EDM producers tend to be deficient in many aspects foremost theory but where as theory doesn't really have to matter in EDM , form is essential. This isn't really a tutorial but rather just an introduction of a topic many people don't seem to know anything about.
The form of a track is the layout and relationship between all your elements. I think most weakness among producers is not really putting much thought into form.
You should be thinking about not only your main synth line but rather your main motive that might make up your main synth line. The goal really is to create something that can be explained in a way that sort of follows the law of parsimony. THe great composers would make 30 minute symphonies based on the motive of 3 notes. Everything is related and there is a reason why things are there. Key relationships between major parts have a logical procession and you can clearly chart this logical progression over a piece that might last 20 minutes.
When you are creating a track , you need to ask yourself why you are putting the element in the spot and your reasoning should be a little more confident than it sounds dope. If you create your tracks always trying to unify your elements so that there is some form of cohesion between the entire track, you will create better work.
Things like foreshadowing, fragmenting the main hook and using that as an element or doing any number of alterations to the main line so that instead of just random arps that sound pretty and reinforce they key, you have elements that make logical sense.
Just a rant. The concept is usually referred to as organicism where every element from your track is born out of some relationship to the main motive or hook if it is the main motive. Motives can be melodic in nature but also rhythmic.
Anyways just a rant. I guess I'm saying you should think more about what you are doing and why you are doing it. It will help you make better unified music but will also help you avoid cliches and unnecessary elements.
J.L.
I find it important to think of imagery when creating a track. Think of an image of what your track might be, and let them drive your creative processes. Your end image might conjure up a different image then you originally had in mind, but it should nevertheless conjure up something. I hear too often tracks that feel lifeless and souless because it does not make the listener feel something.
An example of creative use of imagery, from a fellow TA post in the music promotion forum can be found here:
this is not at all what I am talking about. That has to do with absolute versus program music. I am talking about form from a compositional sense which you all do or attempt to do when you make a track. I've heard tracks where there are synths at the beginning that then never return and it makes me wonder why where they there in the first place. Or a track that has a main drop with less energy than the preceding rhythm section again not referring just to the amount of material at the main drop but the overall energy which can sometimes be achieved with fewer elements yet greater drive and energy.
kevin shawn
This is an area that I need improvement on. Class is now in session talk amongst yourselves.
J.L.
True, but I'd assume most of us are making program music since absolute music is often appreciated by the masses. I find it is important to have the still image be the set of sounds you use and the moving picture guide the flow of your form.
In terms of form, like most stories and movies, there are only 3 elements you need to think about, building up to the climax, the climax, and building down from the climax. Some songs may have more than one climax.
Your main theme/element/melody is usually in its entirity/full glory at the climax. Depending on what you prioritize, different sounds can have different purposes in being there such as to fill an emptiness in the mix or to build excitement, hint at the motif, etc...
However, that is how things are usually done. Good musicians/producers follow rules. Great musicians/producers invent new ones.
DJ Robby Rox
quote:
Originally posted by J.L.
In terms of form, like most stories and movies, there are only 3 elements you need to think about, building up to the climax, the climax, and building down from the climax. Some songs may have more than one climax.
There are subgroups though when you say that. Like all of the elements of the intro, all of the elements of the climax/drop, etc.
I think Brad is talking more specifically about how the elements interplay. I notice it myself in a lot of "cohesive" tracks but its very subtle.
They drop one note from their main synth on a mass reverb then reverse it and use it as a build up sweep. They cut out parts of the main drum line and use it as a fill for a transition, etc etc.
These are things I definitely notice but likely not to the extent that they are actually happening.
Something I noticed recently was how in some tracks tyas randomly automates up the volume of his bass before the bass actually drops.
From the first second of the track when he has his crash, the introduction of the bass actually acts as a downsweep for the track. I love the way it sounds and it introduced so many other possibilities into humanizing a track. In a way its his "form", but it also sounds like a lack of form at the same time. That lack of form, or human element, is what appeals to me. That I DON'T know why it sounds good, but that it just does. Where is the "why" there? Can you really tell me why that sounds good? Idk.
Not every element needs to drop at specific intervals/times. Almost like how brad was talking about fragmenting parts of the lead line instead of using a different lead. In all honesty I think motives for form wind up making a track sound real good.
I myself have no real reasoning other then "it sounds good". And I know thats a problem, but its hard to find other reasons sometimes when you feel like there are none in the first place.
Like WHY am I making this track? I don't know, do I have to know? Not really. Will it help if I knew? Maybe... maybe not lol. Thats why even though I realize form can help, I'm not actually sure thats its always neccessary. Because like he said there are some tracks that appear to have no reason behind their form (he didn't say that, I perceived it really). WHY was that different synth line used as an intro? Brad is implying the producer knows, I am implying that he has no real clue why he used it other than it sounding good.
I'm not really expecting the producer to say anything other than "it sounded good". Form sounds good, but a lack of form can sometimes sound just as good.. which is why I'm hesistant about adopting to it as a common practice in my own technique.
I think what it comes down to is would form make my current tracks sound better? Not whether form always makes a track sound better (cause like I said that could be debated). And the answer I derive from that is it most likely WOULD, just due to how little I currently focus on form. But I'm sure at some point after years and years of focusing on it, I will also realize how important its not. Maybe I'm wrong I don't really know, but it is a very interesting concept. And rationalizing some of the things we do when we produce can sometimes feel unneccessary, but who knows what my tracks would sound like if I actually did it.
Thats why right now I'll say it can prob help me, but I don't think it will help people who are naturally good at not having form. Or am I wrong? Is form some kind of core structure that holds most tracks together.. or is it just an ideal that doesn't matter as much as we think?
Thats my question when I think about whether I should really focus on it more. He distinguished it from music theory, saying theory is not required which I believe, but is form REALLY a requirement? I know intro/build up/climax/drop/break are all requirements of trance, but does it really extend beyond that?
DJ Robby Rox
And I just thought of one specific aspect of "form" that I do a lot.
I should note that I *think this is form, I may be wrong for all I know.
But is taking an open hat, and using that same hat with short decay as a closed hat considered "form". I can think of the reasoning why its done (to keep pitch the same) and it always seems to sound better than using too many different sounds all together.
This is something I'm trying to learn now but really have no idea how. I want some way of doing this with other elements like my clap and snare, but I'd like all the elements to in some way come from the same sample. Maybe I can hipass the clap, shorten the decay and use it as a closed hat? Maybe theres a way to equalize the clap so it sounds like an open hat lol?
I don't know but when I hear pro tracks its amazing sometimes how different sounds all sound the same. Its just total and complete harmony and I question if its really just trained ears that affords them that ability. Maybe if I carve all my hats/claps/snares from the same noise patch just with different env settings/filters etc that would work too. But getting an elaborate drum groove to sit cohesively is rather difficult. Getting that drum groove to sit with the bass line is even harder imo.
I always thought initially that pros are pitching nearly every element they use, so that most elements are on the same key, but I don't know if that would result in a stale/static sound. I'm gonna go play around now with some noise actually and see if it makes my drum grooves anymore cohesive sounding. I always have a problem where certain elements all have a role in the main groove but they just don't fit at all together, and I've always thought that pitch has a lot to do with it. Yet when I try to "match" the pitch by ear, it always seems to get worse.
MrJiveBoJingles
Guys, he is talking about overall logic and architecture of your track, not whether the melody makes somebody "feel" something or the decay phase of your hi-hats.
:haha:
Mad for Brad
thanks jive man. Yes. I am talking about logical architecture of a piece. This isn't something only done in music. Whether it be art , film or literature, good composition is efficient and has a reason for being. It does not have elements that are superfluous. Everything should be there as if you could never imagine it there without. That is just a general sense of form.
There is the more interesting concept of organicism which entails using small bits of motives and using what is already the basis of your track for other elements. Instead of layering synth after synth, maybe use the one synth and modulate it so that it becomes itself a key component instead of just filler. If your melody has a certain salient interval, use that interval in perhaps and arp to foreshadow the movement. Basically approach the creation part with a little more intellectualism and thought.
MrJiveBoJingles
That's one thing I've done in stuff before, have a synth that serves as background or "filler" at first and then later through timbre transformation / volume change / melodic elaboration goes to the foreground of the track and becomes the central element.
Beatflux
I have no idea how you guys manage to get so off topic.
owien
or just simply make a track to have a good dance to :p
