What do you take into account when evaluating electronic tracks?

[Michan]

Hello everybody,

 

Thanks to Songstuff, I've been recently listening to a lot of electronic/ambient music, and I'm even having the chance to put vocals over quite a lot of tracks. I've learned to enjoy it and appreciate it as a listen, but I still don't understand what kind of things, you, composers, take into account to evaluate the quality of the compositions (I can only tell if they sound good or not to me, and that is highly dependent on the preferences in sound and style of me as a listener).

 

I had also the chance to check some compositions that have been submitted to contests, and I know there should be certain things that the experts take into account (production/effects/mix-wise) to decide which pieces are better than other, independently on the style.

 

I know there are A LOT of members of this forum that have a lot of experience in this kind of music. I would like to ask you what particularities do you take into account to appreciate the compositions themselves. Sometimes I've read critics like: "all the piece is too centered", or "you are not covering properly all the ranges"... and things like that, that I kind of guess what they mean, but I've read many others that I have no clue about.

I would like, if you have some time, to give me some tips to appreciate in a deeper level this kind of music. I guess it has many other particularities apart from how the piece itself sounds, that I am not enjoying just because I have no idea I should be paying attention to them... l feel this area is going to be almost as interesting as when you learn to properly taste the wine, and I am extremely curious about it.

 

Just to clarify, when I refer here to electronic music, I am not meaning the proper electronic style (techno, disco, etc etc) , but the music we can make at home based on MIDI inputs, synths, effects, and software backbone. It includes many kinds of styles I guess.  Maybe I should use the word "Music in silico", to be less ambiguous...

 

Thanks in advance for your time!

 

---------------------------------

EDIT: I will just quote here because I know this is not a part of the forum people check up as much as others... and I really want my "instructors" from this forum in electronic tracks, to provide some feedback if possible, (I don't want to put pressure on you, but I don't want just to not get answers because you didn't read the thread!) I think it could be a interesting thread for a lot of people anyways. So would like to hear, of course, anybody's opinion, but specially @Steve Mueske, @geographyhorse, @ImKeN, @Richard Watashi and @Old Technology. Thanks ^^

[Richard Watashi]

"Electronic music" is a wide subject. I personally am into any kind of music so, my tracks and, i am now talking about the "electronic ones", have influences in genres like metal as well as, EDM and or/ pop..

 

I think that, you are doing great in the category. It's a plus that, you had/have different taste and you put something unique for the tracks.

 

When speaking about "electronic music" - first band coming to my mind are my legends Crystal castles and, the first female singer of the band, Alice Glass once said - she has never been into "electronic music" before joining the band. And the what she's brought to the music was just unique mainly because she did it "her way", i guess. I love fusions of styles. 

 

So, i take into account just what i currently want.  I can work on an EDM track but, to take the inspiration from Metal music, for instance.  And, if there was a question on your mind like, what makes a good "electronic track" -  i can't give you the answer as, i believe it's subjective. But i can tell you that in my case, it's good if it isn't sounding random. 

[Richard Watashi]

I don't see how to analyze if a track is good. People can write articles but, to give someone a constructive crticism on a track is just honesty of how they feel for it. You either like it or, not. I actually think most reviews for music are filled with nonsense.

 

Does it make any sense?

 

Do you know how to call a guitarists that knows only three chords? Music critique.

 

I been watching a review on an album i love and, the guy was talking how over-simplified are the beats. Guess what? THey are not. But to him, to this "expert" it sounds over-simplified because, he just doesn't see the complicity of the arrangements and the "unique-ness" of the mix. He sees only what he is able to see - "simple"drums and tones. 

 

So, i could talk about how to achieve that less is sometimes more is not an easy business. You can make stuff complicated in diffrent ways. You can make an "easy" beat but, you can have a great arrangement of the beat and uniue mix. Some will call it over-simplified but, others will think you are a genius > if they love it. I mean, everything is good in music when, it sounds good to YOU

 

I have a problem to give you the answer as "electronic music" is a term that includes a lot of different styles. I normally take in consideration nothing more than what's just flying through my mind. I don't make music with an effort to force myself to sound like this or that. I just can't control myself when making music. It either leads me somewhere or not. 

 

I just start with something, it may be whatever and than adding more stuff and, i am getting the idea how i would like it to sound through out working on the track. It's not like that, i make any consideration. Maximally, i sometimes want to do EDM or whatever and than i am trying to stick to the aspects for the genre but, i think i haven't done many tracks that could be considered pure EDM or pure Metal, etc.

 

I experiment a lot and, it eventually leads me to the final track.

 

Anyway, i think there are experts that will give you some great answers.

[Michan]

Nice answer Rich!

 

Just to clarify (I'll update this in the topic also), when I refer here to electronic music, I am not meaning the proper electronic style (techno, disco, etc etc) , but the music we can make at home based on MIDI inputs, synths, effects, and software backbone. It includes many kinds of styles I guess.  Maybe I should use the word "Music in silico", to be less ambiguous... haha

 

I totally agree with you in that aspect. At the end, if it sounds good to you, that´s the most important. But for example, you've mentioned good/bad arrangements to a beat. What part of the track is the beat? What part of the track is the arrangement?

For me, from a drummer's perspective, the beat is the groove. A groove is cool if while playing you actually groove and you flow well from one part to the other. But all the times I hear "beat" for me it's just the drums. I kind of guess that beats for you, composers, are the basic structure that is repeated along the song, that might include the rhythmic patterns (drums, with more or less effects), and maybe some phrases for piano or other instruments. But it's a slightly ambiguous concept, so, it's not easy for a naive listener, as I am, to really appreciate all those small parts a "composers beat" has. And neither to be able to take into consideration how the composer, probably starting by that beat, build up everything else around. And I think it's something I would enjoy a lot to understand further.

 

There's so much amazing "science" behind the music making. Behind the way we play the instruments, behind the way we sing, the way we write lyrics and the way we assemble the songs. Each day I spend learning, the more amazed I get for all that is behind a song. It's so motivated the huge amount of things we can experiment and develop. But only when you put your hands on it you start to realize.

[Richard Watashi]

I see a beat like the tempo and the rhytm of the track and the rest of the stuff in a song that rhytmically sits to the rest and, the arrangement i see as the choice of sounds and, the structure-flow. I guess i am not right but, it's how i think of these terms.

 

I do approach to make music in different ways. I don't have a walkthrough as the proccess of producing a track is never the same.

 

Sometimes i start with a short melody that runs through my mind and, i am adding stuff in no direct order. If i currently feel like adding drums to the melody -> i do. If i feel like adding chords - i do. Just whatever comes currently through my mind. It requires a little bit of time and practice, you just have to develope the skill to figure out what to do to but, i think when you just follow your taste - than you should be satisfied - no matter what others think.

 

I just don't have any system. It's mostly kinda like a free style for me. 

[ImKeN]

4 hours ago, Michan said:

I would like to ask you what particularities do you take into account to appreciate the compositions themselves.

 

I think you're on the right track, @Michan. 

Its all about the emotional journey and that's pretty much all that matters, to me. And by journey, I mean the arrangement - i.e the momentum from start to finish. If the momentum or flow of ideas is weak, the experience/attention is lost for the listener. 

I find this a good way to identify issues in my own compositions and mixes.

 

Hope this helps you a little?

 

Ken

[Michan]

Hey, @ImKeN, yeah, it definitely helps! Very interesting point.

 

But I guess that momentum is something that might be slighly different depending on the person. Or do you think, emotionally, that momentum works for everybody the same? And, what kind of issues make you notice when the momentum is lost? You think a given composition asks itself for a particular progression of changes? Sometimes I feel it does, and I can tell if the next part feels right or wrong, but I wonder if that's just up to the person, or it is something inherent to the composition. It's a very interesting question, technically and philosophically!

 

Thanks for the comment!

[Just1L]

Eventually I take everything into account with the end result, hopefully, being each instrument is really playing with and off of each other like they're really listening to each other and having a party together. And at that party, each instrument brings a particular food or drink that goes great with each other and everyone likes all the food and drink. For example... I may come up with a guitar riff. After playing that riff and before I go to record, I repeat that riff in my head, while I'm not actually playing, looking for the exact sound of just that riff that would make it stand out best (i.e. heavy distortion, really clean crisp and sharp, a little echo, etc...) When I have that guitar riff and sound, before I do any recording I search for a really good drum beat that not only keeps a good interesting beat, but also has the drum sound that goes good with the guitar sound I came up with. It's a little thing thinking of the exact sound of the drums but one that does make a difference. Once I have the beat I start recording the guitar along with the beat to lay down the rest of the song. I then add the bass and play that listening to the drums so they form a really rhythm section together. Again with the bass, I'm not only looking for the notes to play, but the sound that gels with the other two instruments. Once I have those 3 tracks laid down, I listen to it more than a few times looking for subtleties in the drums whether it be a fill or a high-hat variation or anything to really study what they are doing. I will then re-record the guitar and the bass after finding those subtleties, and change the guitar and bass parts to go with that little fill, variation in beat/high hat which in turn creates a small, but noticeable change in the song but also highlights the fact that they aren't just playing TO a beat, they're playing WITH the beat. And that adds more cohesion to the overall song. Vocals and any other instruments all follow suit.

 

So, to sum up that jumbled mess of thought... Sounds of each instrument and how each of those instruments play with each other looking for slight variations and subtleties that give the listener the idea that they are all really gelling together as a group and on the same page ... and enjoying it.

 

 

[Michan]

Hey @Just1L!

 

Nothing like a jumble, it was a really clear and interesting read. So, your songs undergo a quite long evolution process from the first draft till the end song.  It would be super cool if you had some of this "creative process" recorded, so one could listen and check how all these changes come, and how you create that organization and orchestration feeling of all the instruments together.  I would be curious to listen to that process, and take into account all those details you've just mentioned. I guess you really need to gain experience with the time, to be able to get into that point where the instruments are doing well together in that party! I guess there's a lot of trial/error training followed by a training in hearing and intuition.

 

From now on I will pay more attention to the "dialogue" of instruments in the pieces that I feel right, compared to the ones that, for some reason, I feel are failing in something.

Thanks so much for your comment!

[geographyhorse]

Electronic music is a HUGE category and the many genres within it almost demand slight variations in evaluation. I'm more of an ambient musician myself, although I dabble in pop and idm. 

obviously, personal preferences come into play, but when something isn't sitting right with me, I like to ask myself what about it is bothering me. I then try to imagine what the intent of the artist was/is and whether or not he/she executed that intent. @Steve Mueske seems more interested in creating a sort of sound art where clarity and sonic purity are at the forefront of each piece. @Richard Watashi seems more interested in a contemporary edm sound with industrial leanings. I'm all over the place, but my purely electronic/ ambient works are heavily influenced by not just ambient artists like Boards of Canada, Aphex Twin, Tangerine Dream, etc. But also by progressive genres by the likes of Yes and early Genesis and more recently the post-rock of Godspeed You Black Emporer and Mogwaii. Therefore, I'm heavily focused on depth and squeezing as much sound into a tight sonic space as possible with lots of rythems playing with and against each other, competing harmonies, and the occasional sprawling melody. While there's some bleed over of analysis here, but I'm inevitably going to judge each person's work differently based on what I percieve their goals to be and even against their past work. 

So, I guess my analysis goes like this.

1. Do I personally like it?

2. If not, is there some technical reason that is holding back my enjoyment?

3. Can I ascertain the artist's intentions or goals with the piece?

4. Do I believe the artist executed those goals or intentions?

5. If not, what factors maybe played a role in stalling that execution? 

 

Eh, that's all I got. 😂

[Michan]

hey @geographyhorse, thanks so much for your contribution!

 

Very interesting way of analysis, and helpful checkpoint list. In my case, for example, yeah, now I can recognize your style, Steve's and Richard's, and I kind of perceive your/their goals and what you/they try to achieve, but: what happens when you don't know the artist that well? Can you just guess as first listen?

 

And what do you mean with "squeezing a lot of sound into a tight sonic space"?  What does it mean? How do you stablish and define the sonic space where you want to work? How do you "squeeze the sound"?

 

Sorry if my questions are super naive, I'm just super curious about all the stuff composers take into account for their music! I'm learning A LOT with this thread!

 

 

[Just1L]

43 minutes ago, Michan said:

Hey @Just1L!

 

Nothing like a jumble, it was a really clear and interesting read. So, your songs undergo a quite long evolution process from the first draft till the end song.  It would be super cool if you had some of this "creative process" recorded, so one could listen and check how all these changes come, and how you create that organization and orchestration feeling of all the instruments together.  I would be curious to listen to that process, and take into account all those details you've just mentioned. I guess you really need to gain experience with the time, to be able to get into that point where the instruments are doing well together in that party! I guess there's a lot of trial/error training followed by a training in hearing and intuition.

 

From now on I will pay more attention to the "dialogue" of instruments in the pieces that I feel right, compared to the ones that, for some reason, I feel are failing in something.

Thanks so much for your comment!

 

Unfortunately, I don’t have the process recorded in that fashion but I agree it could be interesting to do. Best I can do is give you an example, and it’s not just to try to get my songs some listens. If you go to www.just1l.com and scroll down to song two of the EP “Donkey Kong” there’s a relatively good example of what I mean. You can start it at around 1:40 to get to the section. You’ll notice that the drum beat around there is basically the same, fills and all. You’ll hear a particular fill at around 1:49. As the song continues the drums stay the same as does the music. But right at 2:09, you’ll notice that rather than playing the general rhythm guitar part for that section, I did a palm muted “chicka-chicka” strum that plays nicely with that same fill you hear multiple times throughout. At that section, by doing that, it makes it sound different and pop out, even though the drums are the exact same, giving it a little “oomph” so to speak.

For the actual sounds, one thing I like to do is as practice is pull up the virtual keyboard on the computer and go through all the different sounds I have for that keyboard. I’ll play a sound and then just freestyle a keyboard part. The thing I notice I do is with each sound, I never really play the same keyboard part. I hear that sound and then play something that relates to how that sound “feels.” Hope this helps further.

[geographyhorse]

1 minute ago, Michan said:

hey @geographyhorse, thanks so much for your contribution!

 

Very interesting way of analysis, and helpful checkpoint list. In my case, for example, yeah, now I can recognize your style, Steve's and Richard's, and I kind of perceive your/their goals and what you/they try to achieve, but: what happens when you don't know the artist that well? Can you just guess as first listen?

 

And what do you mean with "squeezing a lot of sound into a tight sonic space"?  What does it mean? How do you stablish and define the sonic space where you want to work? How do you "squeeze the sound"?

 

Sorry if my questions are super naive, I'm just super curious about all the stuff composers take into account for their music! I'm learning A LOT with this thread!

 

 

It's cool. You can think of a song like a work of architecture with spatial dimensions and volume. For example, you have volume (lol😂). You also have left and right speakers on a standard stereo system. There's also the octave range of music i.e. sub-bass, bass, mid, trebles, etc. Finally, there's the bpm and actual length of song. I try to effectively fill all of those dimensions over a period of time in such a way that no sound gets lost or muddy. I'm still perfecting this, hence why some people use terms like "busy", "muddy", or "chaotic". To critique my music. When I'm not successful, my music will get muddy, undefined, and straight up caucaphonous. 

[Michan]

@Just1L thanks so much! yeah, I've listened what you where meaning. You where using that new "pattern"of assembly for opening also a new part of the song, also you adapted the singing to that kinda "stacatto" pattern! I got it. Very interesting point to take into account. And, by the way, you made very well your add and now I'm listening to all of the songs, they are quite cool. I will take your words into consideration the next time I have band rehearsal, to be able to contribute a bit with ideas to my bandmates, to make the songs better (I'm the one that sings and makes the melodies, so my bandmates are the ones that take care of the track itself, and sometimes when they are discussing that there's something "missing"I feel so helpless being unable to give them any idea). Thanks so much for taking the time to explain back the issue a bit further, it's very much appreciated! ^^

 

@geographyhorse and thank you as well for explaining the concept of sonic space further. I think it's a quite complex thing what you are taking into consideration, I guess not many people make the compositions taking that into account... or maybe they do, but in a far less rationalized/milimetric way! But, well... you are always so philosophical, so, one cannot expect anything different from your composer-setup!

 

 

 

[Old Technology]

I come from a video editing background. So I am always trying to service the story. When I make a track I need to feel something from it, otherwise it is a waste of time. I feel the best instrumental pieces take you on an emotional story and are able to conjure up images in your head without even trying.

 

I try not to think of electronic music as anything different than a classical piece. There are no vocals in a classical piano composition for example. Yet they are still able to portray a whole range of emotions and feelings.

 

So when I am starting out I usually have no goal in mind. This is the experimental phase, finding a particular melody or bass or chord progression or even just a sound I really like. Gradually as I add different instruments the work can begin to evoke emotions. If it doesn't then I scrap whatever I was doing and try a different approach. Instrumental music is more boundless than music that has singing in my opinion.

 

Technically what I am looking for is a cohesive sonic space of all the instruments and how they all work together but more importantly do they serve the story? In the end, you need to cut out everything that doesn't help move the story forward.

 

The best thing about working around a story in your head is that when other people listen they will experience their own story. All stories have a beginning, middle and end. If you have that structure down you let people fill in the small details themselves and I believe that is what makes it enjoyable to the listener.

[Michan]

Thanks for your comment @Old Technology!

 

It's amazing how different and similar all of you are at the end! It is very cool to learn the common points composers have, and also the degrees of freedom and inspiration that come with each one's particular style. 

 

I totally agree with the fact that later, each one has their own story, but sometimes, specially listening to Steve's postcards, and reading the comments, (and in another case in a piece from ImKen) I realized that in a great amount of cases, the listeners get a similar vibe/feeling. The "Persistence of Memory" from Steve, had a clear effect of Äpocalipsis/Dystopia in the listeners. And in the "My love is like a flower" me and another person got the feeling of "time-lapse". It was very curious for me to see that we tend to fall in the same idea/feeling about a particular composition, that normally also corresponds with the effect the composer wanted to create. I wonder if that is something that comes from the culture we were exposed to, or something more inherent to the music itself... I guess at the end it will be a mix of all of that aspects!

[Michan]

11 hours ago, geographyhorse said:

@Steve Mueske seems more interested in creating a sort of sound art where clarity and sonic purity are at the forefront of each piece

 

Hey @Steve Mueske, thanks for your view! As you can see, for the ones that listen to you, your actual project is quite clear!

And yeah, I agree we are in an amazing time for doing many many things, and music is definitelly one of them! 

I guess human style keeps always slightly changing and adapting to what we have in our hands and mind in a particular moment. That's nature I guess, "Everything evolves, nothing stays, everything flows and changes"  (more or less) wrote Trimegistus around the 200 AD.

 

[Michan]

After what almost all of you said about telling a story, keeping the momentum, playing with the arrangements over a common leitmotif, you've convinced me that one of the most important points to consider when analyzing a composition, is to pay attention to how well glued and incorporated over the piece are those sometimes subtile arrangements, that keep the piece changing, evolving, adapting. I guess keeping that movement in an organized way inside that "sonic space" of Geo and Old, it's what gives the piece most of its depth and relevance.

 

Thanks so much to all of you, for taking the time to comment and show me your point of view over this particular topic. I have gained a lot of perpective, with this thread, over the mental process of the composers, and that might also help me to contribute with ideas over the instrumental tracks in my band, or when I'm making my melodies for the songs where I work in collabs here in songstuff. You've been all extremelly cool and helpful!

 

[ImKeN]

On 4/26/2019 at 9:55 PM, Michan said:

But I guess that momentum is something that might be slighly different depending on the person. Or do you think, emotionally, that momentum works for everybody the same?

 

= Generally, I think we’re pretty much the same. I like to think of good momentum in terms of higher activity in the right brain hemisphere. Poor momentum makes our minds wander too much but good momentum causes our minds to synchronize with the music - creating a sort of effortless and relaxing experience.

 

 

On 4/26/2019 at 9:55 PM, Michan said:

You think a given composition asks itself for a particular progression of changes? Sometimes I feel it does, and I can tell if the next part feels right or wrong, but I wonder if that's just up to the person, or it is something inherent to the composition.

 

= I think a good composition leaves most of its listeners satisfied and maybe even wanting to go back for a second listen. If you feel you can offer constructive criticism then go for it, whether or not the composer agrees with you is a different story but most Songstuff members are grateful for any feedback they can get.

 

Just my opinion,

 

Ken

 

[MikeRobinson]

I like to think of it this way – "electronic" is just "the instrument(s)."  But, these days, "that can be anything at all."  If you'd like the services of a symphony orchestra and never have to pay union scale, they'll spend as much time in rehearsal as you want them to.  If you'd like them to be accompanied by a 70's synthesizer, a ukelele and a choir, your wish is the computer's command.

 

Then, put it into a recording studio and mastering console.  There is no billing-clock.

 

You've got at your fingertips stuff that, less than twenty years ago, people did pay $200,000+ for ... and still could only dream of.

 

So – I just look for well-balanced pieces of music that are interesting, and that make creative use of whatever instrumentation and effects the composer/orchestrator/arranger (who's usually just one person) feels most comfortable with.  "Surprise me.  Please me."