Few thoughts

[MetaDronos]

It is interesting, but there are some musical aspects I can't introduce into my tracks.
For example glitch and noise: I've used noisy and glitchy samples many times, but final
result is still full of "dignity" - I am able to build cathedral, yet it is hard for me to assemble garden shed ;)
All work that starts as "jug band performance" ends as "chamber orchestra concert".

I have analysed "byproducts" and "semiprodcuts" of my tracks, and I found sounds I seek among them.
But I am not able to release such "imperfect" construction, so glitch and noise
almost vanishes as small element of larger sonic construction... Maybe it is inability to stop
process of "perfecting"?

Another thing: tracks I did with full focus and attention in complex workflow create less
public reaction than tracks created in "Bob Ross mode" - with fresh example of Skyollordrin:
done in minutes, but created largest feedback comparing to my other tracks.
I'm not fame-oriented, but this was surprising for me, to discover that listeners feedback
has its own paths and has no strict relation to amount of work over given track.
I don't see "Skyollordrin" as fully representative for my music; "Orlerbarrarta" and "Ameausuloa"
are in my own opinion more close to my creative intentions. Is explanation as simple as "Your intentional
music is not as popular as your experiments"?

[Bobbotov]

It is hard to say why people like some tracks over others. It is obviously personal taste and their mood at the time they are listening, but really the point is to make music you like and not try and figure out why listeners are seemingly fickle. I think you have to be Zen about it and not think about who likes what: whatever you do it should come natural. Perhaps the spontaneity of Skyollordin is what listeners find appealing or they find it more melodious compared to the other tracks.

I know from personal experience that overworking tracks can kill the spontaneity and I think we all run the risk of over producing a track. At some point we end up gilding the lily. And another thing: the time we spend on something is no indication of how good it will be. Sometimes I can create a track in a couple of hours that is better than one worked on for days. It happens.

[Pyne]

It is interesting, but there are some musical aspects I can't introduce into my tracks.
For example glitch and noise: I've used noisy and glitchy samples many times, but final
result is still full of "dignity" - I am able to build cathedral, yet it is hard for me to assemble garden shed ;)
All work that starts as "jug band performance" ends as "chamber orchestra concert".

This is kind of related to the "Have you found your sound?" topic. It may just be that glitch and noise elements aren't part of "your" sound as a composer if they don't seem to work for you. Nothing wrong with that; we each have our own unique thing going on. Just focus on what does work for you and your own sound.

[Negative Spectrum]

It is hard to say why people like some tracks over others. It is obviously personal taste and their mood at the time they are listening, but really the point is to make music you like and not try and figure out why listeners are seemingly fickle.

i completely agree, at the end of the day i love all my musical "children" if other people like them then thats great but not why i created them. And i love that symphonic sound you have, its what makes you you

[GaryG]

"Bob Ross mode"

:D

Happy little glitches...

[falls a star]

Happy little glitches...

I pretty much always have some kind of noise/glitch/distortion going on in my music. Sometimes subtle, sometimes not.

I think of it philosophically in different ways. I'm not much into purely aleatoric processes like some experimental musicians are. Nor am I particularly excited by "the aesthetics of failure" per se. I've done some experiments where I semi-deliberately glitched something and it just isn't that interesting to me anymore.

But I tend to think about texture in music in almost a tactile sense, where rough edges are more interesting to touch than glassy smooth ones. Violin bows work because of their combination of flexibility and friction (from the rosin), tugging on the string with tiny forces very frequently but irregularly...

I also sometimes think of music being inhabited by tiny spirits that leave their impression on things -- or of Brownian motion or quantum foam. Kind of like the "sparkle" in 80s synth pads but on a smaller scale.

Even in visual glitch art, the emerging patterns and textures are what interest me.

[MetaDronos]

It is hard to say why people like some tracks over others. It is obviously personal taste and their mood at the time they are listening, but really the point is to make music you like and not try and figure out why listeners are seemingly fickle. I think you have to be Zen about it and not think about who likes what: whatever you do it should come natural. Perhaps the spontaneity of Skyollordin is what listeners find appealing or they find it more melodious compared to the other tracks.

I know from personal experience that overworking tracks can kill the spontaneity and I think we all run the risk of over producing a track. At some point we end up gilding the lily. And another thing: the time we spend on something is no indication of how good it will be. Sometimes I can create a track in a couple of hours that is better than one worked on for days. It happens.

My reception of music is often technical and "analytical" - I observe structures in track trying to reconstruct "blueprint" of it and I have my delectation from that blueprint.
Probably I missed fact that many people receive music by impressions, so my "architectural work" on my tracks is irrelevant for them, and those tracks
will be judged by impressions. In this context my well-crafted "Orlerbarrarta" will be less popular than "easy-listening" "Skyollordrin". And yes, "Skyollordrin" has much more melodic content than "Orlerbarrarta". This fact had its impact on reception of these tracks.