Making a sparse, minimal arrangement interesting?

[frank1985]

Ok a bit of a noob question this.

Listen to this track - the arrangement is quite sparse, hardly any layers/instruments - just kick, bass, snare, a repetitive synth motif in the midrange, and a twinkly synth further up the register.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIXYPjIWPGY

There are large periods where it's just the bass and drums playing together, or the synths and drums without, bass.

In these moments (and even when all instruments are playing at once), how is the space 'filled out'? I've tried creating a similar sounding track with a similar arrangement in the past, but I struggled to match the 'beefyness' of this mix, even with liberal use of reverb and saturation. In fact it sounded pretty empty.

I realise richard d james is a bit of a rare breed and this isn't an exact science, but any tips on how to best emulate this minimal but still grandiose sound?

[wagtunes]

What I do is add subtle synth sounds throughout. A pluck here. A swell there. A bloop here and a blurp there. The key is to keep the piece moving even though there is really very little going on of "substance."

Here's a track from a CD I did 2 years ago called Botany Bay. Notice all the little things I have coming in and out throughout the piece. That's what keeps it moving along without it getting monotonous and boring.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... botany-bay

[Michael L]

Notice the subtle changes in the bass line, and in the drum kit, and in how differences in the drum and bass alternate. Our ear picks up these differences almost subconsciously. (Subtle change is a common method for minimalist composers)
IIRC, James composes the main melody on the piano where it is easier to hear small differences, and then transfers his arrangements to other instruments.
Perhaps do the same thing: compose bass on a piano, then transfer to synth but don't mask differences with FX.

[experimental.crow]

heh ...
i didn't find that track particularly minimal ; it's actually a bit busy by my standards ...
'stone in focus' would be a better example , imho ...

as to how ?..
something that i consider on a daily basis ...
i don't see this as being a 'noob' question ...

[Forgotten]

I agree it’s not particularly minimal, and I think there’s a lot of movement dynamically and in how the frequency range is filled.

Listen to how slowly the instruments are brought in after the drums come in - every bar is very slightly different from the previous one.

There’s also quite a bit of ambient noise in there from various sources, including what many would consider unwanted hiss.

The various instruments are quite disparate, but that’s not a problem if you can glue them together well (in this case with EQ, compression and reverb). It’s also not heavily quantized - there’s a certain amount of groove in there that was there to begin with rather than an artificial groove such as the type added by a DAW.

[legendCNCD]

Yep. Modulation, movement, small changes, ambience or ambience sounds

[frank1985]

Thanks for the tips guys, appreciate it - another eureka moment i had was using eq on the verb channel to fill things out a bit at the top.

And Wags, I really enjoyed that track, genuinely - I've listened to quite a bit of your more poppy/ballady stuff in the Music Cafe and the funny thing is I can still hear your signature sound on this more experimental number.

[lwj]

Curious nobody mentions the most important thing: make the sounds really interesting and captivating.

Also be aware of what a sound communicates to the listener. Is it a sound they’ll recognize and if so, what will they associate it with. Like in this Aphex Twin track, why did he pick a sampled breakbeat? That’s not really his signature MO. Would the naive synth melodies still work the same with his typical glitch drum fuckery? Note the contrast between the smooth nimble break and the rather clumsily played bassline, and then how they interact. That’s the kind of subtle things he does to generate interest and meaning.

If you like this sound, definitely check out DJ Krush.. he is an absolute master at this.

[ariston]

Do what musicians (should) do.. imbue every note you play with feeling and meaning, and you really only need one instrument. I find dense arrangements often try to cover up a lack of inspiration.

[vurt]

Curious nobody mentions the most important thing: make the sounds really interesting and captivating.

Also be aware of what a sound communicates to the listener. Is it a sound they’ll recognize and if so, what will they associate it with. Like in this Aphex Twin track, why did he pick a sampled breakbeat? That’s not really his signature MO. Would the naive synth melodies still work the same with his typical glitch drum fuckery? Note the contrast between the smooth nimble break and the rather clumsily played bassline, and then how they interact. That’s the kind of subtle things he does to generate interest and meaning.

If you like this sound, definitely check out DJ Krush.. he is an absolute master at this.

because he was 12 at the time?

ok, maybe not 12 but it's from his early sessions. so his signature mo hadnt yet been established.