Page 2 of 4
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:58 pm
by gonzodj
i thought it would be interesting to point out the importance of the golden ratio. most music in general i hear follows the formula that the climax of the song occurs around 60% way through the song (the golden ratio is ~1.61 and the conjugate ~ 0.61). the amen break also seems follows the golden ratio, the peaks follow the fibonacci sequence of creation, some trippy shit. math and music intertwine all the time and people don't realize the significance of it.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:02 pm
by Karoshi
Erebus-7 wrote:i have literally hundreds of 1 minute-ish ideas/loops that i just get stuck on, love the idea but then just hit a brick wall when trying to bring it into a full track, anyone else get this ?
all too often
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:06 pm
by gravity
gonzodj wrote:i thought it would be interesting to point out the importance of the golden ratio. most music in general i hear follows the formula that the climax of the song occurs around 60% way through the song (the golden ratio is ~1.61 and the conjugate ~ 0.61). the amen break also seems follows the golden ratio, the peaks follow the fibonacci sequence of creation, some trippy shit. math and music intertwine all the time and people don't realize the significance of it.
sounds like a load of crap imo. amen break following the golden ratio is pretty much grasping at straws - im pretty sure you could load up pretty much and 4 bar break in there and get a similar looking relationship.
maths and music are intrinsically linked no doubt but i dont think the golden ratio has much to do with it unless you actually try to incorporate it into your pieces. i might be more convinced if you could reliably give examples of what is considered to be good (great?) music and how that correlates.
but even then its just pointless over-intellectualization - i dont think anyone really thinks about the golden ration when they are making music except perhaps stockhausen types, who generally make vaguely interesting yet mostly unlistenable noise.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:07 pm
by legend4ry
^ I was going to post something like that but you're much more intelligent than me so I am just going to say.
This!
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:13 pm
by gonzodj
gravity wrote:gonzodj wrote:i thought it would be interesting to point out the importance of the golden ratio. most music in general i hear follows the formula that the climax of the song occurs around 60% way through the song (the golden ratio is ~1.61 and the conjugate ~ 0.61). the amen break also seems follows the golden ratio, the peaks follow the fibonacci sequence of creation, some trippy shit. math and music intertwine all the time and people don't realize the significance of it.
sounds like a load of crap imo. amen break following the golden ratio is pretty much grasping at straws - im pretty sure you could load up pretty much and 4 bar break in there and get a similar looking relationship.
maths and music are intrinsically linked no doubt but i dont think the golden ratio has much to do with it unless you actually try to incorporate it into your pieces. i might be more convinced if you could reliably give examples of what is considered to be good (great?) music and how that correlates.
but even then its just pointless over-intellectualization - i dont think anyone really thinks about the golden ration when they are making music except perhaps stockhausen types, who generally make vaguely interesting yet mostly unlistenable noise.
i have 57 gigs of music, what do you want me to show you? metal? hip-hop? pop rock? i'm not here to stroke my ego, i'm here to point out things i've observed.
http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/03/03/ze ... oportions/
there is no such thing as 'over-intellectualization'. when it comes down to it we're a spec of sand compared to everything else and we have a lot to learn.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:21 pm
by qwaycee_
cloak and dagger wrote:I seem to be the opposite of most people in here in that I just kinda let a track go where it needs to go...I definitely start with a loop, but I don't really have a pattern when it comes to creating the structure of the full tune; it's pretty much different every time.
same. something i think might be an intro or main element of the tune might end up being 5-10% of the song (i just assigned a percentage arbitrarily, what i mean is that it may not have as much importance later on in making the tune). or some random, seemingly bullshit sequence of notes that i place randomly later on in the tune might end up being the main melody.
it changes all the time.
things get scrapped, replaced, brought back, changed, given more attention etc. all the time.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:33 pm
by kaiori breathe
gonzodj wrote:gravity wrote:gonzodj wrote:i thought it would be interesting to point out the importance of the golden ratio. most music in general i hear follows the formula that the climax of the song occurs around 60% way through the song (the golden ratio is ~1.61 and the conjugate ~ 0.61). the amen break also seems follows the golden ratio, the peaks follow the fibonacci sequence of creation, some trippy shit. math and music intertwine all the time and people don't realize the significance of it.
sounds like a load of crap imo. amen break following the golden ratio is pretty much grasping at straws - im pretty sure you could load up pretty much and 4 bar break in there and get a similar looking relationship.
maths and music are intrinsically linked no doubt but i dont think the golden ratio has much to do with it unless you actually try to incorporate it into your pieces. i might be more convinced if you could reliably give examples of what is considered to be good (great?) music and how that correlates.
but even then its just pointless over-intellectualization - i dont think anyone really thinks about the golden ration when they are making music except perhaps stockhausen types, who generally make vaguely interesting yet mostly unlistenable noise.
i have 57 gigs of music, what do you want me to show you? metal? hip-hop? pop rock? i'm not here to stroke my ego, i'm here to point out things i've observed.
http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/03/03/ze ... oportions/
there is no such thing as 'over-intellectualization'. when it comes down to it we're a spec of sand compared to everything else and we have a lot to learn.
/face palm
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:50 pm
by gravity
gonzodj wrote:gravity wrote:gonzodj wrote:i thought it would be interesting to point out the importance of the golden ratio. most music in general i hear follows the formula that the climax of the song occurs around 60% way through the song (the golden ratio is ~1.61 and the conjugate ~ 0.61). the amen break also seems follows the golden ratio, the peaks follow the fibonacci sequence of creation, some trippy shit. math and music intertwine all the time and people don't realize the significance of it.
sounds like a load of crap imo. amen break following the golden ratio is pretty much grasping at straws - im pretty sure you could load up pretty much and 4 bar break in there and get a similar looking relationship.
maths and music are intrinsically linked no doubt but i dont think the golden ratio has much to do with it unless you actually try to incorporate it into your pieces. i might be more convinced if you could reliably give examples of what is considered to be good (great?) music and how that correlates.
but even then its just pointless over-intellectualization - i dont think anyone really thinks about the golden ration when they are making music except perhaps stockhausen types, who generally make vaguely interesting yet mostly unlistenable noise.
i have 57 gigs of music, what do you want me to show you? metal? hip-hop? pop rock? i'm not here to stroke my ego, i'm here to point out things i've observed.
http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/03/03/ze ... oportions/
there is no such thing as 'over-intellectualization'. when it comes down to it we're a spec of sand compared to everything else and we have a lot to learn.
oh behave there is such a thing as over intellectualization especially when it comes down to something which is innately creative and personal. if you start thinking too much about things like trying to fit the golden ratio into your tracks you are taking away from the actual process of creating, which is far more important than trying to live up to some (probably half baked) observation.
and whatever, point me in some music that perfectly follows the golden ratio and then explain to me exactly how the golden ratio has made that piece of music great. and then ill point you to another that doesnt and is just as great.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:07 pm
by larspro
looking forward to the rest of this!
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:19 pm
by step correct
In a perfect world, all tunes would start with the drums only.. makes for way better mixing.
For christ sakes at least put an on time hat in there or something!! lol
Nice thread man. I've never really had issues with this though as it comes pretty naturally after DJing and listening for years and years.. especially DnB. Very formulaic.
I always start with a loop that will have all the elements playing together. Sometime more than needed but overkill is OK here because once you "stretch" your tune out you can have one synth/pad whatever playing in one section and one in another. But if you construct the main 32 or 64 with everything layered and and flowing together when you start making your tune the different sounds will play off each other.. I guess?
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:27 pm
by legend4ry
Edited - Added 8 bar grime structure explaination!
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:52 pm
by therook
cloak and dagger wrote:I seem to be the opposite of most people in here in that I just kinda let a track go where it needs to go...I definitely start with a loop, but I don't really have a pattern when it comes to creating the structure of the full tune; it's pretty much different every time. Similarly, when making tunes, even if I have an idea of where I want to go, I find it much more rewarding to just see how a track develops instead of scrapping interesting ideas or sounds or trying to shoehorn them in to something that might not work, no matter how bad you want it to.
To be fair though, I fucking hate structuring, and it tends to take me forever. I dunno, it's just not that fun for me, and it feels like a chore. I basically finished a tune 3 days ago and have been tuning the structure since and am still no where near finished. I complain about this a lot though, so I'll stop now.
Why not just start with the full 16 bar main section first and then add/take out items when you go to structure the tune? That's the way I usually do it these days.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:06 pm
by cloak and dagger
therook wrote:cloak and dagger wrote:I seem to be the opposite of most people in here in that I just kinda let a track go where it needs to go...I definitely start with a loop, but I don't really have a pattern when it comes to creating the structure of the full tune; it's pretty much different every time. Similarly, when making tunes, even if I have an idea of where I want to go, I find it much more rewarding to just see how a track develops instead of scrapping interesting ideas or sounds or trying to shoehorn them in to something that might not work, no matter how bad you want it to.
To be fair though, I fucking hate structuring, and it tends to take me forever. I dunno, it's just not that fun for me, and it feels like a chore. I basically finished a tune 3 days ago and have been tuning the structure since and am still no where near finished. I complain about this a lot though, so I'll stop now.
Why not just start with the full 16 bar main section first and then add/take out items when you go to structure the tune? That's the way I usually do it these days.
That's exactly what I tend to do, but it's never really that simple if you're factoring in automations, breakdowns, changes, etc. and want to pace your track well while keeping it dynamic. I also have a thing lately where I absolutely hate it when my tune is too long or sounds too much like a DJ tool (my newest one has a 32-bar breakdown before the drop and is 6.5 mins long, and it kills me on the inside), so I am all about a tune being as efficient and dynamic as possible.
I think it also depends on the type of tune you're working on. The one in my sig is both really simple and has high energy, so it was really easy for me to sequence...but the deeper/loopier/dronier/weirder/less energetic your tune is, the more of a balancing act it becomes regarding your tune sounding too long (and boring) or too short (and not flowing smoothly enough).
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:11 pm
by cloak and dagger
And either way, it still doesn't make it enjoyable...if I'm working on a loop, it's constantly playing, and I know what sounds good and what doesn't right away. When structuring, I tend to have to play the tune from the beginning or from really far back to judge it as an overall piece, and it going from an active to passive experience, along with listening from the beginning, making a change, and repeating this cycle over and over just tires me out a lot faster. I have a 99% finished tune sitting on my desktop right now that I really want to send out to people, but I know I need to listen to it at least one more time, and I'm so sick of hearing it for the day. It eats me up inside
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:24 pm
by Sharmaji
For song structure, look at Mala "Lean FWD," toasty "Take it Personal"....
there's a ton, but thse are ones that I can keep coming back to that never cease to inspire re: pacing.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:33 pm
by legend4ry
Sharmaji wrote:For song structure, look at Mala "Lean FWD," toasty "Take it Personal"....
there's a ton, but thse are ones that I can keep coming back to that never cease to inspire re: pacing.
I'm actually writing one up of this kind of structuring now ! Just finding a name for it is whats bugging me.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:05 pm
by hasezwei
nice one bout the 8bar, i always reference 8bar when trying to explain the whole bar-thing to friends.
can't seem to find the structure sheets on the net, i'll go and scan them soon (maybe not tonight, it's fucking -15°c here)
just a general tip: i read ikonika does tunes in less than an hour because she's got templates which she can load up with the whole structuring thing already laid out.
i'll make some basic ones like 32 > 96 > 16 > 64 > 16 or whatever
(i personally like a 32 bar breakdown more when mixing because i'm a lazy guy who just wants to press play at the breakdown to have an instant doubledrop ) , i think the concept could be expanded even.
like templates including what rough type of instrument to use when etc... of course this leads to all your songs sounding pretty similar but it definetly speeds up the process i think.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:05 am
by codymackaz
Good thread man! Respect!
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:28 am
by Basic A
Get that dude up there, with the amen break is god thing, a foil hat.
Also, aweosme post legend4ry, so overlooked.
Re: Structuring Your Track & Keeping It Interesting
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:15 am
by MB616
Nice thread here, in the bible yet? (if we're calling it that anymore)