There is no difference between composing electronic and traditional music...
You probably don't know much about traditional arranging and composing methods, if you think that there is a difference.
Years ago I couldn't finish a track, because I was playing with the synths or designing sounds.
Now I compose using general midi or some light piano vst songs that can be arranged in any style (as long as they fit to the tempo and time signature - 120 bpm melody/bass/ accompaniment has to be recomposed, if you want to fit 160-180 bpm rock/dnb whatever track ) and then do the rest.

 

I've started studying film script writing a month ago to improve the expression and depth of my lyrics writing skill, and one of the central ideas that correlates with music production is - in order to create a masterpiece that will eventually survive against the cruelty of time, we must feed it with the finest and most relevant ideas and organize them in a way that best fit the artistic purpose, which is essentially evoking certain desired emotions of the audience at the right moment without having them turning away half way through the product.

In order to do so, the suggested method is to know your world inside out. You need to be able to answer every single question that might come up questioning the world that you are writing. You need to not only know why something is the way it is, but also know why something isn't the way it isn't. To accomplish that, script writers have to do their research, imagining every possible choices and outcomes of any given circumstances, and then picking the best one that not only fits the message of the film, but also fitting the mindset of the character(s).

I would recommend the same in music production, whether we are doing traditional music, where we are performing existing instruments (including virtual instruments), or electronic music, where we have to design our own instruments. If ever we find ourselves stuck with an idea, not knowing what to do after composing the exposition of it, why not do more of it? Take that very idea and make 10 or 20 variations around it, either in your head or with actual production, then pick the one that is the most suitable for the moment, keeping the rest of them for use in the recapitulation sections later on in the piece, or stuff them in your personal collections if you find no place for them in the current song.

If we find ourselves not experienced enough with making variations based on a single idea, be it a melody, a groove, a chord progression, or a synth FX, maybe that is the weakness in our production technique, which is hindering our progression in actually finishing a piece of music.

 

If someone discovered it please lets me know that. The only flow I know is Foster's flow and it's truly dreadful.

 

A little knowledge in songwriting will change your problem. Harmony, rythm, songstructuture.

A way if you lack those skills is take a song that exists as a template. You got a little melody? Fine, find a song you like copy the song structure ad the missing parts and you got your song done.

Better way for sure is to learn basic compsing.

 

In electronic realm there are lots of genres and sub-genres been created by people knowing traditional music theory and composition or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_genres

Most of them need their appropriate flows and a specific flow can not be applied to all of them. I should admit that some people do not acknowledge lots of them as true music and some people admire their producers. The best idea is to find out what you want to produce and then focus on it.

For example I'm really interested in electro-classic (a bit similar to Syhthpop, Futurepop, Electropop or better call it FosterPop). I mean the sparkling aspect of classic and absorbing capacity of electronic mediums. The reason I chose it is I found out it would be so powerful to the listener and never would be diminished like other genres. People may forget the technicalities, FXs, strange sounds but pitch is the most permanent element in the music history IMHO.

 

Funny, I find that a full English breakfast followed by copious amounts of highly caffeinated coffee, a couple of pies for lunch washed down with a couple of pints, an afternoon of even more coffee drinking, rounding off with a good curry for dinner and a few whisky's in the evening seems to do the trick nicely...

 

When you have melody, bass, chords, counter melody, bridge melody and stabs that's pretty much everyting folk, pop, rock, trendy edm, a big part of house music. Cut back on melody and accent the (minor) chords and you have a more underground house music. Cut back again and keep bass & chord stabs and you're in techno realm. Replace the instruments in a techno track with rock-specific, play a solo guitar and you're back to rock music. Replace the instrumentals in any track with orchestral only and you have a nice piece of classical music.

It's really not that hard once you can connect the dots. And man, anthing with "pop" in it it's a really tried-and-tested and unique recipe, no need to reinvent the wheel here (a square wheel is not a wheel anymore, it's a squeel). It's definitely not easy to make a pleasant and unboring track in pop realm, but definitely not impossible. The key is to obey the rules that define the genre and break the rules that scream to be broken.

 

My songwriting workflow has differed greatly from the production workflow. I think the task would be nearly insurmountable, trying to do both at the same time. Of course, I'm not doing electronic music, what others here term "traditional" music. But I would imagine that the general "ideas" are similar.
It just seems to me that nearly every composition must have a "main" track that is the focal point of the composition. In my compositions, that is normally the lyric and melody. Every other part in the composition lives to support that focal point. When composing to, for example, a guitar part, I will develop the melody/lyrics around that guitar part, certainly, but understand that the resulting focal point will be the melody/lyrics, not the guitar part which will be in more of a supporting role.
The lyrics usually easily determine the flow and the resulting song structure.
All of this is certainly easier if you can play a live instrument, because you can easily make structural adjustments "on the fly" while composing. Or collaborate with someone who plays an instrument (probably harder to do with a drummer/percussionist). Even if the final idea is synth based or keyboard based, a guitarist can still follow the chord/key structure to help compose the other parts. I've had luck composing with a full band also, and there are more ideas to go around then.
After the lyrics and melody are complete, then it's a matter of adding in the rest of the parts to create dynamics and interest, build-ups for excitement, slow downs to add emotional weight, and all of the other frosting that the cake needs to feel complete.
Once the structure is complete, then it's time to get to tracking and production. While recording and mixing, if a part feels empty, then it can be added to in order to flesh it out.
And sometimes all of the tracking work has to be thrown out and you have to restart this process because the production process has revealed a structural problem that needs to be changed. Thinking ahead, and experience composing will help to reduce this, however, I only say that because it should be expected, and while frustrating, you will learn what works and what doesn't.
And if you are lucky, when you are done, you have a completed song that conveys the emotional message you were trying to send.
Good luck in your pursuit!

 

It seems you know everything about the instrumentalism. Please analyze this one with your knowledge too. Of course not just the second half.
https://clyp.it/2dwhopbn

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2017

the first half is just a long atmospheric intro to set the mood for the second part (which is the intended song written in a classic formula. Jesus dude, you're so obsessed by tiny details you can't even see the big picture.

By your standards this is not a pop song

 

Yes I know what it is (even though its creation would be relatively hard for me with my knowledge). My intention of posting that was to say that it needs its felicitous flow and mood and the ones being used in other genres are not generally applicable for it. BTW although I sometimes generalize the matters but never pretend that I'm a music specialist because I'm not.

I called my genre "Fosterpop" because I found some similarities between mine and the 3 ones I mentioned. When "pop" is being attached to anything, it horrendously devalues it. If I was the original owner of those genres, I would definitely change their names by omitting "pop" from them.

 

Who is "it", the track? If affirmative, the track does not "need" mood building. The artist wanted to set the mood. He/she could very well remove that atmospheric part. And I'm pretty sure he/she composed the melodic part then thought "hmm, maybe this composition will benefit some atmosphere", not the other way around. Atmosphere is just "bells & whistles" around a core composition. And the core composition pretty much adhere to the elements I stated in the above posts.

And all those genres are "pop" because they were popular at a given time and shaped the urba culture. It's not a shame for a genre to be called pop. What's funny is that the respective genres (you post a lot of old stuff) were received by the people living those times the same way we receive the pop music of today: superficial, lacking substance, childish sounding etc. etc.

So here me out on this: if you are able to make songs according to my list of elements (just saying "my" to point out what I'm referring to - it's industry standard) you will be able to make any abstract composition. Do the other way around by disregarding all the rules and you'll fail each time you try to make a track.

 

I made this piece (related to the one I've promised to make for @The Teknomage ) in just a short time so please don't expect anything perfect. My mentioned genres are so big and not sounding childish as @jayxflash supposed. Also if I spend more time on it be sure it would be timeless too.

https://clyp.it/a3meefuh

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2017

"
1- Less is more: Limit yourself (one DAW, fewer instruments: piano, accordeon, strings; or drums, bass and 2 synths...), that boost the creativity.
2- You need a project, with commitments to other people if possible: Music for the video of a friend, play with other people to create and finish a demo, etc.
3- You compromise publicly to do something (the project) on a concrete date. You say it to your friends, colleagues, girl/boyfriend, etc. If you don't deliber, your honor is mancillated. You become a liar or someone with no word. That is motivation.

The workflow is not the problem (you'll develop it and improve with every project that you finish). You need some pression, tension and a purpose.

Good luck!"






refreshing to see the truth said

 

"Synthpop has received considerable criticism and even prompted hostility among musicians and in the press. It has been described as "anaemic"[124] and "soulless".[125]" - http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Synth-pop

OK, I did not say they sound childish, other people living in the 70s-80s did (and this a quick search, there are several articles and interviews on this topic). It's a classic matter of human resistance to new. Back then, rock music was dominant. Music industry people, labels and rock artists and public they were all against this new current as they were used with rock music. Only 70 years ago rock was considered devil's music. And some hundreds years ago composers writing dissonant chords were hang on account of writing devilish music. People (majority) desperately try to resist the unknown since forever.

You do exhibit exactly the same form of resistance but in this case you like the 80s and are against current music. And this makes no sense - this genre is just a slice in our musical journey. The vast majority of the electronic genres exist as a reaction to the existing hardware on the market.

 

I ride in the public tram and think about the song, then I arrange it in my head and when I come home I try to recreate it in the DAW. Simple.

 

clearly you aren't using enough daws thats your problem
jokes aside, the flow will find you. but you must keep trying.

that's what happened to me. i had specific ideas in mind for 3 or even more years. eventually i kept trying, said "ok music is not for me", then back, tried different things, etc. now I pretty much know what to do if i want to make something, but of course this was only one of the many obstacles.

advice above here by almightyshux is good, learn basics [apparently the comment is in the other page lmao sorry im not feeling good); but I know for a fact that a lot of people started by copying tracks they liked. at the end everybody copies something, creating their own style. nobody makes something out of nowhere.

it all comes down to what you want to do. the hard truth is you must keep working on it if you really want to make it
othwersie drop everything and realize you wasted lots of time on something you don't like

have fun and a good day boys

 

thought I will not fight with you, I completely disagree.

and I know traditional music even more than "electronic." However, you may very well listen to dance genres that are still quite musical, such as EDM, progressive or some other melodic genre which has clear cut musical basslines... lead lines, melodies, etc... I do NOT listen to those kind... I listen to stuff that is more experimental and thus... with an "experimental" characteristic, abandons the chains of having to be "musical" all the time.

 

And your experimental music has no lead lines, no rhythms, no bass, no background chords?
Please, even the most unmusical trash can become proper music in the right hands.

 

Maybe try layering 8 bars in a loop until it's produced how you want it. Then break the tracks apart and arrange them. Add breaks here and there, work on complimentary 8-bar again, arrange that, reference a couple of commercial tracks for ideas, throw bells & whistles & ornamentation on top. Resample some parts, replace some parts, get rid of some parts, randomly add some 'random' parts/files, get that skeleton arrangement going. Kinda like when an artist pencil sketches in circles and lines and x/y plot at the beginniing. It looks rough, but the foundation is ready. If you involve live instrument performance, get the ideas down, and later, re-record better versions of said performances. This is just one of many ways to approach writer's/arrangement block.