Layering tracks, is this the correct way of doing thing???

  • Thread starter Thread starter TDOT
  • Start date Start date
T

TDOT

New member
This is my workflow and process, for layering my tracks and making it complete, or trying to at least.

1. Melody: Based on my scale, I'll come up with a catchy melody.
2. Bassline: Based on scale will play a bassline
3. Counter Melody : Same thing based on the scale will come up with a counter-melody usually fasterpaced
4: Harmony: Will try and play a basic chord progression or Arpeggio
5. Effects: Any effects to bring out the beat even more and for transitionss etc.

Is this a good structure to a track? Should I change anything or add anything???
Any tips on counter melody??? With my melody being simple I try and make the counter melody a little more exciting.

Thanks,​
 
this a list of structural layers not a layering list of sounds.

But this is a good set of structural ideas

This one of the problems of language we have when talking about music, knowing whether we are discussing structural or tracking terms.

Layering a kick means having different sounds playing at the same time to make a single kick drum sound

Layering when it comes to functional/structural stuff is an entirely different strategy set.
 
Thanks BandCoach,

That's what I what more so referring too, structural layering. The structural layers of my tracks.
Was wondering if that enough to make my track feel complete or more full. Sometimes I feel as if something is missing or that my track is plain.

Does boubling up on ocatves give that feeling of fullness?
 
Octave doubling can fill stuff out

adding in another layer of percussion can also fill those gaps, but use it sparingly or it will seem like it was added for the sake of adding it
 
Exactly, sometime I add drums but it just sounds as if it's not needed or really shouldn't be there.
Thanks
 
Good ol' effects will thicken up/fill things out too.

Which is why I think mixing is probably the most important step in making a song.

Think about how many very basic, plain, hit songs you've ever heard.

Have you ever said they were missing something or sounded thin? No? Mixing my friend ;)
 
I agree, mixing is as much, if not more important than the actual melodies and harmonies you add to a song. You could improve much more in a short amount of time by focusing on mixing technique and rhythm theory than you ever could with harmonic theory that is usually what people think of when they say music theory in general. Western music theory and its focus mainly on melodies, harmonies, and counterpoint are great when u know how to apply it but engineering skills combined with A LOT of ear training will give u skills that u will use in ALL songs not just some. I know theory and I use it in many styles of music but knowing how to get the sound that I hear in my head is the whole point is it now?
 
When I find something is missing I tend to analyze it similar to programming, in other words, an "if then" statement. For example "If My bass sound was stronger it would accentuate this lead more.", or "If the osc of this lead were detuned it would sound phatty.". Sometimes what's lacking in the music is the inability to put forth the effort and time to make something sound fuller (guilty...).
 
Danon BREZ said:
I agree, mixing is as much, if not more important than the actual melodies and harmonies you add to a song. You could improve much more in a short amount of time by focusing on mixing technique and rhythm theory than you ever could with harmonic theory that is usually what people think of when they say music theory in general.
Click to expand...

I think it's cause almost everybody already has a built in concept of tonal and atonal sounds.

Basically we're born to hear harmony and can instantly tell when something clashes with that.
 
I agree also, an even mix and adding effects properly will definitely thicken it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top