Any tips on arrangements?

greybackshadow

New member
hi there!
i was told that different people have different approaches to different arranges be it the style and genre.
sometimes when i do arrangements, the end product don't sound rich. meaning that it sounds dull.
any tips or advice?

thanks!
 
Depends a lot on genre. Not everything must sound "rich" or "full" though. In fact, you don't want every piece of music to sound too "full" - that would be terrible! Different times call for different styles.

But in general, a "rich" or "full" sound comes firstly from using counterpoints and harmony. You want different melodic lines (voices) to interweave with one another. Here's when one can actually apply music theory to music (contrary to what many thinks that music theory is too "theoretical", no pun intended, and cannot be applied). Choice of instruments also play a role - or if you're into electronic music, the type of patch you use.

For a "full" sound, many thinks applying lots of chords and sustain pads does the trick. Well, it does not. All that creates is muddiness. The key is still how each voicing (part) moves in conjunction with another (counterpoint), and applying harmony.

For somebody starting off, my suggestion is to listen to good arrangements and analyse them. I used to transcribe entire scores (orchestral, pop etc) by ear breaking it down into it's different instruments and parts - and learn. Of course, learning formal music analysis will help greatly (not sure if there are courses like these - maybe a suggestion for the entrepreneurs into music schools :) ). Listen to good arrangements of the genre you want to write. It's ok to mimic other composers in the beginning (all part of learning). You'll slowly develop your own style later.

My 2 cents.
 
cheez, your 2 cents are worth dollars! :)
i agree with you that not every piece must sound rich. now that you mentioned counterpoint and harmony, i think i can experiment and see if that's the problem! so far most of the arrangements i did, i use instruments within the low register to make it sound "full" in the recording (my 2 cents as well). its only making it "rich" that i need some advice on.
i totally agree that sustaining chords in the arrangement don't help much (i used to sustain chords using strings, but it does not help at all...)
i break down arrangements into their different tracks to learn as well. it greatly helps! oh and i think SOMA and funkie monkies music school offer course on music arrangements.

thanks cheez!
 
I just listened to your music. Some really nice music you have there!

Another technique I use for creating a "richer" sound. I focus a lot of counterpoint on certain parts - mainly what's in the "middle". Lowest and highest notes are the "frame" - it's the middle I often focus on. So for strings, for example, my violas and cellos play quite a important role in creating that rich tone. Again, it's not sustain violas and cellos, but moving violas and cellos. Another instrument is french horns. Into other genres, the piano covering those ranges can help a lot as well.

However, one can overdo it. Too much of it and it becomes a distraction from the key melodic line (unless it IS the key melodic line!). These parts are meant to be supportive, so use counterpoint around that range, but don't get too crazy about it!
 
Cheez, thank you for listening, really appreciate it!

There's no specific genre I'm writing for. If you listened to my works, you'll realize that I write a couple of genres! There are times whereby I'll face difficulty making it sound "rich", especially when I'm writing orchestral pieces, like those cinematic soundtracks. You seem to be more familiar with instrumental music pieces, especially orchestral kinds! I think you brought up yet another point, the use of french horns (keep seeing that instrument in my lists, but have not really used it yet). Will use more french horns the next time I'm writing those kind of music!

For me, the cello is one of the instruments I will use to focus on making it "full" due to its capabilities to reach low notes, can substitute it for the bass guitar, depending on the type of genre being written. The double bass is also another instrument I love using for the bass notes when writing genres like Jazz and Easy Listening!
It's true that one really should not overdo an arrangement!

So far I've realized there are two types of arrangements:
1) EASY to manage, but HARD to convey message
2) HARD to manage, but EASY to convey message
Arrangements are easy to manage, uses lesser instruments. But its hard to convey the correct type of feel. But if we use more instruments, it'll be harder to manage so many instruments, but its easy to tell what genre/style/feel its trying to say!

Take Tango for an example. It'll be easier to manage with just a piano, but it'll be tough to bring out the feel (or some may say, spirit) of Tango, with just one instrument. If we're to use the accordian, string quartet, classical guitars, tambourines, shakers, etc...its harder to manage so many instruments and make them all balanced out, but it'll be easier to let the listener get the feel or groove.

Just my thoughts, having been doing arrangements for quite sometime and meeting with a couple of problems along the way!
 
But if we use more instruments, it'll be harder to manage so many instruments, but its easy to tell what genre/style/feel its trying to say!

What I do is to first decide what it needs to sound like. I need to hear what I want in my head first. Then I select my template of instruments (all decided before I start arranging). For orchestral-type music, I arrange section by section rather than doing track by track. Also, NEVER use quantization unless absolutely necessary. The slight off-timing not only creates realism, the slight off-timing of instruments actually creates a kind of "richness" rather than a robotic automated feeling. In fact in one piece, I totally turned off the metronome and ignored the timing in the DAW and arranged it totally rubato. That was not easy to get everything together (you can't track the midi by time and makes editing a nightmare!) but the result is really interesting. Great for slow music when you really want the rubato effect.
 
Last edited:
Before I start arranging, I'll also have to know how I want the song to sound like (if not I'll just be doing it blindly). For me when I arrange, I do it track by track. Maybe I can try doing it section by section. Do you arrange using notation software? Cause my impression of you is that you'll use mostly theory to write and arrange (WHICH I FIND DIFFICULT!!!!):eek: And my goodness, I always quantize my tracks, whether I record it live or midi. I can't stand it when one track goes slightly off-timing, but I have to agree with you that it gives off a sense of realism, but its only to an extent. To me realism is more towards dynamics which in theory wise, performance directions.
But yes, too much quantization can lead to a robotic feel, which I try to compliment using dynamics...HAHA!!:p
I tried achieving a rubato effect once so far I think. The metronome does sometimes distract you when you try to play a note that "lags" a little behind. But I think it was pretty tough when you turned off the metronome and record the whole song! That's why I prefer to edit midi rather than live...
Another reason why I'll turn off the metronome is when the music slows down to an end, not sure if you'll agree with me or not, but the metronome really distracts me A LOT when the music starts to slow down note by note, then finally it ends!
Cheez, normally what kind of music do you write and arrange?
 
I don't use notation software. I sequence directly using a keyboard controller - live sequencing. more realism. However, I do write down certain complex parts on paper to make sure I get the harmony right. If it's not too complex, the theory part usually happens inside my head and I just sequence directly. It becomes complex when I use a lot of instruments. During these times, I need to see it on paper first.

I only use notation in the final stages - editing individual notes (e.g. wrong notes sequenced, velocity/duration of individual notes). My notation editing is for tidying up individual sequenced notes. That's all.

Yes, turning off the timing and metronome and rely totally on rubato is really difficult. Did it only once (experimentation), and with a piece with few instruments. Not game enough to try more complex piece using that technique - but maybe I'll try one day! My genre - usually orchestral, jazz, fusion, occasional pop. Always wanted to try electronic and dance music and fuse that with orchestral elements. My problem is I've got no time to try...

As for quantization - I almost never quantize! Only occasionally drums when I need the bass drum beat to be dead accurate. I can actually hear that you quantize from your tracks. Try turning it off. You'll be surprised at the result!
 
Last edited:
=greybackshadow

You could program your own click to the section of the song you want. For me I use tempo automation. The most complex will be film scoring. I have a mix of live playing and quantisation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I seldom use notation software too, only use it when I'm doing classical music. If not I'll be using just like what you do, a keyboard controller. It's either I record live, or I'll use my keyboard as a midi controller. But so far I've not used theory to write any orchestral or "modern-day" music, unless its classical! I want to try out electronic with orchestral too, just like how Two Steps From Hell does it, check them out, you might like their works. Don't forget the famous Hans Zimmer! He adds electronic to orchestral film scores too!
For me, I'll have to rely quite a lot on quantization due to my playing skills (not good to the point I can play the whole song without errors, unless I record each section/phrase part by part), and time constraint. I'm in the army now, don't have so much time to spend on 1 arrangement! Time is very important!!
I don't quantize when I'm recording live, cause sometimes it can screw up the waveforms and mess up the recording. Unlike midi whereby you can "drag" the notes when they're not properly quantized. When I improve my playing skills or get better instrumentalist to play it, then I'll be able to turn it off!

- - - Updated - - -

Kongwee, thanks for telling me about tempo automation. I'll check it out, but I'm sure it'll be a great help for achieving effects like smorzando!
 
Kongwee, thanks for telling me about tempo automation. I'll check it out, but I'm sure it'll be a great help for achieving effects like smorzando!
 
My problem with automating tempo is that it's usually done at the end of the arrangement process, which is when I usually use it. It's very helpful for control of tempo and timing. However for pieces for a lot of rubato over the entire piece, it's best done at the time it's played to be the most expressive.

Heard a person who did an entire orcehstral piece with rubato style without using metronome or timing guide at all. Amazing results, but must be a lot of work!
 
My problem with automating tempo is that it's usually done at the end of the arrangement process, which is when I usually use it. It's very helpful for control of tempo and timing. However for pieces for a lot of rubato over the entire piece, it's best done at the time it's played to be the most expressive.

Heard a person who did an entire orcehstral piece with rubato style without using metronome or timing guide at all. Amazing results, but must be a lot of work!

His DAW must be very powerful to do that.
 
Actually not! He did it totally by using midi sequencing skills. Very impressive. That was many years ago, when sampling was at the early stages of being evolved. People were asking him to share his midi sequences on how he did it. He didn't share, of course!
 
Seems like I am late to this discussion. Unlike the greybackshadow or cheez, I am not a real arranger. I have programmed 1 or 2 songs before on midi, and I know what I want it to sound like, but that's basically it. All my "arrangements" are basically imaginary. I will not be able to talk about the nitty gritty like those two, but I believe I have a precise enough idea of what I want.

A lot of the time, composition and arrangement are separate. But sometimes they are not. That usually happens when a song is not much of a song but rather a lot of hooks piled up upon each other. And that's when the line is blurred. In some forms, like soul music, the melody and the arrangement is blended together, hard to tell when one begins and the other ends. Like Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean". There are about 4 or 5 hooks. (drums / bass / keyboards / violin figure / guitar figure / conga shaker) and they are all interlocked, fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle. The melody is not that interesting, the chords are not that interesting, the real song is in those 4 or 5 hooks.

If you listen to what Stevie Wonder was coming up with in the 70s, you should remind yourself that he's blind, younger than 25, and playing most of the instruments himself - drums, bass, keyboards. Without the aid of sight, without the aid of MIDI. Most songs, I can listen and play out what are the individual parts. I haven't been able to do that with "Superstition". I heard that there are up to 9 keyboards in there. It doesn't seem stiff, but it's light and bouncy. So I also consider Stevie a master arranger.

So this sort of thing usually happens in soul music where the melody / chord sequence takes a back seat, and texture / rhythm takes a more prominent role. It also turns up in the music of Can and more recently Verve's "Bitter Sweet Symphony" which is basically the same thing repeated over and over for 5 minutes but it still sounds great because every time it's played different.

You can learn a lot about soul music because some of the greatest arrangements are in soul music. I was listening to "More Than a Woman" by the Bee Gees the other day. I know that a lot of people look down on disco but there is a lot going on in there. I would love to produce something like that one day but they are operating on a very high level. Everything is in there - rhythm section, strings, rhodes piano. How does the Rhodes piano play minimally, decorate the sound, but at the same time not draw too much attention to itself? And notice that at different parts of a song - particularly those recorded in a studio, the balance between the instruments change abruptly. Some parts that were soft are suddenly mixed up, and others mixed down.

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys is known as a great arranger due to his work on "Pet Sounds". But there is another guy who is very subtle. He is Brian Eno, who produced for Talking Heads / David Bowie / U2 / Coldplay. You can listen to his own ambient music albums, which were made for the purpose of "background music which is always interesting but should never stand out". Which is ironic because he was basically kicked out of Roxy music for sticking out too much.

I never write music in front of an instrument. Anything I write, I know what it sounds like. Then again, a lot of the times, you can come up with a melody in one context, it doesn't make sense. But when you switch context, it fits. In a way, there's no need to think too much about arrangements, because arrangements are like recipes. You know what the major recipes are: there is the Rolling Stones sound, the U2 sound, the Pavement sound, the Smiths sound. Just take a recipe, the one that fits, and then recreate that sound. If you write a song, you can ask yourself, is this a Rolling Stone / U2 / Pavement / etc song?

Most of the arrangement is done in the head, because you need to imagine how everything is going to fit together. There is no use you having one piece here that sounds nice, another piece that sounds nice, and when you put them together, they clash, and you didn't figure that out because you can't imagine what the instruments sound like.

Having a good pair of ears is a prerequisite for arrangements, unfortunately. There is no substitute for listening to something and knowing exactly what to fix.

There is one rock solid rule for arrangement I want to point out: if you are repeating a section of music, never use the same arrangement the second time around. You will be wasting an opportunity to make it sound more interesting. One common trick, the drum part gets more and more complicated 2nd, 3rd, 4th time. It will be subtle and not everbody will notice, but it is vital.

One interesting aspect of arrangement is writing the guitar solo. It has to be treated with care, since the guitar solo is often the climax of the song. This is when the arrangements are the most intricate, most complex. It's like football when the ball is played into the path of the striker - whether it is a goal or not depends on whether you get it right. I've had experience where the song takes 5 minutes to write, but I take hours figuring out the guitar solo.
 
Hi all.

This thread has been a very interesting read. I've been breaking songs down and trying to figure out the parts but I can't seem to break out from the simple tabbing out a song process to actually understanding the song. It's like ok. During the build up, the bass plays this and the keyboard plays that, but I don't understand how they generate the "building up" feel.

@centralcatchment, when you talked about sounding like U2 or the rolling towns, I've always associated sound with instrument tone. How does composition relate to sound?
 
Back
Top