GodofCheesecake

This is something I struggle with, both as a songwriter and as a listener. The problem I have here is that whether or not there's a cohesive "idea" behind a piece of music is fairly subjective, as much as I hate to use that word. For instance, one could listen to a ten-minute song that doesn't repeat any parts and walk away feeling as though important thoughts, ideas, or emotions had been imparted during the experience, whereas one could just as easily listen to any number of three to four minute songs with predictable verse/chorus/verse structure and get nothing out of it.

From a songwriting perspective, I won't pretend to be particularly accomplished at writing with cohesiveness. I find that I excel at writing parts; it's the transitions between where I encounter difficulty. Generally, my approach to writing music is to listen to what I have so far and try to feel what comes next-- should the next part be fast and aggressive? Slower and more chilled out? Have I already locked into the perfect feel for this part? Should I keep it going? And this in turn dictates the approach I take in writing the next riff or part, i.e. tempo changes, distortion vs. clean guitar, heavy palm mutes or strummed chords, etc. Obviously my scope is narrowed by my experience, ability, and the fact that I'm looking at the song from the perspective of only one instrument but you get my point.

Now, my issue as a listener is that I have no idea what the writer intended to convey with any direction he takes in the song I'm listening to. I only know how I, personally, interpret this change. And this varies from person to person. I may hear what I interpret as a flawless build-up to a crushing breakdown, whereas another person might interpret the same thing as a boring section killing the momentum of an otherwise promising riff.

So, given these differences in opinion, I often struggle with making any definitive statement about whether a piece of music is well-composed or not when the structure is as unusual as the song this thread is about. I mean, generally it's easy to tell when a band consistently outputs music that sounds exactly like everything everyone else is doing, but when a band puts together complex, multi-genre works, it's a bit harder. What sounds like two completely unrelated parts smashed together to one person might sound like a brilliant transition into an interesting new dynamic to another. I think BTBAM's Ants of the Sky is a prime example, as I feel (and have seen many other users express they feel as well) that that song is brilliantly composed and that every section flows perfectly into the next, whereas many people (and not just people who hate BTBAM) feel like there's a great deal of filler and excessive material.

I don't know why I decided to write an essay about any of this, especially since, while I enjoy a lot of the individual parts in this Native Construct song, I tend to agree that it's not structured very well and there was little thought put into making it cohesive. I've just reached a point in my musicianship where I've started considering songwriting a lot more and I find it fascinating, especially attempting to analyze other people's music and trying to ascertain why they made certain decisions about different sections.

__________________

BTBAM IS ALWAYS RELEVANT