SongCraft


Gid'day,

As the year comes to a close I have re-accessed my work, having contacts in the music biz and received feedback (catchy, melodic but a little old hat) and having posted my work on the CW Song forum for feedback I feel that most of the songs and instrumentals posted there are superb but 'old-hat' and also not to forget those great 'old' cover songs.  (no offense intended), I do love all those old classics.

I guess most of the works posted in the CW Song-Forum are mostly from older age groups? (40+),  I'm also 40+, but I don't want my songs to be labelled 'old-hat' don't get me wrong I love all the old stuff...Classic Orchestrations, Blues, Jazz, BBKing, Beatles, Eric Clapton, Rolling Stones, Led Zep, Jeff Beck, Pink Floyd, Metallica, (too many more bands to list), right up to current new bands!  Everything from Jazz, Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal to Prog'House, Hip Hop, IDM and everything inbetween.

*  I don't want my music to be labelled as 'Old Hat'.   Yeah although I prefer to tweak my own sounds my music productions are sounding a little too cookie cutter, old-hat and needs to sound modern, I want to produce more modern cutting edge productions. That's what this discussion is all about!!!  (NOTE: I am not talking about mixing, audio processing techniques).

I have done a lot of reading up (manuals, reviews) on the latest plugins, listened to lots of demo's particularly (1)..Spectrasonics Omnisphere, (2)..Heavyocity Evolve, (3)..Sample Logic Synergy, (4)..NI Absynth, (5)..Rob Papen's Blue.  I'm interested in modern, otherworldly sounds.  I think these plugins can be useful for cutting edge 'song' production which is my main goal, but of course they're ideal for filmscore work (particularly Evolve and Synergy) but I think those two plugins can be useful in some way for song production?. I just need to think 'Otherworldly' LOL!!

I've been experimenting with what I have, Ultra-Analog synth, SonikSynth and Cakewalk's classic's (various softsynths).  Most of those sounds are OK but a little old and static compared to a lot of the newer plugins such as Omniphere and Synergy. 

I've used CC# to add automated changes to the tonal characterics to produce 'evolving/motion pads'.   Also experimented with 'layering textures', synth pads, voices/choir, strings/brass ens, then adding lot of effects such as stereo delay which certainly helps add a more modern sound.  Also been experimenting with 'arpeggios' to add motion/rhythm to my soundscapes.

Arpeggios? since I have pretty good piano skills I found it better to create my own in the PRV because to me the PRV is the ultimate-unlimited workspace for a more flexible creation of arpeggios. OK! So now I have pads that evolve (CC#, Layers and Velocity), and I have modern sounding motion/rhythm (Arpeggios).

WHOA!! Having to do all that is a lot of extra work!! Maybe if I had something like Synergy I could get all that happening quicker?.  I guess music production is a labour of love.  It's not only about what you have it's how you use it.  There are various workflow methods to achieve good end results, the goal being 'Modern, Cutting Edge Music Productions'.  And afterall that effort the 'Song' still remains to be the most important factor,,, good lyrics and performances, strong melodies, hooks and good arrangements.

Would you mind telling us which song from Soundclick they listened to.  Would like to A/B with my stuff.

SongCraft I'm curious about "modern" as in "not old hat" and as somebody that really doesn't think about such things when writing, I don't know much about it. Probably due to I'm not trying to sell music.

My curiousity brings me to the questions:
Can examples of "old hat" and "modern" songs be given for different genres? Who's who in:
Rock, Country, Jazz..etc.

I just feel musical examples would help me understand more about this concept.

I hope that boat ain't leaking.......

But yeah... you might be right about the 25 yr old thing. One guy came to our lunch table.... I don't remember his name....... he wasn't 25... more like mid to upper 30's or so...... and I remember thinking... just listening to him talk... "what an a$$" .....  we were discussing music and what sells and what doesn't... and the money flow in the biz. I mentioned or asked about Contemporary Christian music (CCM) and his comment was  don't get involved in CCM..... there's no money there..... I asked him specifics..... and his comment was " I couldn't pay my $11,000 a month house payment on CCM"......everything he said was about him.....

 but there's others out there...... not like him I'm sure... and plenty that are......

Guitarhacker


 and his comment was " I couldn't pay my $11,000 a month house payment on CCM"......

This comment alone should have tipped you that he was spouting pure BS.

 It may not be a matter of "old school". It may be more a matter
of "how" and or "how well" it's done. Using comparisons in
 time, gender. genre, style, and so many other descriptive
words can sometimes lead to nowhere when "looking at self"

 I can relate to how you feel about your own stuff. I went
and listened to parts of a couple of your songs. Comparing
you to other songs forum tunes you have a much more
"you" style. It's one that isn't like so many others.

  The sounds I heard were a bit thin and low quality in tone.
That in itself can "date" a song. granted I only listened to
a small amount of your stuff but it was like seeing how a
sound bite hit me.

  Thick, lush sounds seem to most often get more attention
and better appeal to a listener. That can be very hard to do
and may be why on average the songs forum has fewer
of these type sounds on songs.

  This is not to be mistaken for smooth warm sounds.
A mix can sound smooth and warm and yet lack "sparkle".
Oh course a great song is a great song but so is a
performance/mix/production.

  If the recording and or playback doesn't capture or
demonstrate the full potential in quality then a song
may be called dated because of "tone". I've wrote
maybe over 300 songs in my time. I can look at
them now and say that they were not very good.
Some were very good but most were real bad.

  I could call that dated but I wonder is it just
not well written stuff in the first place? Lyrics
play a large roll too I guess. Then there are
songs that are surely dated but It may be
the original that is dated. What if tayler swift
did the beatles "blackbird?"

  Years ago a country artist had a hit on an old
janis joplin song. So the word dated can be
extremely vague or even non usable as a term
sometimes. Some of Bonnie raitts songs could
be played today and easily sound up with the
times as well as other artist.

 Yet at the same time many of todays tunes
that are hits could easily be dated songs
because it's the same old stuff. There are
good and bad songs today but mostly
the recordings are all good quality in
pop and country.

  The fact that the Op wants a more modern
sound than he is getting may hold the key to
getting there because desire comes first.
It may be hard and difficult to do so but with
enough passion some good things may happen.

   Dated may be a term used when someone
completes a tune and does nothing more to it.
If it (then or now) sounds dated to the writer
it may be a question of leave it or do something.

 A total new remix can sometimes do wonders.
If a great new remix done in a pro manner
does not greatly affect the songs persona
then maybe the song is weak but giving up
before knowing if a new mix or production etc
is done will leave one never knowing.

  Some people in the songs forum do a tune
and say it's done. Some do some tweaking.
It's up to the writer to decide if it's good
enough. Sometimes it may be a waste to
go further. Sometimes one may quit
tweaking.  or re recording, or remixing
before the songs reaches it's best outcome.

  By coincidence I woke up this morning thinking
of this very subject. I'm re doing a lot of stuff
written and recorded years ago and when
those are completed I hope that I can do
some new stuff that could fit the modern
concept. Or to put it in another way in a
different style.

  



   

Wow! Excellent comments, good advise n tips.  Thanks guys, I greatly appreciate it :-)

I remember at one meeting (back in the late 90's) they did give me an example, gave us a CD to demonstrate: Beat/Rhythm. (I no longer have that CD). The beat was straight out 4x4 Trance, House.


Last night I was thinking about which direction to take:

> If I go the Alt Rock route, when it comes to involving a band? surely I would need 'real' musicians to work with and take it further.   If I go the Electronica (Prg-House, Hip-Hop, IDM) route I could get away with just a few musicians and heavier use of backing sequencer.

I remember watching a documentary about Rock Bands, to cut a long story short... it's a long way to the top if you wanna Rock n Roll (ACDC song).

In that Rock documentary a lot of musicians biggest success didn't come until later in their 40's after many years of sweat and during those years band member(s) come and go, often many disputes, typical band politics occur.

I remember back in the early 80's reading a book about a band being a marriage.

Already I have a manager on my back to get a band together. Sheeeze!!! Give me a heart attack LOL!!

Maybe I'll experiment more with Electronic House, Hip-Hop, IDM, and also film-scoring and jingles compositions.

But still, I want to do a 'fusion' of Old-school Rock with the later (Electronic House, Hip-Hop, IDM). So true the saying... easier said than done.

Whilst I'm confident and believe in myself I am also a major critic of my work. It's like I've gone through phase one, then take a break for a month, come back and move on to the final phase.

I listen to for example 'New Age Rock 'N' Roll' and I think hmmm it's doesn't really have much 'New Age' in it at all. {Doh} it's back to the drawing board!!

Often it's those small changes that make a big difference. For example; Changing the beat and arrangement a little can make a big improvement.

 

Thought I'd point out this article from USA today http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2009-12-08-musicdecade08_ST_N.htm about top sales in the last decade.  Eminem #! and the Beatles #2.  I do believe the Beatles are in their own category though, cross generations, genres, ect. 

I think a good song is a good song, but  your odds of making it are increased my making it current.  Certain techniques hold up better over the years than others,

What if you just play our old fashioned music, admit it, rejoice in it, and don't even spend a moment thinking or complaining about the industry?

Is that OK?

Ya know, Greg, I took a listen to the tunes on your Soundclick page again. I think these songs are all quite strong (while not all to my taste), I have to agree with your original critic that they don't sound current. 
Underlying the tunes is classic structure, smart choices, and smooth changes. All the hallmarks of great pop.
To take these tunes into more "current' sounding production would not be that hard. The hook and the song is what sells the tune, but it is the sound that gets it sold. IYKWIM.

Middleman


Let's face it boys. If you are over 40 and male, chances are you won't be selling your music to anyone soon regardless of how modern it sounds.

If you are female, 20 something, with a body to die for and a face to match, and you write music regardless of it being even interesting. That is the modern sound. Taylor Swift, Katie Perry, et als. See a trend here. 
  
  
  
 

I am getting a sex change and then adding heapfuls of botox!

I had a chance to listen to a few of your tunes... my constructive criticism is that the first two songs on SoundClick both did have a style that dated them but the style or date was indecisive.

One of the songs sounded like a great sixties period piece but every now and then the mix would sound very 80's in that *I thought it sounded polished but now I know it sounded 80's* sort of way.

My feeling is that if the song and vibe the matched up more cohesively it would seem more natural even if it was a dated style.

When I have previously argued that dating shouldn't matter much I have been assuming that the feeling and vibe we are talking about is at the very least confined to a period... where as I think I'm hearing a bit of a mash-up in your mixes.

I really like the songs... and I like the mixes... but I think they can be done with a greater sense of commitment to a certain vibe or feel.

Does that make sense?

all the best,
mike

I can't answer your question Spacey but having studied visual art and other types of music I would say that the stuff people are calling modern today should be called contemporary while Modern is a term reserved for a period that is now part of history.

Modern painting occurred between 1880 and 1945

Modern music is exemplified by American Jazz ( think Duke Ellington ) and classical works by people like Stravinsky and Copeland.

When I think of Modern Rock I instinctively think of the guys that played right after the roots guys introduced mass media audiences to rock and roll. I'm speaking of The Beatles, Yardbirds, Bob Dylan and the Band.... to me that is modern music.

Any claim that newer music is "modern" leaves me feeling that the claim is just a cheap rip off of a term that serious observers of culture reserve for a specific period of time... chiefly the period when certain artistic trends met with a mass audience via reproduction in a mass medium.

I understand why some dudes in the eighties thought they could call their style of radio rock "Modern"... our culture allows people to make stuff up when it comes to marketing labels.... for example; you can sell imitation food with just about any label you want. You don't have to say "imitation cheese" or "imitation chocolate" any more. :-)

But if you want to be serious about discussing how various artistic trends have effected our lives it's helpful to use more specific labels.

For example in all other art disciplines the Punk movement is decidedly POST modern...  so it's sort of arbitrary for some radio marketer to label what ever they want "Modern"... and that's one of the problems with mass media today... many of the decision makers that choose what content is presented haven't been alive long enough to know what the breadth of their choices are. It takes a LOT of time to listen too and understand all the music out there.

I'm not complaining... I just live in the woods and make stuff because making stuff makes me happy. :-)

all the best,
mike

Mike and Kev,

I sure enjoyed your posts. I was starting to feel...like I'd missed the boat.

Mike-"I can't answer your question Spacey but having studied visual art and other types of music I would say that the stuff people are calling modern today should be called contemporary while Modern is a term reserved for a period that is now part of history. "

Exactly why I thought defining "Modern" should have been established at the start of this thread. IF "modern" definition could be agreed on.