I’m a member of the band Gert. Until we played together in person this summer, our year-long collaboration was entirely virtual. 6 song writers, a continent apart, connected by musical tastes and the Internet. We’re still a band in the general sense, but in place of schedule conflicts, angry neighbours, and ego clashes, we deal with time zones, bit rates, and ego clashes.
The 6 of us have played in bands for years, but most of our past experience isn’t relevant to creating music virtually. Collaborating with 3000 miles between band mates has little in common with traditional jamming. Though that’s not always a bad thing, as we’ve discovered in the last year. On one hand, music – especially for performers – is interactive. With some limited exceptions, the Internet does not facilitate real-time musical interaction, so musicians who rely on visual or audible cues are at a disadvantage. But on the other hand, creativity is usually a personal and private experience. Many people feel liberated with no band mates or groupies in the room, which in turn opens up creative avenues not possible with the traditional approach.
In Gert, we’ve learned to work around the obstacles to our creativity, and in fact we’ve capitalized on the benefits the Internet affords us to create some fantastic music. Below, I provide insight into what it takes musicians in different cities to write and record a song together. I also describe in detail how we wrote Sweet Lovin’ Woman (I Hate You), with samples of the song as it progressed, and the discussion around the choices we made while writing.
If you’ve considered online collaboration yourself, or are simply curious about how distributed creativity works, read on.
In our year working together, we’ve refined our process for remote collaboration, both technically and creatively.
The technical details are straightforward:
- We use a phpBB board for discussion (visit Gert Mansion.) Though we could just as easily use email, we prefer the bulletin board because it keeps things centralized.
- We email MP3 versions of rough ideas. Since these ideas are only for discussion, quality isn’t important.
- We work to a click-track to keep things synched. To ensure that the raw tracks line up as intended, we agree on the song’s tempo beforehand, and include a bar or two of click-track at the start of each WAV file, in case a manual synch is needed.
- We collect raw tracks on a shared FTP server. When quality does matter, specifically for the individual tracks that make up the final mix, we use a shared FTP account and transfer 24 bit/44.1 KHz WAV files. Since none of us use the same DAW (collectively, we use Sonar, Cubase, and Digital Performer, on PCs and Macs,) we avoid program-specific formats and use raw WAV files for everything.
I say this is straightforward because most musicians collaborating online will, from necessity, learn these details quickly. (With the possible exception of the click-track, though it may not be important to everyone. In Gert, we realized early that we work chaotically, throwing parts at the wall to see what sticks. Without the luxury of first recording drums and bass as bed tracks, which is the traditional “band in the flesh” approach, we couldn’t keep things coherent without a click-track.)
The creative side of our process is more complicated. Like all creative activities, it varies somewhat each time we do it. However, after collaborating on 11 songs, we’ve learned what works and what doesn’t:
- Every songs start with an idea from one of us, usually a guitar riff with simple accompaniment (or in the case of Sweet Lovin Woman’, a bass loop.) Generally, we propose ideas via email with a quickly-recorded scratch track. However, this doesn’t guarantee the band will immediately work on the new song, as we have 3 or 4 ideas on the table at any time. We don’t make real progress on a song until one of us arranges a structure. (More on this below.)
- Each member of Gert has presented ideas. We write by collaboration. While this may not work for all bands (for example, many depend on a primary song writer for ideas,) Gert has 6 musicians with solo catalogs and egos.
- We don’t present “finished” ideas. Since we aim to collaborate, we’ve found it best to build the song collectively rather than rely on a single songwriter as architect.
- We agree on a structure. The ball doesn’t get rolling on our songs until someone is inspired to arrange a proper structure. Mostly, this involves deciding how the song should flow: Will there be a chorus? 3 or 4 verses? 16 bars of guitar wankery, or should we let Mike sing a little longer? You can see this clearly below, where I take Paul’s idea, propose a chorus for it, and map out the song’s sections.
- One person volunteers to mix. There’s a technical reason for this (i.e. it’s not possible for multiple people in different cities to simultaneously mix the song,) but it’s also a creative requirement. We need a designated mixer because, while everyone in Gert maintains their creative freedom, we recognize that someone has to make final decisions. Sometimes a riff or harmony just doesn’t fit, so we have the mixer to serve as director (and occasionally, benevolent dictator … remember: Egos!) In the example below, I played this role.
- We write … This is the meat of Gert’s creative process. For a few days, we enjoy a creative free-for-all. Anything goes: guitar riffs, lyrics, melodies, rhythms, harmonies. All 6 members of the band sing and play guitar, and 3 of us are drummers, so there are no designated instruments (though for consistency between songs, Tom always records the final drum track.) Ideally, as the song builds, we play off each other’s ideas with the bigger picture in mind, so each new part adds something to the song. When we’re done with our “audio brainstorming,” the mixer decides which pieces work best together, and starts on the final mix.
- We all approve the final mix. A second (or in our case, fifth) set of ears will hear nuances that the mixer’s ears glossed over. And since we all monitor through different equipment, feedback from the band is the virtual equivalent of checking how our mix translates to 5 different systems.
To show how this works in practice, I’ve assembled an audio chronology of our process for the song Sweet Lovin’ Woman. If your browser supports Flash you can hear the tracks below using the “play” button beside each sample, or you can stream/download an MP3 via the “mp3” link.
The “discussion” box that follows each sound file expands to show some of the emails we exchanged while working with the idea at that stage. Click on this box to see how we interact while collaborating.
If you’re not familiar with the song, you might enjoy following its creation before listening to the final version.
Paul started us off with a simple loop idea. His original track sounds nothing like the final song, though it does establish the bass line which became the song’s main instrumental hook.
Discussion (click to display)
Paul’s idea didn’t immediately inspire anyone else, so it sat neglected for a few days. This is actually the norm with our songwriting efforts, and it happens not because the initial ideas are bad, but because of the fickle nature of creativity. Writers rely on a creative spark, and until an idea manages to strike that spark, there’s not much we can do with it. In this case, Paul laid an ad-libbed vocal (though much of it remains in the final version) over top of his original idea, lighting a fire under our creativity and the debate that accompanies it.
Lively debate on how to proceed is a sure sign that an idea resonates with the band. The main topic of debate here was whether we should add a chorus section or leave this track as a “jam.”
The mixer is charged with discarding pieces that don’t fit the final mix, but we also drop concepts as we write. When it’s obvious something doesn’t fit, or would take us in the wrong direction, we put the idea aside. In this example, Rich proposed a Radiohead-esque vocal line that wasn’t so well-received.
We hadn’t agreed yet on whether or not the song needed a change – be it a chorus or bridge – but as I listened to Paul’s idea I heard what seemed like a natural change. So I recorded my thoughts, and stitched them together with Paul’s idea. (Note: The song sounds significantly different here because I added a drum machine to tie our parts together.)
Along with my recording, I mapped out how I thought the song should flow, start to finish. You can see this in the discussion below. I went with a standard rock song arrangement, with verses, choruses, and a solo break. The mp3 of this idea that I shared with the band ran the full 96 bars so others could use it as a backing track for their subsequent ideas.
The next few samples show what I described as the meat of our writing process. The song evolves iteratively, with each of us trying ideas and adding parts to previous mixes. In this sample, Rob added some keyboard noodling and a percussion riff between the first two verses.
At this point, I also volunteered to mix the final track, as Tom (who originally wanted a crack at it) was too busy. The mixer plays a creative role, and each of us is qualified for the job, so we take turns at mixing. Tom did the next song.
Here, Rich added a “porno” guitar riff (or “Shaft” riff if you prefer.) More importantly, he presented a vocal for the chorus section that we agreed unanimously was perfect. Given the importance of the chorus as hook in most rock songs, it might seem odd to write the chorus in the middle of the process, almost as an afterthought. However, that’s one of our favorite aspects of this approach. If something doesn’t work, we drop it, and when something works as well as Rich’s chorus, it stands out!
(This sample also illustrates our lack of concern for audio quality while we share ideas. Rich didn’t waste time balancing his mix, because his simple “faders-up” mix conveyed all we needed to hear.)
Next, Rob added some ebow’d guitar. This became my favorite moment in the song, because of the way it carries the listener into the second verse.
This sample features Paul’s re-tracked vocals (with no ad-libs this time,) and Tom’s first contribution to the track (with lots of ad-libs.) His drum part is clearly a jam, but hearing his thoughts let us give him the feedback he needed to nail the part.
Here, Mike added his distinctive voice to the song’s intro.
As we near the end of our writing process, Tom needs a drum-free mix to record his final drum take with. The drum-free mix makes it easier for him to follow changes and accents, and the bass guitar.
The sample here features the final versions of all parts (except the guitar solos,) including some harmonies that Rich and I added.
And here is the final mix, with Tom’s “keeper” drum performance. I made a few changes as I mixed, adding a second guitar solo in the break section, and an extra beat at the end of the intro to help the first verse’s impact.
We were thrilled with how this track turned out. And 9 successful collaborations later, Sweet Lovin’ Woman is still my favorite Gert song, because we clicked so well creatively while writing it. (You can hear our other work on Gert’s web site.) Even though geography separates us, we’ve found, in our virtual creative process, a way to connect and create some great music.
For more articles on collaboration and home recording in general,
Subscribe to the Hometracked feed.
Tags: collaboration, songfight
15 comments
Trackback URI Comments feed for this article
How did you guys find each other? Did you set some minimum requirements (skill & equipment-wise) for who you would include?
I would love to do something like this, too!
Peace,
Donnie
Hey Donnie,
We met on Songfight. We didn’t need to set minimum requirements because, having heard each other’s previous work through the site, it was obvious that we all had similar backgrounds and skill levels. In hindsight, we probably gravitated towards each other for that reason.
If you’re interested in collaborating online, you should check out My Virtual Band (and, of course, Songfight.)
Cheers.
Great sounding song guys! I’m doing this process with a few others as well… but 6 of you? That’s awesome control of the egos guys.
Peace out,
ri
Cheers ri.
About the egos, it helps a lot that we’ve all played in bands before. We know to expect the occasional prima donna moments, and just roll with them.
And if I had to give just one suggestion: Make sure you put a person in charge of the mix *ahead* of time, so everyone agrees that person has final say. Then there’s no squabbling when differences do arise. (And they will :-|)
It’s also a good idea to name someone you’re “chief squabbler”.
For us, I’m not gonna say who the chief squabbler is . . . could it be me? Could it?
Obviously enough, Des is our technical genius, and personally, I’d prefer if Des or Rob mixed all our tracks.
Des, I heard that you also created a midi track from Tom’s drums, and mixed in samples with his actual recorded drums. Is this true?
great post! I’m part of a (still rather young) Internet collaboration (Canada/Texas) as well. We haven’t met yet.
However our collaboration explores a bit of a different twist: A two-way songwriting/recording collaboration followed by many remixes of a wider (and totally open) circle of friends from all over the place. In our case, we are thinking of remixing in a really broad production sense, giving tons of artistic liberty, change the chords, change any parts, add anything, change genres.
I look at this kind of remixing as sequential collaboration, which is another way of avoiding ego clashes, … eehm I mean perfectly reasonable disagreements between always rational fellow music makers :-), since many remixes create many outcomes/versions. You don’t like it, you remix it!
Some remixes end up being better than the “original”, most are at least interesting different takes on a song. I can highly recommend it , remixing as well as being remixed. It’s a total rush!
If you’re curious, the link under my name leads to this collaboration project “a minor theory” (or google for it), however be warned: it’s likely way too synth-pop for your ears! Then again you could fix that through a crunchy 6 guitar remix! :-)
For our original two-way collaboration we use an internal wiki for some of our work. It’s especially useful for lyrics collaboration, since a decent wiki keeps track of versions, so you never really loose a good idea, because it still exists in previous versions. In other ways, we operate similarly to your collab: FTP server, email (mp3’s for drafts, wav and/or midi for tracks to be used in the productions. However, instead of using click tracks at the beginning of our audio files, we just have the convention, that wav files always start at a bar boundary.
Had to glance over this article quickly, but I thought I’d point out a site some fellow readers might enjoy – http://jamnow.com
It’s not solid yet, but you guys might find some new collaborative talent out there!
I imagine Ninjam is better though for serious recordings.
Cheers!
Jeremy, from the Opus Team
http://www.projectopus.com
Rock and hip hop have collaborated for years.
You have some pretty good articles on this sit mate. Good job keep it up aye. =]
Cool article on collaboration. I have noticed there are more and more sites out there for collaboration which is pretty cool. Depending however on what type of collaboration you are doing there are limitation with these sites. I have found that some don’t allow bigger WAV file to be uploaded and you can only use MP3. The problem with only allowing MP3 is they don’t sound all that good, especially if you have remixed them a few times.
Another problem with some of these sites is your track can be heard by everyone. This is great when you are looking for musicians to collaborate with, but not so cool if you are already working with a group. People can steal a cool riff or idea.
There are also very few sites that will allow you to upload .wav or .aiff files over 30meg or so, which depending on your bit rate is about a 3 minute WAV track.
I have also tried the real time online jamming and do to the latency their not much fun if you ask me. Some claim they have solved the latency problem, but I am not sure how they broke the laws of physics. Perhaps they transport you, now that would be worth paying for!
Currently I have been collaborating with a group on a site called Sarzar.com. We ended up on this site because there is no bull, and they allow uploads of .wav or .aiff file up to 100meg. The site also gives you a lot of storage for your sessions. I believe between the four of us we have something like 4gig. You can also hold completely private sessions, which is great because no one can see or hear your stuff, so you maintain control of your rights.
All in all, I think if you are looking just to have fun collaborating with new people, sites like Kompoz are cool. But if you are doing more serious online music collaboration I would check out Starzar.