The Additive Model For Composing
It seems I, like many others, often default to an additive evolution of a track. In other words, starting with A, after a while adding B, then C, etc. it is very effective to build interest, but can easily become routine. Rarely do you hear the opposite.... BLAM! You get it all, then one by one the elements drop out till it is nothing but a pure sine wave.
I am not suggesting this, except as an exercise, but I am suggesting the exploration of other structures for making a track musically effective and enthralling. Those of you who have followed my musical approach know that I am a big feeler and try to open myself to bolts (or trickles) from the blue. That works well for actual improvisations, but when it comes to arranging and mixing, I often find myself bound to routines that need not routinely be employed. In the learning curve that approach helped me a lot, but now self observation leads me to other ways in to engaging a listener (and myself). Listening to Frank Zappa again has helped. He often employed the usual forms, but he was not bound to them. A stream of consciousness progression of musical ideas (tho he really was composing), perhaps not even fully developed, is personally very appealing to me, tho many find it disorienting. I guess I hear structure (if only because I listen over and over and that repetitional memory imposes a “structure” just by knowing what comes next) where others often don’t. The relativity of musical feelings, concepts, “thoughts” are sometimes more compelling than a standard idea of developmental evolution for me. I want to hear something I don’t expect. But that is me.
I hope that these thoughts might cause you to take a look at your own approach and, seeing routines which are effective but well worn, will lead you to new creative ground if that is your interest. Best, LL