I'm looking for ideas. I'll get an idea for a song (normally a unique way to cover an existing song but sometimes an original) and will get the song structured just the way I want the song to sound in my mind. I'll have a good idea of the key, tempo style, feel and instruments that meet my needs. At this point I start working with 2013 BIAB and begin to loose my vision of the song.

My starting style selection will normally be something "close" to what I want. Most of the time only one instrument will play somthing similiar to what I have in mind so everthing else gets muted and I listen to the unmuted instrument while entering chords for the first verse. The vision starts to shift because of the influence of the "close" style.

Next comes instrument track selection. I may use mixer setting to swap instruments or try other styles to find one that is closer to meeting my need. The more instrument tracks or styles I try the more it seems I loose my vision for the song. By now, it's gone and I quit working on it, frustrated.

I've got four or five songs sitting in folders that I can't advance beyond this stage. I just can't get them to sound like I want. I get offtrack trying to zero in on the right style or selecting instruments that wil play what I want.

All advice will be greatly appreciated.

Hi Jim,

In my early days of using BB, I would have some of the same frustrations that you have described. Here is what worked for me (may or may not work for you...)

It occurred to me that I was the one that needed to expand my vision of what my song would sound like. For me, RealTracks and RealDrums are the main route. Not to start any more midi wars, but just my personal preference for the basic rhythm section is RT's (sometimes I will use midi drums). Two things I take into consideration...

1.) RealTracks are not going to be completely programmable to play note for note what you want to hear (at least not to date). As you stated, you can usually find at least one instrument that will come pretty close. For me, even if the notes and rhythms are what I "hear", if they don't end up blending well with the overall arrangement, they get replaced by something that does blend properly. So if the RT's are not going to be "exactly" what I want, and that cannot be changed, then I am the one who needs to be open to change. That leads to point #2...

2.) As a result, I consider the arranging process with Band in a Box to be still a part of the songwriting process. When you think about it, if you are working in a band (with real people) and you bring a new composition to the table, it is really rare that your original idea for how the finished song will sound totally comes to pass. Inevitably, a guitar player will come up with a signature lick that makes the chorus, etc. The better the musicians you are working with, the more freedom you will want to give them in this creative process. After all, it's what they do the best.

So when I get to the arrangement part of my songwriting, I think of it as if I am auditioning some of the finest studio musicians in the world. I have a basic idea of what I think the song should sound like, but MANY times in the arrangement process, I hear something that captures my attention. Instead of rejecting this every time, I allow myself to go with it.

Again, this is what works for me, and I am not saying you must follow this method. But I would recommend that you try it. Don't turn off the creative juices of your songwriting when you start up Band in a Box. Let Band in a Box help to take you to another level of creativity. You've got some of the finest, most creative studio musicians in the world, playing some of their best licks and riffs right there for you. Take them in and make them your own.

Hope this helps. Good luck!

Steve

Ps. Nothing takes the place of becoming familiar with the RealTracks you have. The more you play around with the tracks, the more you will find what suits you. Also, don't be afraid to listen to parts that you might not think would work in your arrangement. I have been pleasantly surprised on many occasions with parts that I did not think would work together. It's a bit overwhelming, but keep chipping away at it. It sure is fun!

Jim,

How did you write your songs before you got BIAB? On your guitar? Piano? Try going back to that.


Regards,


Bob

Do you surf? How does a surfer ride the wave? Does he/she, have a planned route? Essentially they want to ride it as best they can.....

Nothing in a wave is ever fixed in stone. It's always a fluid, ever moving, ever changing world.

So too, I believe, with song writing. When I start writing a song, I have an idea where I want to take it, but that path is constantly changing in the writing process. The key, the tempo, the groove, the style, the lyrics, the melody, the chords..... all in a state of constant motion until nearing the very end of the process.

It changes even further as I start to lay tracks for that now completed song in my studio. Once again, nothing is ever fixed in stone. I "go with the flow" and more often than not, the end result is actually better in many ways than I imagined it would be.

Very few writers, I believe, know exactly what the song will sound like before it's written..... what we hear in our heads rarely translates exactly to the DAW.

As far as the unfinished tunes in the folders.... pull them out and just roll with the flow and see what happens. Needless to say.... every year, I start a new "catch all" folder I call my song tank... I name it Song Tank 2014 or whatever year it represents. All my ideas go into that main folder. Some get finished during the year and some actually get deleted. I normally end up with about 80% of the ideas in there not completed. Don't lose sleep over it, just come up with more ideas and according to the rules of statistics, some percentage of them will get done. Of those, several may actually be much better than what you originally envisioned.

Also, the more you work with BB/RB, the better you will become at translating the sounds in your head into sounds coming out of the speakers being similar to what you first imagined.

Yes, exactly. Who was it that said that the editing process was not finished until you couldn't strip anything more away? - some famous person.

Not to throw out the importance of these autoaccompaniment tools - but for your description, Jim - it sounds like they are somewhat getting in the way.

Great analogy with the surfing. Same goes for skiing. My 'song tank' is more of a lyric and melody snippet tank - it's in my iPhone. I will speak lyric snippets in, or hum/sing melodies that I want to develop further. Sometimes I remember that I have that tank and will draw from it, sometimes I don't.

Look at it this way, not every song is a hit - even with a very broad definition that a hit is getting something to sound like you hear it in your head. This is the premise of the February Album Writing Month challenge at www.fawm.org

Be prolific in your songwriting. Now and then, a gem comes out of the process. The chance of a gem is much higher if you simply make a habit of documenting your efforts, whether that's in a BIAB/RB song-structure, a hummed melody, lyrics scratched down or spoken into a recorder, etc. Don't let the muse slip away - we have all kinds of technology to trap muse sightings.

Jim, to break any habit of over thinking a song, please join us at the February Album Writing Month site. If it's not yet live for 2014, it should be before the end of January. www.fawm.org

Make sure to go to the .org URL extension. You have been warned!

Jim, I have experienced the same thing from time to time. Sometimes the problem is that BIAB has very specific sounds and if they do not fit your vision for your song it can feel forced, kinda like someone else is writing your song. Nothing wrong with the advice to go with it and let BIAB determine the feel of your song but also nothing wrong with dropping back to your own instruments until you get the song at least roughly fleshed out just like you want it.

Try composing your song without any instruments involved at all.

In your head. Hear it first.

Why?

Because, all to often, when we use our familiar instrument, we tend to play the same old familiar stuff on it.



--Mac

Jim,

Seems like you are getting everything except an answer to your question..

All that stuff is, of course, valid - and useful. But that doesn't mean that you cannot get what you want from BIAB (most of the time, at least).

For the most part, I always have in my head what I want a song to be.
75-80% of the time I can make that happen. Of the other 20%, half is a new direction because something in the process sends me down a terrific new path (as expounded in most of the responses) the other half (10% ?) is because I just can't get what I'm looking for.

Here are some ideas that might help you get what you are after...

Start with just drums and bass. They are your backbone - and if you can get the right feel there, you can build on that. They can come from that "close style" or from building from scratch - find a drum kit (the Nashville Even8 will cover a LOT of territory) and audition every bass until you find the one that works (perfectly) for the song at hand. Don't add anything until you have this right! You should be able to sing along with just the drums and bass, comfortably - thinking "that sounds right!"

Once you have that, add ONE rhythm instrument. An acoustic guitar - fingerpicking or strumming. Or a piano (a simple one). Occasionally, an electric rhythm guitar will work. If you cannot find one, play the part yourself (I'm assuming you go to a DAW to mix).

At that point, it should still have the backbone (sound) that you envision.

Then... record your vocals (and harmonies) - even if they are scratch at this point. Mix that. It should still sound like what you are after - even more so... One place to really "go wrong" is to try to get it ALL worked out before doing the vocals...

NOW... go forward - adding in the sweetening. Audition electric guitars to add - add them to your mix one at a time. If they don't fit (perfectly) delete them and move on. A background pedal steel? Audition them. Sometimes you simply won't find the right one. So.. try a fiddle... an accordion... work at the addition of other rhythm instrument before adding any soloing - save that for last ...

When you've finished that process, your song should still sound like what you had in mind (and usually better than you imagined!).

Then go back and record your final vocal - to a track that sounds the way you wanted it to...

Hope that helps a bit...

floyd

Floyd,

Nice explanation of a solid process for building songs in BIAB that can fit our vision of what the song should be like.

I think the answers or recommendations being submitted here are addressing the issue nicely. Interesting topic.

It is a rare individual who has the talent or is surrounded by musicians with the talent to take a song as conceived in one's mind and get it into a recorded medium exactly like it was originally in their head. Not impossible, but not very likely IMHO.

I do think the more you write and translate the ideas into the real world the better you become at both.

As far as being a prolific writer.... absolutely. I heard Jeff Steele speak about his writing. He had 24 #1 country hits at that time. His goal is to write something new every single day. Assume a 5 day work week writing songs and he gets about 250 songs a year. if 10% are worthy and get recorded, that's 25 cuts, and he said he averaged about 1 in 100 actually getting up the charts to the top as singles. Yes, you need to write a bunch of rocks to find the gems in the lot. Simply write..... don't be looking to intentionally write a #1 song, just write from the heart, follow the twists and turns on the way and things will either work out or they won't.....either way... did you learn something in the process and have fun? If yes... mission accomplished.

Well, it depends on certain other factors as well. Fairly easy to get what you wrote on the score when the thing is a bigband or orchestral piece. Then again, using a small combo where things are a bit more free can turn your vision around pretty quick.

One of the rules of production, though, is that if something isn't working, better to go with the flow, or try something else, rather than get into that rut of flogging the dead horse thing.

Anybody recall those Producer Flashcards?

My favorite one was, "Turn out the lights, walk out the door and go do something else."

Oh, and, "If you can't fix the mistake, emphasize it!"


--Mac

ha ha... one of my favorites when gigging live... playing guitar and hit that wanky wrong note.... don't grimace.... simply play it again.... intentionally... I even had one guy tell me "hey that thing you did on that solo was brilliant.."...and I'm standing there thanking him, smiling, thinking... dude,,, if you only knew...

If your a jazzer and pull that stunt, you;'re supposed to wait until after the song ends and lean over to one of the other members of the band and say, "Didja hear me get outside the changes on my solo?"

There's another way to handle the clam, rather than repeating it, there's an old jazz saying, "Redemption is only a half step away"...

I think floyd nailed it re RTs. The only thing I'd emphasize is that, at least for me and my musical interests, I often have to cut and paste multiple generations of RTs to get what I want - even rhythm tracks - in order to, well, stay on track.

Absolutely.... if I'm putting a song together, everything Floyd mentioned, and what you are saying .... well almost everything, is what I do. I listen to a track, if it works, I keep it, if not, I delete it and try again or move on in a different direction.

In my latest song..."world".... I deleted 3 piano tracks and a fiddle track and several others that simply didn't work close enough to my plans. I rendered a 4th piano and it worked well enough to keep it. The fiddle got deleted, and I probably should have deleted the cello too, but I simply pulled the levels low on it and the string section.

Working with BB/RB, currently there is no way for you to have it create exactly what you hear in your head, so we are, by default, forced to choose other paths as the writing process continues. "riding the wave" .... Unlike a live player with a piano or a guitar or bagpipes for that matter, we can not force RT to play exactly what we want..... at least, not yet.

That is not to say that we can't get a very usable output from RT. I've used this example before, on the song The Best Christmas....I rendered the piano 3 different times, and the lead guitar 5 different times. All 8 tracks for those 2 instruments are in the mix. I used a common bus with EQ and verb, and compression in it, with the individual tracks enveloped as needed to play the fills and the solo. As a result, I was able to get pretty much everything I needed.... perhaps not exactly what I wanted, but what I needed to get the song done to a high level of satisfaction.


some thoughts....

I will respectfully disagree. You can get BiaB and RB to create exactly what you hear in your head using MIDI.

I say this not to start another MIDI/RT war but to put out the point that the main themes you hear in your head can be put down along with RTs playing in the background. Good sounding MIDI sound sources can even sound better with RTs in the background. Some MIDI background tracks like Aahs, strings, pianos etc can sound great behind RT leads like saxes, pedal steel guitar, fiddles etc.

The main point that I am trying to make is do not limit yourself to just RTs or MIDI. Both have strengths and weaknesses. They are tools you already have so why not use both?

Jim, this one statement from your original post is likely at the root of the whole matter.

There have been several pieces of advice given about keeping things simple, or going with the flow.

Two different approaches, each with their own benefits.

You are trying to map out what you hear in your head to what you want the end result to sound like.

This will be very difficult with adding in any kind of auto-accompaniment, unless you start from there-that's my opinion.

The auto accompaniment has it's character and mindset of the player/programmer and you really have no direct way of communicating your vision to them other than through tempo, style selection, instrument selection - but you can't tell the player - stay off of these notes, do a parallel harmony to my melody that I'm singing, etc. like you can with a live band.

Totally o.k., but it will likely frustrate you if you are depending on the backing tracks to sound like your prescribed vision/audible idea of how the thing should sound.

The other folks say 'go with the flow' and this is probably going to be the better way to a pleasant result when using auto accompaniment - as you can riff off of the accompaniment ideas to take the song in a new direction, like you do when you sit and write with other folks.

One thing to also keep in mind, most pop music in any style these days is not 50 tracks/instruments stacked simultaneously on each other - quite the opposite. Now, they might be using tons of tracks total, but at any one time in the song, the arrangement is pretty sparse. I hear SOME users of BIAB/RB that think that since they put a fiddle track in, they need to let it be audible for the whole danged song, and mandolin, and piano and acoustic guitar and and and. The process of elimination naturally highlights what should really be in focus. Use elimination of tracks for large sections of the song - use a known arrangement/production as a guide.

Some great comments; I hope you'll keep presenting ideas. One point that may have been overlooked in my first posting is I create cover songs most of the time though I have created a few originals. For the question I'm asking it may not make a difference to your responses.

One question that comes to mind is how much do the style and RealTracks interact? Sometimes I will start with a midi, hybrid or Real style and it seems that the more I swap out instruments the more the sound drifts away from the feel I started with. Even reverting back to the original instruments don't seem to capture the original feel I started with.

Now that this was said I'll add my way. I ONLY play live. No interest in making CDs to listen to.
Many years ago I started this and have gone through many evolutions BUT because I was approaching this as I one -man-band I wanted to be unique so i took this approach.
1. I do not try and copy cover songs verbatim. I stay true to the chord progression, lyrics and melody.
2. I have settled on a Band Lineup of players. Like a real band.
3. The arrangements are for my band.
What I end up with is a band with there own consistent sound doing their own arrangements.It makes for a much more believable One man show.Less Karaoke sounding in my opinion.Because I end up not sounding exactly like the record when I'm asked, " were do you get your songs"? and I say "well I do all the arrangements myself, I play the live parts, I play some of the recorded parts and friends/non friends play the other parts",it's believable and is the truth.

John, for covers, I like that technique too. You're unlikely to sound exactly the same as the original artist, so don't try to do that. Make it your version.

I actually like rharv's signature "Make your sound your own!"

For covers, close is good enough in most cases. Every band I've ever been in, most of which were cover bands, none of them every played a song note for note like the artist.

The old adage of "Make it your own" holds true.

In this case, BB/RB will get you there in fine fashion. I've used it to recreate a few covers through the years and they came out amazingly close to the originals... with my twist and signature on them.

I should have been clearer in stating that. I'm not talking about song ideas when I said that. I have yet to have a song idea that was undo-able in BB/RB. BB/RB is the best work sheet for my writing ever.

What I specifically meant is that I have not found a way (perhaps there is a way that I don't know of yet, although I've had that conversation in the past with several folks) to have a real track play a specific melody line for a song.

Yes I know I can use midi to trigger a synth with some sweet samples and get that melody line I want, but doing it using real tracks and the sound samples real tracks use.... nope, I have not found that workaround yet.

That said, I can often find useful parts in the real tracks. Some that are simply amazing in what they play and I'm able to work them in well to the overall vision for the song.

hope that clarifies it a bit.

Thanx Herb for clarifying that. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

I agree that you can not get RTs to play note for note what you want. But if it could I think it would be just like MIDI, that is notes with no expression. RTs have great expression and nuances in them whereas with MIDI you have to emulate them yourself. Just my thoughts here.

and there you go.... that would be the magic that RT would need to incorporate..... even if the processing took longer..... it would look at the midi track and with it's black box algorithms, determine the articulations based on note pattern, style, and player...... and produce a track..... I'll bet that's being worked on in the deepest darkest recesses of the PG music labs programming dept...

That would be ideal wouldn’t it! You could play your part, have the RT generate a part and both would be the identical sound. That would be a huge improvement if they could pull it off.

I think it's only a matter of time....

I sure hope so! That would be neat!