Ableton Forum

Well, I wouldn't suggest writing all your songs around the same "base" song - I agree that that would be formulaic. However, switching up the "base" song works. You'll be surprised how often you can escape your genre this way too.

I could throw in some 80's tights n' cock rock like Van Halen, and then come up with a chill house track. It's all on the elements you take and get inspired from in the original song that you then DISCARD.

Plus, this is really to break mental block, not to be used for each and every track. At least that's the way I approach it.

the italian post-rock band larson said recently they played autechre songs in the studio, tracks with good melodies, then larson jammed around that track. then take the autechre song away and theyre left with an interesting, new larson song. kinda the same idea....

ejectorset wrote: if it gets you writing more songs than it might seem good, but personally i would rather write two really really great strong songs that hold their own and that pushed me and i achieved something in writing, that i progressed and it show, than write 45 songs in a year that sound like the same 4 or 5 songs re-hashed over and over.

Could not disagree more... First, the secret of geniouses is not that they save all their efforts for their "masterpieces", quite the contrary, every "masterpiece" geniouses make have behind them hundreds of "not so masterpiece-y" works. The trick is produce-produce-produce. Noone is born a prodigy, everything is learned through trial and error, through assimilating what exists and pushing it one step further. The idea that "inspiration" is something that enters the minds of some gifted people and lead them to make wonders is not only archaic, it is also counter-productive.

Second, in the era of cut-and-paste is sounds like a joke talking about songs that "hold their own". The idea of the original died several decades ago, and we now live in a recycled (or re-recycled) culture. This does not in any way mean that we cannot produce "masterpieces" anymore. On the contrary, cultural innovation is all the more possible today, because everyone is a producer AND a consumer of culture and the ways of distribution are more and better. It is just that "masterpieces" are not made by "divine intevention" anymore. Anything goes. Of course if you rip a Michael Jackson song and present it as your own, everyone will laugh at you, you will be sued, and deserve it. But playing with sounds, feelings, concepts, words, textures, colors that already exist "out there" in human culture, and rearrange them into new assemblages, trying new permutations, getting things out of their original context, and of course using the old as the basis of the new, is not only legitimate, it is the essence of all creative process.

Sorry about the rant, it just needed to get out.

Schizophonix wrote:

ejectorset wrote: if it gets you writing more songs than it might seem good, but personally i would rather write two really really great strong songs that hold their own and that pushed me and i achieved something in writing, that i progressed and it show, than write 45 songs in a year that sound like the same 4 or 5 songs re-hashed over and over.

Could not disagree more... First, the secret of geniouses is not that they save all their efforts for their "masterpieces", quite the contrary, every "masterpiece" geniouses make have behind them hundreds of "not so masterpiece-y" works. The trick is produce-produce-produce. Noone is born a prodigy, everything is learned through trial and error, through assimilating what exists and pushing it one step further. The idea that "inspiration" is something that enters the minds of some gifted people and lead them to make wonders is not only archaic, it is also counter-productive.

Second, in the era of cut-and-paste is sounds like a joke talking about songs that "hold their own". The idea of the original died several decades ago, and we now live in a recycled (or re-recycled) culture. This does not in any way mean that we cannot produce "masterpieces" anymore. On the contrary, cultural innovation is all the more possible today, because everyone is a producer AND a consumer of culture and the ways of distribution are more and better. It is just that "masterpieces" are not made by "divine intevention" anymore. Anything goes. Of course if you rip a Michael Jackson song and present it as your own, everyone will laugh at you, you will be sued, and deserve it. But playing with sounds, feelings, concepts, words, textures, colors that already exist "out there" in human culture, and rearrange them into new assemblages, trying new permutations, getting things out of their original context, and of course using the old as the basis of the new, is not only legitimate, it is the essence of all creative process.

Sorry about the rant, it just needed to get out.

And not a moment too soon !

BTW I'm getting real tired of redoing this Superstition song. Do you have another one to use M Breqs?

kennerb wrote:
BTW I'm getting real tired of redoing this Superstition song. Do you have another one to use M Breqs?

[SARCASM]
WHAT?!?! You're using that one?!?! It's mine! Hands off!

Crap, if everybody uses Very Superstitious, I won't be original anymore!
[/SARCASM]

Seriously though, it's not formulaic... It's a good system for just getting a "feel" and then going off in a new direction. And yes, using different songs might be advisable.

M. Bréqs wrote:

kennerb wrote:
BTW I'm getting real tired of redoing this Superstition song. Do you have another one to use M Breqs?

[SARCASM]
WHAT?!?! You're using that one?!?! It's mine! Hands off!

Crap, if everybody uses Very Superstitious, I won't be original anymore!
[/SARCASM]

Seriously though, it's not formulaic... It's a good system for just getting a "feel" and then going off in a new direction. And yes, using different songs might be advisable.

I guess I do have that one other one I could use.

Breaking metal block?

Now THAT'S some serious hardcore karate!

Or is that when you can't stop making everything sound like Black Sabbath?

I aint even gonna lie - I leave the riff in

apply the eq4 to cut the bass out and then put a autofilter over the top to cut the crackle out with a hint of LFO

I write my own bass but if you've got a funky esoteric loop going on the song practically writes itself

see Funktion on www.myspace.com/teknolife

aint even gonna lie!

i do something similar by taking my old songs written for standard rock instrumental arrangement (guitars, bass, drums), making them wholly electronic or using reaktor or lifeFX to mangle the guitar beyond recognition, amazed at where they end up with new textures, voices, etc., particularly when i start playing with tempo towards the end, realizing that a song that was relatively tired at 80BPM is infinitely better at 130 or vice versa. i still think it's somewhat lame to rework a fairly lame song i wrote (e.g.) 15 years ago, but it's way fun, and often takes completely unexpected turns. as for working from stevie as a framework, you can't really go wrong (i don't know a single guitar player who hasn't started any number of songs by copying a lick they love, but changing it just enough so they can't get caught stealing).

A very nice thread!

Recently, I've been experimenting with the same kind of stuff DJ Superflat described there. Just as he said, it really does give you unexpected results, and it's amazing what just might emerge out of mangling even some very basic rock takes and composing around them.

Completely and repeatedly missed the "metal block" thing in the title before Hambone commented on it, btw

Nokatus wrote:A very nice thread!

...

Completely and repeatedly missed the "metal block" thing in the title before Hambone commented on it, btw

Yeah, me too. damn.