[SpinVector]

Recently I've been spending some time trying to listen to songs to break down the arrangements and try and "look under the hood". Sometimes I try to figure out the melodies on my keyboard. Other times I have made a faux arrangement in my sequencer with empty clips representing each of the separate elements. Sometimes you can find midi files of well known tunes on the web too which are obviously really helpful.

I was wondering if anyone else does this? How do you do it?

I was thinking I could make a little video series sharing my discoveries. Is that something people would be interested in?

Cheers.

[Br/ainfu+ked]

I'll delve into my electronic collection of music and study the waveform looking at the peaks and the actual composition of the waves like sines, squares etc..,

I'll listen to it as I watch it play through the audio file just so I know what sound is coming from where.... w

another way is to use a graphic equalizer preferably and watch the which frequencies show up as I listen to the track, and I also look at the DB levels,

there might be other ways that i'm not aware of

[Kalarax]

I'll often listen to a track that I really, really like the sound of and break down the various elements of the song in my head.

I'll try and block out everything except the bassline or the synth and see if I can figure out how to recreate it in Ableton.

I find it very useful for learning how to produce.

[SpinVector]

THanks guys. Does anyone else have any ideas to share?

[AMechanics]

I use a bit of everything everyone said above..but mostly I go into a project with a set sound template in my head right from the start. I know the sound I want to get and then tend to keep tweaking the mix as I lay it down track by track.

Then, when I've finished the mix and am happy with it, I then try to master it myself as best I can, but I'm still learning this stuff and I think it's something you go on learning all the time.

Most of the time the sound I am looking for will draw on a number of artists I like and have listened to for a long time..in other words, styles I'm used to hearing..so I guess this makes the process a lot easier to put into practice for me and keeps it kind of intuitive, so it doesn't really get in the way of my own music when I'm putting it together in the daw.

[JakeyF]

Absolutely. In fact breaking down sound and songs is critical, if their is anyone thing I'm certain of, things sound more alike than different for a reason . That and most stuff that doesn't sound the same doesn't for a reason, that being you simply lack the exposure to the style (which was a takeoff of another style).

I can't help but believe that somewhere some archaeologist is going to find some old decaying piece of sheet music by some unknown composer hidden behind a brick wall. One day he will take it to a music historian and he will look at it and play it. The extreme repetition and slow evolution will be obvious and the liner notes will simply say, can't play this, too repetitive. This great composer will have enveloped every style of known electronic music 200 years before the invention of electricity. Even greater will be his birthday, the only surviving piece of information, his name, August 8th...808.

As a sometimes performing musician (guitar, piano, bass, drums etc.), if you ever end up in a situation playing with other people this skill is critical.

[Nine Volt]

Ever since I started seriously producing, I've been noticing myself breaking down specific elements of tracks. Sometimes I think, "Wow, I know how I could make that!", while other times I think "HOW THE HELL DID HE MAKE THAT???". I also notice things I didn't notice before, simply because I'm aware that people use them. Things like white noise, for example.

[twilitez]

Yes, always.

[Evelon]

I had an episode when I started out where I would analyze/listen to music in Sides only (as in M/S). I learned quite alot.

Sure, spectrum analyzers, correlation meters and level analyzers have helped me too. Aswell as studying arrangements, dynamic variations, vocal techniques, effect manipulations, automation techniques, etc etc.

[NExS]

I like analyzing structure. Especially if it's not the traditional verse, chorus ad nauseum. Composing music is like writing a story. I find it more interesting when people stay away from cliches.

[ghyt wembpang]

Constantly, any time I hear a piece of music.

Now i don't often sit down and repeatedly listen to a song, usually only if I'm trying to learn to sing, reproduce, or learn an instrumental part of it.

[Artifiseer]

I'm constantly analyzing everything I listen to, but I usually try to be a little less critical when it's someone else's work than when it's my own (not sure how healthy that is, but eh, whatever).

[Dugg Funnie]

With a few tracks I'll load up Ableton and drop the .wav or mp3 into an audio file and make markers where all the changes in the track happen.

And if I REALLY have free time on my hands I'll go ahead and try and remake the whole track and really understanding the changes on both a macro and micro level.

[Numerical]

If by analyzing you mean covering a song, yeah. The only other time I would "analyze" any other band's tunes is maybe referencing a mix/master to my own songs. I play guitar so any other analyzing is usually just seeing what amps the guitar player uses. It's always 510 or recto btw.

Anal recto.

[Evelon]

Originally Posted by Numerical

5150

Fixed.
Yes, it sounds great.

[Numerical]

Whoops yeah there ya go.

[ghyt wembpang]

What, nobody uses Orange amps anymore? Or Hiwatts? or motherfucking Sunn? >:

Hell, not even the JCM800? I thought that was a staple!

[Numerical]

Oh they do, just not usually the bands I'm listening to. Always Dual Rec, 5150, maybe maybe a Marshall or Engl.

[JakeyF]

Originally Posted by ghyt wembpang

What, nobody uses Orange amps anymore? Or Hiwatts? or motherfucking Sunn? >:

Hell, not even the JCM800? I thought that was a staple!

Fundamentally their are about 5 types of tube based architectures for guitar.

RCA/Fender : The classic chimey clean. Originally designed by RCA, used by Fender, slowly morphed
into a few variants. 5e3, gritty blues amps and extra clean Twins Reverbs, Super Rev. etc. The bassman was also interesting, a horrendously unreliable crappy bass amp that turned into a damn good guitar amp. Fundamentally all these circuits have a great deal more in common than different.

Vox : Based on Fender, they screwd somethings up that made them unreliable but also gave them the
distinctive jangle which were so instrumental to the Beatles sound and a whole slew of pop clones. Were considered a cheap british amplifier and often cursed at by musicians of the day. The AC15 & 30 do have a distinct sound that is hard to miss. (They also make a KICK ASS wah pedal btw)

Marshall : Originally built a bassman clone, the JTM 45. Named 45 after the wattage, which may or may not have been correct. Morphed into the Plexi with the "Marshall Crunch". The slightly different parts and one or two different values gave the amp a great deal more midrange and thus cut mixes really well. Jimi and Clapton put this amp on the map and the "stack and head" configuration became a music staple

Mesa Boogie Mark I: John Randall, owner of Mesa was modding Fenders. He screwd up the preamp wiring really bad so instead of running the tubes in paralell they ran in series, which means a hella bunch more distortion. High gain was born with the "cascaded gain stage." Oddly, Marshall created one of their greatest amps when they took a plexi and added this variation. Enter the JCM-800.

Soldano SLO-100 : Soldano took the cascaded gain stage in a new direction, he invented a cold-clipping stage, one tube hot and one cold. This created a new texture to the sound. Clapton and then EVH became early endorsers. This circuit was eventually knocked off by Mesa Boogie thus creating the "Rectifier" series launching Nu-Metal and a thousand "chugga chugga" bands. The 5150 is also based on this architecture.

I've owned a few of these over the years and again, most amps have a great deal more in common than different. Eventually you will find what you like or more accurately serves your purposes. If you have any questions I will happily answer as I used to be amps for a boutique maker several years ago. Unfortunately he was a cloner who was all hype and eventually succumbed to what I believe to be paranoid schizophrenia. Learned alot though. Most amps are close clones to other amps and when you know what to look for you can often find similar off brands much cheaper as well.

[SpinVector]

Originally Posted by Numerical

If by analyzing you mean covering a song, yeah. The only other time I would "analyze" any other band's tunes is maybe referencing a mix/master to my own songs. I play guitar so any other analyzing is usually just seeing what amps the guitar player uses. It's always 510 or recto btw.

Anal recto.

You bring up an interesting point but I think you can learn a song, and perform a cover of it, without actually needing to think about what theoretical ideas went into it's creation. And then there's the mixcraft element to it, the studio side of things. The kind of tunes I had in mind are the densely layered ones with plenty of diverse samples and recordings to get stuck into. Perhaps study is more apt than the detached and scientific "analysis".