of-famous-novel>>? How many songs that were recorded for <<famous_album>> didn't make the final cut? The Public Will Never Know, because producers know perfectly well that "the consumer does not care about the trick – only the magic." Remember that. If you hold yourself up against the standard that "Works of Art somehow pop up out of a clamshell – fully-formed and utterly starkers" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Venus) – then "you are quite doomed to be disappointed." Real-world successes are always the combined work product of a great many people, all-but-one of whom probably remain "unsung." (Do we know the names of the people who sharpened his chisels? And, do you really think that The Maestro, Himself spent the hundreds of hours that it took to achieve those utterly-perfect surfaces? C'mon ...) But also – Thomas Edison: “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” “Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.” “We often miss opportunity because it's dressed in overalls and looks like work."

Certainly ... certainly ... very nice lyrical images here ... nice [scratch ...] melody too. Very universal themes. Pleasant to hear. 👍

But also ... I would very much encourage you to "prepare something, and post it!" After all, right-here you are very sure to get a willing and interested audience. Go ahead and post your "metal," this obviously being the genre-side that you are right now most comfortable with, and then "just have a go at" the symphony. (Who knows – here you just might be rewarded with immediate responses by musicians who actually play in symphonies! "This is the Internet, after all ...") Anyhow, "you are very certain to find qualified collaborators."

Well, one strategy is to listen to some classic orchestral works while at the same time reading the scores. All of these materials are of course in the public domain. A symphonic score (meant for the conductor) shows all of the parts up-and-down the page. Another good genre to study is works for various ensembles, where only a handful of instruments are playing and they're each playing different parts. You will immediately notice that they are playing parts that sometimes are in unison with one another and that sometimes overlap. The bass and low parts are often long, legato passages while the high strings might be playing sixteenth-note passages that are outlining a chord.

I'd like to hear it without the accents – which occasionally do occur in bursts that run ahead of the rhythm of the melody. I'm not sure that it adds anything. (And if you do decide to keep this element, I think I'd use a different instrument or maybe give it a slight bit of reverb.) I'd also like to hear the various sections of the orchestra playing parts that do not always coincide – longer, legato parts set against the generally staccato feel of the main melody.

It seems to me that you've got most of the sonic-space filled with a buzzing sawtooth sound, and the very high-pitched rapid percussion seems almost "sprayed on top of it." There also doesn't seem to be a frequency-range notched out for the vocals to sit in. I think that I would take these ideas, with more modern software and equipment, and start adding some melodic elements to it – things that will drive the song forward. Likewise for the percussion, which of course is intended to be very "techno" and is an important part of this style, I would add more instruments that occupy different areas of the sonic spectrum ... not just the extreme top ... and not made up entirely of "1/64th notes." The "edginess" of the top of the instrument began to get on my nerves towards the end. Maybe a little different EQ.

It develops very nicely from beginning to end, bringing in new motifs while preserving the old ones. (And a few nice "surprises" like around 2:30 ...) I like the polyrhythmic texture that you develop toward the end, where they're playing counter melodies and contrasting rhythms. It's very imaginative – it kept my attention. (Such songs frequently don't ... 🤷‍♂️ ) One thing that I think I would add is some low string bass. I'm thinking orchestral. You might even insert a string section. That's going to "fill out the sound space" which to me is occupied mostly by things happening in the upper registers. The players could also alternate between bowing and plucking at various times. I think that would add a very strong element to this already strong song. These players probably never take the lead – unless you want them to, for a measure or so – but they're nailing down the foundation while also providing a rhythmic contrast.

Strange – I am not familiar with this program but I do not understand why any such program, even when overloaded, would "slow down." I do not know what you mean by "Windows shows 7,3 in performance." What tool is providing that number? Your computer seems to me to be powerful enough to do the job.

Yes, John, and my particular challenge here is (in part ...) to do something that isn't "remixing." Because each of the musical performances – MIDI or Audio – that are embodied in "a loop" are specifically designed not to be "part of a particular song." Instead, I guess, they are – composition-wise – "one big phat 'Musical Note!'" (But: "nothing more than 'a Note.'") So, I'm basically in the process of blocking-out "a musical arrangement in a standard song structure, composed of elements of typical segment-length," and populating it entirely through loops." (Although I do reserve the right to pick a "MIDI-loop" and transpose, although not rewrite, its internal structure.) Given that I seem to have a library at my disposal of several thousand loops, this might take a while. 😎

"But also ... Peer Review!" When you are the writer, you are perhaps-inevitably the most severe critic of your own work. "But... are you maybe just too close to it?" There's really only one way to find out: "try it out, in front of a few of your songwriting friends." Fortunately for you, this website(!) is a community of "just such 'friends.'" Go ahead and post your "lyrics in progress," and also your "proposed melodies." You will get quite-candid reviews ... which, I think, are most-valuable because they came from someone other than yourself. Always(!) Remember: "Every book that you buy at a bookstore is a final draft." Likewise every song that you hear or download (from a professional source). You have absolutely no idea how many committee meetings there were! The first time you're allowed to see "their version of Michelangelo's David," the floor has been meticulously swept free of every single marble chip. 😀 "Why, yes. Of course it was always meant to be this way. Of course it's magic ..." As I once heard it said: "The creation of any work of art is like the birth of a child. At the time, it's uncertain, it's messy, and frankly rather bloody. But, thereafter, it seems like a foregone conclusion."

"Okay... so I decided that this really didn't belong in the "Songwriting" section ... so, where to put it?" I've decided to embark on a purely-experimental musical project that I have dubbed, "The Gospel According to Saint Loop," which I hope to have ready for presentation in the next few days. And I must say it has been interesting. "These performers are going to perform the parts that you have picked, but they're not the parts that you have composed ... nor, probably, that you ever would have thought of." Can you compose a viable piece of music from this?

Let's talk about "frequency ranges." (And, within those ranges, relative volume levels.) Absolutely up-front in this arrangement is "high frequencies." Very crisp, very sharp, clearly standing in front of everything else. Almost percussive. And so, considerably behind this and therefore very much subordinate to it, we have "your vocals." (Which, logically, ought to be "the thing that we hear if we are to hear nothing else.") Beneath the vocals we have ... nothing (IMHO) in any of the lower frequencies. The cellists, the bass players, these musicians need not apply. So – here's my suggestion: "give us a new arrangement of this piece." High-frequency players (violins), midrange (cellos, woodwinds, trumpets), bass (strings, tubas) ... let all of them grab their "union scale pay." Don't leave any of 'em out.

All right ... choosing now to respond only to the song ... my assessment is that "it is much too thin." There's no bass. Frankly there are almost no instruments. "The available frequency spectrum got a crew-cut!" So ... how about another thirteen-second pass, this time with some orchestration. What might you do if you had a symphony orchestra sitting politely in the room? (Because ... you do!) How about a rock band? (Ditto.) Yes, you've got a fine idea and you probably would do well do stay within 13 seconds. But, there sure as heck is a lot more that you could manage to do in those thirteen seconds! Have a go ...

Quite honestly, I think that Queen was (and, still is) "a very good band among many." These were the times when the technology of music making and recording was vastly more expensive and labor-intensive than it now is, and when the marketing of music was also very different. Record companies were making extremely expensive gambles on you, and pouring millions of dollars or pounds into promoting everything that you did. They might even be persuaded to back a 13-minute song. But, at that time, there were many fabulous bands, all producing fabulous music that has become iconic today. And, you really didn't know what any one of the major players was going to do next. (The Moody Blues, for example, teamed up with an orchestra.) Every album seemed to be a new experiment. Queen was definitely doing very interesting and generally very commercial things, but in my LP collection they never particularly "stood out."

I think that many of us have this experience anytime we listen to the radio in our car. (Especially with XM/Sirius radio, which offers hundreds of channels.) Within the first thirty seconds, we want to hear something "that isn't a loop." Popular music today is stuffed full of tropes, and we've heard them all. Literally anything that keeps your music from sounding like the channel next door is probably a very good start.