The Composition Thread

[D'Traveler]

Bob's your uncle...

 

 

(Bumpety-Bump)

 

 

This is an incredible wealth of knowledge and experience. I've spent four days reading every word of this thread, with much gratitude for those who've contributed. I hope this trend continues....

[Jeez]

Ladies and Gentlemen!

 

Back from space, Kim's here with some more fun and games for the entire family!

 

After all that abstract theoretical stuff, I thought i might be useful to discuss something a little more practical, so for the next few posts, I'm going to discuss some common problems or stumbling blocks for composers, and (hopefully) some possible strategies for dealing with them.

 

...and yes, I take requrests!

 

 

Ok, well the first problem I thought of was one that (surprise surprise) I came across myself recently. 'Twas a transition section that was too long. It's not a trivial task to simply chop down something like this - a transitional section has a "start state" and an "end state" - The time required to move from one state to the other is somewhat proportional to the "distance" (or difference) between the two states.

 

For example, if you have a transitional state between two sections that have similar rhythm, pace, tonality, register, texture, etc; it doesn't take much time to move between them. However, if you try to move between two very different sections, more time will be required (for the same rate of change).

 

In my case, the two sections are very different, and simply condensing the transition isn't an option - I want the change to take a long time. More specifically, I want the time difference between the two sections to be significant.

 

The problem is that a linear transition gets boring very quickly. By linear transition, I mean a transition that just goes from A to B. For example, if you have a dark and resonant synthbass sound in section A and a bright and harsh synthbass sound in section B, then a linear transition would be one that (among other things) just gradually opens the filter, kinda like a straight line - slow and predictable.

 

And that's exactly why a linear transition is boring - because it's predictable.

 

If reducing the length of the transition is not an acceptable solution, another alternative is to break it up.

 

 

• 'Tis a fine line between tension and boredom. Perhaps I'll discuss the difference between the two (and how YOU can find the difference) in a later post.

[Stanley]

.

[Neole]

 

Originally posted by Jeez However, if you try to move between two very different sections, more time will be required (for the same rate of change).

 

 

What kind of music is this for? I guess its for instrumental electronic music?

 

The easiest way I find to change to any kind of section in electroic music very quickly is just a drum or snare fill or reverse cymbal or reverse reverb. It works most of the time without having to think. What kind of music change wouldn't allow using this? Of course I understand the kind of transition you are talking about, but in songs with vocals there's hardly space to use that much transition time.

[Jeez]

 

Originally posted by Neole What kind of music is this for? I guess its for instrumental electronic music? The easiest way I find to change to any kind of section in electroic music very quickly is just a drum or snare fill or reverse cymbal or reverse reverb. It works most of the time without having to think. What kind of music change wouldn't allow using this? Of course I understand the kind of transition you are talking about, but in songs with vocals there's hardly space to use that much transition time.

 

 

What I think you're describing is instantaneous (or close enough) transition between sections which are mainly static (stay the same throughout). This usually ends up making the overall contour of the piece look somewhat like a sample-and-hold. If you read one of my earlier posts of structure, I think I mentioned that interesting results can be had by creating sections which are not just static textures, but transitions between textures. Transitional sections often give a piece more direction, inertia, drive, etc. Try it.

 

Songs with vocals still have potential for extended composition technique - just work with the vocal part as if it is another instrument (although it has some special qualites - something I might discuss later). All instrumental tracks can grow and shrink, become mobile or stay static.

 

 

"...most of the time without having to think."

 

Try to avoid this temptation. If you really want to take composition seriously, if you want to grow and improve your craft, you should be prepared to put in much more effort. Think carefully and clearly about every single element. Every note, every drum hit, every eq adjustment. Give it a purpose in your composition - think about what it's contributing to the whole. Never loop material just to fill in time because you can't be bothered working at a further level of detail - that's just lazy.

 

You should not accept "good enough". Keep improving a piece until you reach the stage that you cannot possibly improve it any further (without re-writing the whole thing from scratch).

 

I'm not sure if I was particularly articulate there... maybe I should do a whole post of this topic...

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[palindrome]

 

BUT, what about BRIDGES man? I find myself coming up with cool main melodies and basslines, but when it is time to bridge Cool melody #1 with Friggin' Cool melody #2, I just can't seem to find that je-ne-sais-quoi?

 

 

+1

[Neole]

Try these they had some stuff about creating a bridge -

http://www.digitalmusicworld.com/html/composer/TutorialIndex.php

[Jeez]

Back again, new and improved...

 

I'd like to talk a bit tonight about

The importance of building each component of a piece from smaller components.

 

To explain this, I'll discuss nested structures. Despite the scary-sounding words I'm using, it doesn't have to be complex... and you're probably doing it in some form already.

 

Well, actually - before I begin, I'd like to say something about that last sentence, in regards to this whole thread. Most of the techniques I've discusses won't be very new to you - you've probably been using them already (consciously or unconsciously). Even if a concept sounds familiar to you when you read these, don't discard them outright - by analysing techniques that you already use, you are in a better position to decide when/if they're appropriate for any particular piece, and also give you the mental tools to take the technique further.

 

What is it?

Nested structures are quite simple to understand, but can add new levels of order and structure to your music.

 

If we start with two basic structures:

Binary: A B

Ternary: A B A

 

Nested structures refers to the idea that each of the structure "elements" (A, B, whatever) can actually be (or have) a whole structure in itself. This can be the basis for develping more complex structures from simple ones. For example:

 

We could choose ternary for our overall structure (ABA). But if we split it up further - replace A with the binary structure ab, and replace B with the ternary structure cdc, then we end up with the overall structure ab.cdc.ab. Read through this a few times if you didn't quite get it.

 

If you understood that, excellent. Now think about taking that another layer deeper. You can keep nesting structures until you get down to individual phrases, gestures, motifs, even notes!

 

Also, consider that there are many more possibilities for "basic" (or primative) structures. As well as binary and ternary, there's also rondo (ABACADA - commonly chorus,verse,chorus,verse,chorus,etc), sonata (A B development A B' [1])

 

How to do it?

Usually, there's two ways to approach this: top-down and bottom=up. A top-down approach would be very similar to my example above - start with an overall structure, and then plit it up into smaller and smaller pieces, stopping when you feel that you can easily populate a single piece. This is a bit like "divide and conquer".

 

A bottom-up approach would be the exact opposite - start with several very small pieces, then arrange them into larger and larger structures. This is very easy to do in a sequencer, where you can develop a few one or two bar sections, then copy and paste them in various orders and configurations.

 

Personally, I usually use a combination of the two. I build the piece bottom-up, but when I'm doing it I have a mental "plan" of how I want the entire piece to turn out.

 

Why would you do it?

By approaching composition in this way, you can create a piece with a very high level of coherence and order. Each section will fit exactly in its place, and repeated sections can give a certain unity - without having to resort to a simple verse-chorus-verse-chorus (or similar) structure.

 

Of course, the fun begins when you combine nested structures with techniques for subverting nested structures. Build your piece as usual, but add interest with variations, interruptions, twists and turns, bizzare trips to strange places. These kind of subversions are usually much more effective when you start with something with very high coherence and order.

 

Yep, I think that's all for today.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

 

[1] Sonata form - (A B development A B') - typcially B is in the dominant key, but B' is in the tonic key. If you want more details, ask me or ask Google

[tucktronix]

Bump the thread, or start a new thread with my name in it if you really want my attention. Unfortunately, at the moment I don't have time to listen to everyone's tracks and give individual feedback (though I'd like to). Maybe in a month and a bit though - I've got three more weeks of classes, then exams. In the mean time, read The Composition Thread.

 

 

This is in response to your posting on Kamurah's thread. I didn't want to start a new thread because of the bigger threat of negative posts from other members. Also, I have bumped my threads numerous times, only to find them sinking into KSS oblivion in the next 3 pages.

 

 

I read your composition thread quite frequently and even posted on it a few times. I do feel that my material utilized a lot of the techniques discussed on this thread. My material is a bit of a departure from most of the stuff here at KSS(orangefunk can attest to that). When I'm writing a composition, I think more in terms of where I want to take the listener. My concept has always been that good playing, melodic phrasing and dynamics, along with good variations in song structure will better capture the listener at first listen and keep the listener focused until the end of the track.

 

All that I ask you to do is to take a brief moment to listen to one or two songs. You don't even have to download the mp3's, they can be streamed as well. For your convenience, I will bump the other threads. You can also find the link in my sig.

 

Peace,

 

Tuck

[Kamurah]

Jon,

 

I have listened to quite a few of your pieces....and I like them.

 

My favorite is probably "Deeply", with a second going to "Her Last Goodbye".

 

 

Have you or are you in a band? I ask this because I find no fault in your compositions or playing (both of which are solid)....but your genre of music lends itself wholeheartedly to a group dynamic.

 

And the sounds you utilize are often traditional instruments (piano, bass, guitar, acoustic - drums, etc.) It is really hard to get a convincing recording of these instruments using only samples / keyboards / synths. The feel and emotion of the piece gets usurped because the instruments just don't "feel" right.....like a facsimile.

 

That being said, I must say I really enjoy your pieces. There is a relaxing quality that is a welcome departure. I know this thread is focused on theory and composition analysis....but if I was you....I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axel on this. Your music already evokes a "live" vibe....more of a feeling than a predictive structure.....I would expand this element. A lot of Jazz is solo based within the group element. IMO...you need a band to really explore both your compositional and performance capability.

 

But that's me.... most of my pieces could be textbook examples for what Jeez is illustrating against.

[Jeez]

Please guys, this is not a "Come listen to my music" thread. Neither is it a "Get Kim's attention" thread.

 

If you want to discuss individual pieces of music, please do it elsewhere.

 

If you want to get my attention, start a thread with my name in it, or just PM me.

 

This thread is for the discussion of composition theory and techniques.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Kamurah]

Oh forgive me!

 

I didn't realize it was against the rules to illustrate and amplify the relevant discussion using current works by our members.....

 

Obviously I didn't read the guidelines and committed a faux pas......

 

 

 

You told the guy you didn't have time to listen to tracks and then pointed him here. He comes here and is told to go away (after giving you the reasons he posted here in the first place).

 

You obviously had time to police this thread and provide articulate inputs on theory in the one I started (thank you very much, but I already endured four years of college music theory and composition and was awarded a degree for my efforts - and oh BTW in case you forgot: I write DANCE MUSIC kim....for DJ's. It HAS to be repetitive and highly structured.....or they won't play it....and it doesn't sell....period. I just need to know if people were boppin their heads or not.)

 

 

 

Now I will say I am sorry and go away.

I find it hard enough to enjoy music without analyzing it to death anyway....I don't need to add the confusion of trying to describe it like it was a programming language.

[SirGarrote]

 

Originally posted by Kamurah You obviously had time to police this thread and provide articulate inputs on theory in the one I started (thank you very much, but I already endured four years of college music theory and composition and was awarded a degree for my efforts - and oh BTW in case you forgot: I write DANCE MUSIC kim....for DJ's. It HAS to be repetitive and highly structured.....or they won't play it....and it doesn't sell....period. I just need to know if people were boppin their heads or not.)

 

 

Kamurah....you do have a point. Actually, you have several points. I'm in the same boat (BM workin on a MM) and I also write dance music....that doesn't sell. 99.99% of the time, if you try and write a techno/house/dnb/etc track with all sorts of modulations/tonicizations/etc, you get a piece that sounds like "Moonlight Sonata DubUpYOurFaceMix" or the latest "dance" hit from Sting. I've been to many raves and many clubs, and let's just say I have yet to hear either at any time whatsoever. If you manage to write a song that fits into that 00.01%, I'd love to hear it and more power to ya!

 

BUT....if you're talking about other kinds of electronic music (kinds that the typical rave/club DJs don't play), this thread is a good source and I agree with most of what you're saying.

 

And I can see the response to my post now: "all of this stuff in this thread leads to writing better music." Sure...at the most general level. But once you start diving into the more complex theory and what not, then you've got yoruself a problem (as I stated above).

 

Alright, thats' enough for now.

 

Peace,

 

-G

[Jeez]

 

Originally posted by Kamurah You told the guy you didn't have time to listen to tracks and then pointed him here. He comes here and is told to go away (after giving you the reasons he posted here in the first place).

 

 

I pointed to this thread because it contains a lot of material that I usually find myself giving as advice anyway.

 

I didn't tell Tocktronix to "go away". I simply said that this was not the thread for the kind of discussion he wanted, so I told him where to take it (a seperate thread or PM).

 

 

 

Originally posted by Kamurah You obviously had time to police this thread and provide articulate inputs on theory in the one I started

 

 

"Policing" this thread doesn't take long. I chose to listen to your piece and comment on it because I had a few spare minutes and your thread happened to be in the right place at the right time.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Kamurah (thank you very much, but I already endured four years of college music theory and composition and was awarded a degree for my efforts - and oh BTW in case you forgot: I write DANCE MUSIC kim....for DJ's. It HAS to be repetitive and highly structured.....or they won't play it....and it doesn't sell....period. I just need to know if people were boppin their heads or not.)

 

 

I agree that dance music must have a certain amount of repetitiveness and predictability... but it doesn't have to be boring. BT and Hybrid are examples of dance music composers who have found ways to keep their music interesting on and off the dancefloor.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Kamurah Now I will say I am sorry and go away. I find it hard enough to enjoy music without analyzing it to death anyway....I don't need to add the confusion of trying to describe it like it was a programming language.

 

 

Well, you asked for people to listen and comment, didn't you?

 

 

And this is where I'd like to leave it. Today's posts are already cluttering up this thread. If you or anyone else want to discuss this further, start a new thread of PM me.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Jeez]

It's about time again for a relevent post...

 

This time I'll discuss the distinction between tension and boredom.

 

Firstly, I'd like to point out what should be obvious (but often isn't) - both tension and boredom only exist as part of the listener's experience of the music. A piece of music on its own has no tension or boredom - only the listener feels these.

 

So let's begin with the more difficult of the two - tension. What causes a listener to experience tension??

 

To make this a little clearer, I'll draw an analogy to film - particularly fright-type (horror) films. There are some sections in these films which obviously have a very high level of tension. The question is - what cues give us this tension? The cues are usually (near) silence, extreme close-ups, dark colours, characters being alone, etc. I propose that there are three factors that make this work:

 

Expectation - The typical cues are known to us. When presented with these cues, the audience is already familiar with them, and already has an idea of what comes next. But simply knowing what comes next is not enough, which brings us to the next item...

 

Contrast - This is what the audience is expecting and anticipating - suddenly we have busy visuals, and the volume jumps up. This is startling, and sometimes quite an unpleasant experience. Note, however, that contrast on its own does not cause tension - by the time the contrast has occured, there's no tension, only surprise. It's the expectation of contrast which does it, but there's just one more ingredient which makes it all work so well...

 

Timing - Usually when the audience is given the usual cues, they know the unpleasant surprise is coming but they don't know when. I think this is what really makes the tension - the sense that a sharp change is imminent, but not knowing exactly when it will come is what causes the tension - the prolonged "bracing" for the contrast.

 

This is not meant to be a film analysis, so if anyone knows more about film than I do, please forgive me.

 

So, how can we apply this to music?

 

For starters, we don't have as clear or as reinforced universal cues that we can assume the listener is familiar with. Most of the existing "univeral cues" are particular to genre - for example, electronic dance music has the machine-gun 909 snare patterns that lead up to a significant section, or section where almost every part drops out and we're left with a single high sustained string sound.

 

However, these cues are only useful for this genre. In most cases you (the composer) will have to create your own cues, create your own musical language. I'll discuss this in a bit more detail later in this post.

 

The other issue is that of contrast. One of the reasons the film tension I described above works so well is that the contrast is sharp and (sometimes) unpleasent. This can be achieved in music in a similar way that it is achieved in film - a sharp increase in volume. Unfortunately, this is not always acceptable in today's world of super-compressed radio-friendly pop hits. An alternative to a change in volume is a change in timbre - that is, a change in the sonic texture and/or colour.

 

Of course timing doesn't need a big mention we all know about it. I'd just like to say here that most modern popular music is built in sections that are even multiples of four or eight measures. Whether you (the composer) or the listener realise it or not, this actually makes a piece very predictable - the listener usually knows when the next change is going to occur. This can ruin a sense of tension, because it destroys the uncertainty. If a listener can predict when the change will occur, it makes tension very difficult to build effectively.

 

 

Ok, now that having been said, how do we actually create tension in music? Well, the key element (and also the most difficult) is expectation. To create expectation, the listener must first be familiar with the sequence of event they're listening to - they much already some some idea about what's to happen next. You can do this by creating a precedent.

 

For example, you might have a section early in your piece where there is no beat (no way for the listener to measure time), and the texture remains fairly static (unchanging) but also distinctive. After this section there is a sharp change that startles or surprises the listener. The next time the listener hears the distinctive static texture, s/he will expect the surprise... but because there is no way to measure the time (no beats, remember!) the listener won't know be able to predict exactly when the change will occur - so (hopefully) s/he will experience tension.

 

 

As always, your actual implementation of this doesn't have to exactly follow my guidelines. Of course tension is strongest when the listener expects a sharp or suprising (or even unpleasent) change, but successful results can be had when the listener expects something different, for example - the big chorus, or maybe an interesting lyric, or a cool sound, or any other distinctive musical event.

 

 

So what about boredom? Well, you probably already know what that is - static musical material, high level of (unchanging) predictability (or unpredictability). That kind of stuff.

 

I'll see you all next time. Until then: be good, eat your vegetables, and don't forget to wash your hands after using the bathroom.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[DeepSleeper]

"you might have a section early in your piece where there is no beat (no way for the listener to measure time), but because there is no way to measure the time (no beats, remember!) the listener won't know be able to predict exactly when the change will occur - so (hopefully) s/he will experience tension."

 

 

It is possible to measure time without beats though. Just by hearing a melody line, bassline, piano riff, guitar lick, whatever.....

The section of the piece (if the aim is to create expectation through uncertainty) would have to be very "ambient" in nature, meaning just a-rhythmic pads, strings, drones, noises... as soon as you have a discernible "rhythm" going, whether it's through beats or melody, the listener can start counting, and the uncertainty-expectation factor takes a tumble.

 

In electronic dance music, the point is to create "very expected tension", which is purposely timed so that EVERYONE JUMPIN' AROUND INS DA HOUSE knows EXACTLY when the track will take off, or where the break down will come. It's all part of the mass culture that is modern clubbing. Ya know "largin' it, laaargin' it" "bangin' mate. BANGIN'!" Dance music is a collective thing, and if you're gonna surprise, you best make sure everybody is surprised at the same time.

 

In other music, which will undoubtedly be less commercially successfull (which is good), there is more freedom to manipulate timing, contrast and expectation, but to achieve 100 % uncertainty and tension, you have to be making beatless ambient-noisecore-superfly!!

'Cos the slightest hint of a rhythmic pulse will bring down the expectation factor tenfold.

 

My fiddy cenns

[Stanley]

.

[Neole]

With all these days of expectation and tension it's time for release now. C'mon post up.

[Jeez]

 

Originally posted by Neole With all these days of expectation and tension it's time for release now. C'mon post up.

 

 

Have some patience!! I've got a few articles in the pipeline, but you'll have to wait at least a few days.

 

This is my last week of classes for the semester, and then I've got a couple of weeks of exam studying...

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[Stanley]

.

[Neole]

 

Originally posted by Jeez This is my last week of classes for the semester, and then I've got a couple of weeks of exam studying...

 

 

What classes are these?

[Jeez]

Ok, too many bumps and I haven't posted for about three weeks. Time for something.

 

I really wanted to discuss the concept of proportion in this article, but after several weeks of contemplation, I still haven't come to a satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, now is ripe for a new article. Perhaps I'll revisit this in the future.

 

Ok. Proportion.

 

What is proportion? I'm sure most of you have some idea about what proportion is, and what it means in music. For clarity, I'll describe what it means to me. With proportion, I am referring (at least for the moment) to a whole piece. More specifically, the overall contour of the piece. Good proportion is what makes us feel satisfied at the end of listening to a piece - we feel satisfied that it has a length appropriate to the number and development of musical ideas. The length is appropriate to the amount of material.

 

In light of my previous discussions, I suppose this means that the end of the piece comes at an exact moment when the listener has no expectation but also is not yet bored, the exact moment when the final resolution has been enough to resolve all the tension in the piece, but no more.

 

This would also mean that all the musical ideas in the piece has been opened and developed sufficiently to avoid an incoherent or "unfinished" feeling, but not repeated or overstated so much that the listener becomes tired of them.

 

Hmm. That's not quite complete.

 

If all the above were all there is to proportion, we would only know proportion at the end of a piece - we would only know that a piece has good proportion when we've finished listening to it. I don't think that's the case though. When we're (somewhere the middle of) listening to a piece, we have some sense of the proportion of a piece. Sometimes we even know approximately where we are in a piece (why is this?). So proportion must have some effect on a smaller level.

 

Maybe this brings us to my previous discussion on nested structure - each smaller section must have its own internal sense of proportion. But that's not all - somehow the whole piece must know about the total length of the rest of the piece. That means that "good proportion" isn't just a matter of making sure the last section(s) are appropriate to resolve the rest of the piece. Each section must somehow have a sense of place within the whole.

 

Ok, that's starting to sound weird. What do I mean?

 

I've already discussed the what of each section - that the beginning should introduce the listener to the piece, the middle should develop the ideas, and the end should be some point of arrival. What I'm talking about now is the how much of each section. To maintain proportion, each section should be of a size that is somehow proportional to the overal size of the piece. By "size", I don't just mean length - this includes breadth of material, musical (and sonic) language; as well as volume, timbre, "character", etc. This is how we can tell the size of the piece before we've finished listening to it - the sections we've already heard (particularly the beginning) have already suggested it. This is also how we know where we are in the piece.

 

Well, ok - that's all fine and well... but how do we actually do it? How do we create "good proportion"?

 

A simple way is to roughly follow the (2/3)+(1/3) ratio - make the first two thirds of the piece (roughly) build up to a climax, and the remaining one third consist of the climax and final resolution. This is somewhat similar to the "Golden Ratio"[1]. Some composers have gone to great lengths to represent the Golden Ratio in their works. Personally, I think a more relaxed approach is more approriate than strickly sticking to 1:1.61803399. Remember that time is elastic in music (perceived time is not always metric time), and other factors (pre-chosen section lengths, aesthetics, musical material, etc) may make this approach ineffective.

 

Even still, why does (2/3)+(1/3) work? Sure, it's convenient to have the climax toward the end - a piece with its biggest climax toward the beginning would not retain the listener's attention for very long (or would it?). Similarly, having the climax at the very end (leaving little or no time for resolution or any kind of "calm down") would probably leave a piece feeling unfinished. Maybe (2/3)+(1/3) is merely a convention - maybe it is an easy way to attain some level of proportion, but perhaps proportion can be achieved without it. I'll leave that question to you. I'm still undecided - I'm going to have to compose a few pieces to explore the idea.

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

 

[1] For more information on the Golden Ratio, ask Google

[gilbertopb]

Originally posted by Jeez .... (from page 9 of this thread)... We all know the usual tricks to place instruments in the forground or background: Forground Louder Drier (less chorus/reverb) More high and low frequencies Background Quieter Wetter (more chorus/reverb) Less high and low frequencies

 

 

 

Jeez and everyone colaborating with this great thread, I humbly ask Thee:

May be on the context of this thread to talk more about selecting instruments (or synth pacthes) in a composition, their uses for melody, bacrgrounds, if there are relations to some instruments and the kind of music and to their function in the arrangement.

How many instruments, how many is too much, what to use with this or that, and if is desireable or not to use symphonic instrument groups, etc;

For example, can be done blues with flutes only or when to use all strings with bells, if placing lots of pads doing background for a string lead can be good or not, or how to do that work.

Hope I am not too confusing

[Jeez]

 

Originally posted by gilbertopb talk more about selecting instruments (or synth pacthes) in a composition...

 

 

This is interesting.

 

 

 

Forever,

 

 

 

 

Kim.

[DeepSleeper]

Originally posted by Jeez This is interesting. Context is a big issue as well - reagrdless of genre, the choice of instruments will (should) be heavily dependent on the other instruments already in the piece. Flutes usually don't go well with bitcrushed synthbasses and rock drums.

 

Interesting indeed. I fully accept that certain instruments do not fit certain genres. French horn in a hardcore techno track? Pan-flute and heavy metal guitar power chords? Hmmm...

 

However, I do think that the exploration of instruments in their "unnatural" , no actually, "uncommon" setting is important. This leads me to my own vision, which I'm slightly apprehensive about sharing since I REALLY want to do it myself, but on the other hand, there's no use in pretending someone hasn't thought about it ALREADY.

 

So to the point:

 

I want to explore ACOUSTIC TECHNO!! I don't know if that is the best way to put it, but it somewhat gives you an idea.

 

This means playing technoish, tranceish, housish music with, among others, band instruments. There are many bands already doing this (Moloko, Faithless, Kosheen etc..) but I want to take it further.

 

Replace:

 

The 303 arpeggio with a one of those huge jazz-basses you play standing up (double bass?)

The 909, 808 drum patterns with excellent drummer (s) and percussionist (s)

Pads with cello, violin players

Main melodies, riffs, acid synth patterns with pianos, electric guitars, acoustic guitars, whatever comes to mind...

 

Now, all of this can be COMPOSED alone on the computer at home, and they would only be PERFORMED by or as a band. The idea would be to lose some of the rigidity and static nature of modern dance music, add a smidgen off jazz virtuosity and improvisation (I'm not talking 3 minute sax solos, but the occasional added touch to get away from that taka-taka-taka-taka feel.

 

Moreover, quite a lot of generic techno etc. isn't very emotive. It's just boom-boom-boom-boom (hands in the air, whatever substance racing through your veins, oooh baby). And lets not deceive anyone, drugs do play a part (not always, and I don't want this to become an issue, but..) in enjoying just bang-bang techno music, just as jazz is often (not always) appreciated by people who themselves know a lot about music, are musically informed and adept at an instrument etc.. SO, let's put some emotion, feeling, thought, sensuality, beauty into it with ACOUSTIC TECHNO. It could be music that could be played at regular jazz/funk/soul clubs (not just "techno" clubs, raves), and the audience would comprise of a much wider spectrum of society. There is a huge number of people who are IMMEDIATELY turned off if they hear a steady 130-150 BPM 4/4 kick drum, and will NEVER give it a chance. However, if there is an actual band playing "common" instruments, the audience can be fooled into listening to "techno", and thus, this might please the Ibiza crowd, the psychedelic Byron Bay crowd, and by good chance, your own mother, aunty Sally and the neighbours dog.

 

{censored}, sorry, I just have no ability to explain myself in "a few words", but I hope people got the idea of what I'm getting at.

 

Peace (and don't steal my friggin' idea) ;)