Writing "parts..."

[rockinrobby]

I'm a song writer, as are you.

 

And we write songs, on our instrument of choice. Mine is a guitar. I write songs, and I've written some pretty damn good ones. It always starts with me and the guitar? And you get a nice idea, you get chords, you get a melody, you get words, and there you have it... You birthed "a song."

 

However, when you actually in the fullness of time "record that song." You aren't just playing the guitar and singing? There's keys in there? There's a bass? There's harmonies? This goes back to production which I've posted on before, but I believe it's actually part of the writing process?

 

I've been working "all week" writing a piano part for my new tune, "hold on." The song's written? It's been written for some time (months). But as a multi-instrumentalist? Like some of you... I enjoy the process of writing "each part." And I believe that each part, in the end production is written. The bass line contributes as much to the song as the guitar? The harmonies can make a song. The strings compliment the performance, like butter sauce on a fine seafood meal... It's all got to come together, every part supporting every other?

 

A good song is in fact "a symphony..." and the writer of the symphony does not ignore the violas? A good writer loooooves the Violas... A good writer looooves the clarinets? A good writer "hears the symphony" And the symphony is not you playing your tune on a guitar and singing it. A good writer hears the finished product... (IMO). You have to take it from spark, to conception, to justation, to "full term", and ram that thing out your musical vag... I believe in "writing parts..." And I believe the some of the parts are very very very important. A song is really just a bunch of parts.

[rsadasiv]

mmmmm .... violas ...... yesssss

[SomeoneYouKnew]

 

A good song is in fact "a symphony..." and the writer of the symphony does not ignore the violas? A good writer loooooves the Violas... A good writer looooves the clarinets? A good writer "hears the symphony" And the symphony is not you playing your tune on a guitar and singing it. A good writer hears the finished product... (IMO). You have to take it from spark, to conception, to justation, to "full term", and ram that thing out your musical vag... I believe in "writing parts..." And I believe the some of the parts is very very very important. A song is really just a bunch of parts.

*gestation.

*sum.

 

Different writers employ different techniques when writing. Some hear it all from the start. Some songs evolve over time. There is no "right way". It's what works for you.

[blue2blue]

For a few years I was in a very casual outfit that included a violist. Of all the classically trained players I've worked with (well, not that many, but a few), this guy had the ability to improvise and swing more than any other. Of course, that's a bit off the central mark of the topic, since, in that band, we were all improvising on some level much of the time. We had no fixed arrangements (and my inability to consistently remember my own songs enforced that).

 

 

With regard to my songs and symphonic style arrangement...

 

I've seen over 130 symphony orchestra concerts in my life. I really do not confuse my little blues/roots/country songs with anything that requires a symphonic back up.

 

Of course, like anyone else who's had a number of synthesizers for a couple decades, I've experimented. Who doesn't want to at least see what such back up might, kinda sound like? At least once. (Sounded boring and lame.)

 

FWIW, I don't have much of any use for symphonic pop (or worse rock), going way back. I thought the Moody Blues were overblown and schmaltzy (and their lyrics/spoken words ludicrous). And all that other symphonic rock nonsense. Yuck.

 

Maybe ELO -- they had good arrangements that were actually worth listening to and really brought something besides a chord pad to the song. (At least until the word apparently came down from the label to remake themselves in a Bee Gees mode. ) Yeah... maybe if I had the arranging skill to get that going... but short of that? I don't think so.

[Lee Knight]

cool post robbie

[Dingoist]

I once (accidentally, not knowing better, I was young///), destroyed the speaker in a guitar amp, after running a cello through it (along with a boss DS-1 distortion) -- it was never the same afterwards.

 

It was a fun experiment in music, I later sold that amp for $20 and went solely acoustic for a couple of years.

 

I usually hear the parts, even when I'm either singing it to myself, or strumming guitar, or playing the piano. I envisage the song as a whole (which changes during the production of the piece). It starts when the idea pops in my head.

 

Generally, within a few iterations I know what I want the "parts" to be -- happens at the beginning of the process, then I attempt them on my own, or on the rare occasion (which should be more, since most musicians I know are better than I) get someone else's take.

[~GOD~]

i tend to improvise pretty much everything while recording except the chord structure, lyrics, and melody, and the lyrics and melody are subject to tweaking. occasionally i'll record an instrumental piece, and those tend to be completely improvised. if a part works, i keep it. if i hit a clam, or it just doesn't fit, i try again. you get some cool, unexpected results.

occasionally i don't record a song immediately after writing it, so it's more solid in structure from repeated playings when i do record it, but almost all of them evolve to an extent over time.

[DL2]

I tend to focus on counterpoint alot. Not necessarily arranging because I don't focus on structure, but I play with loop pedals daily, and my knack for creating sonic landscapes and thick lush layers of interesting melodies has greatly benefited from this.

 

tl;dr: loop pedals ftw

[mfergel]

I hear the parts.............unfortunately, I'm usually not proficient enough to play them. :-(

[Lee Knight]

 

I hear the parts.............unfortunately, I'm usually not proficient enough to play them. :-(

 

 

Then start hearing simpler parts. The fact that you can hear that, well... that means you can start controling it and using as you see fit. So get creative with how you use it.

 

Start hearing stuff you or your band or whatever your medium is can execute...

[LeonardScaper]

i tend to improvise pretty much everything while recording except the chord structure, lyrics, and melody

 

[junkyard bennie]

 

I'm a song writer, as are you. And we write songs, on our instrument of choice. Mine is a guitar. I write songs, and I've written some pretty damn good ones. It always starts with me and the guitar? And you get a nice idea, you get chords, you get a melody, you get words, and there you have it... You birthed "a song." However, when you actually in the fullness of time "record that song." You aren't just playing the guitar and singing? There's keys in there? There's a bass? There's harmonies? This goes back to production which I've posted on before, but I believe it's actually part of the writing process? I've been working "all week" writing a piano part for my new tune, "hold on." The song's written? It's been written for some time (months). But as a multi-instrumentalist? Like some of you... I enjoy the process of writing "each part." And I believe that each part, in the end production is written. The bass line contributes as much to the song as the guitar? The harmonies can make a song. The strings compliment the performance, like butter sauce on a fine seafood meal... It's all got to come together, every part supporting every other? A good song is in fact "a symphony..." and the writer of the symphony does not ignore the violas? A good writer loooooves the Violas... A good writer looooves the clarinets? A good writer "hears the symphony" And the symphony is not you playing your tune on a guitar and singing it. A good writer hears the finished product... (IMO). You have to take it from spark, to conception, to justation, to "full term", and ram that thing out your musical vag... I believe in "writing parts..." And I believe the some of the parts are very very very important. A song is really just a bunch of parts.

 

 

 

 

I agree, but I would have ended with "A song is really just a bunch of parts COMING TOGETHER to please our imagination.

[rockinrobby]

 

I agree, but I would have ended with "A song is really just a bunch of parts COMING TOGETHER to please our imagination.

 

 

Everybody's a producer! LOL!

[Johnny-Boy]

Remember "less is more"! That's why I only used 40 tracks in my last recording. Keep it simple.

 

Best, John

[rockinrobby]

Remember "less is more"! That's why I only used 40 tracks in my last recording. Best, John

 

That's actually very interesting... The song I'm working on has a lot of stings? And I'm having to do "lots o tracks" to hide my, "I mean" make it sound like a string section?

[Johnny-Boy]

That's actually very interesting... The song I'm working on has a lot of stings? And I'm having to do "lots o tracks" to hide my, "I mean" make it sound like a string section?

 

Yes, layering strings is important.

 

John

[grace_slick]

I fully agree that a song is a sum of all its different parts...what I find hard is-

 

(1) Linking and connecting and joining those parts together so they make a GOOD whole song...I have many "parts" that are unfinished and not really linked with each other, and

 

(2) Staying disciplined creatively (perhaps a really ODD concept and a contradition there) so I can STICK to my vision of the finished song. I do get the vision at intervals, but it vanishes easily and is hard to grasp. The more I try, the more "liquid" it gets and runs out of my hands so to speak...then I end up forgetting it and layering too many tracks over each other and then at the end, while it's not a bad sounding creation, it's not what I originally wanted.

[Heckxx]

A song can be a lot of parts, but I find that a great song only needs a few parts, and then you can go nuts with layering all sorts of crap at the end of the production.

 

I'm finishing up a song right now, and there is only electric drums, bass, vocals, and one synth. It sounds complete to me. I try not to put too many more layers, because I know that during the songwriting process, I'll do stuff like change the tempo or key, or completely change arrangements. So I try to keep it as simple as possible, at all times. Easier to wrap my head around it.

 

-Jeff

[StreakerOfinsky]

My educational background in music is in "legit" (what universities call "classical") theory & composition, and I also did a lot of jazz composition and jazz arranging. I'm also a huge progressive rock fan, stemming to far before I went to university. So I always approach writing as a task that typically involves many parts which are all integral to the piece as a whole (the only exception would be something for a solo instrument).

 

I write contrapuntally, I prefer harmonies (so chords, too) to require multiple instruments (in other words, various instruments are playing notes that are essential to the harmony, and no one is playing them all), I pay attention to voicings, I often use polyrhythms, etc. I treat whatever instrumentation I'm using, regardless of the style that I'm writing in, as an "orchestra" or classical chamber group more or less.

 

In some rock-pop situations, I won't precompose every part--sometimes because some guys involved couldn't read it anyway and it would be difficult to teach it to them by rote--and in those cases, THEY are cowriting the song, since everyone's part is important to the whole.

 

And of course in jazz and other scenarios wherein you're employing improvisation, players are composing the music on the fly. Each improviser is equally responsible for that, they're all functioning as songwriters.

 

Also, in rock-pop situations, even when I am writing every part, I prefer to credit the entire band with songwriting. I believe it helps morale and longevity to do things democratically in a band. You do not need some guys to be making far more money than others.