|
trill rear end posted:what chall think about this? Nice. I'd put a lil theremin with delay on it for a top melody.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Yoozer posted:Pitch-bending would require a lot more work and precision, and these producers are lazy During the years, it has been reaffirmed to me, over and over again, that the best approach to sounding like a certain artist is to just be lazy and use shortcuts wherever possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
Altoidss posted:Really? I wasn't talking about what it does when it changes notes, but the weird modulation that happens to it when it's holding a note. wayfinder posted:Actually, there's a pretty cool trend toward more melodic stuff in trance right now. The lovely stuff seems to be played out a little. Hopefully they'll get over the vocals too, but I'm not counting on it. Got some track names for me? 
Laserjet 4P fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Mar 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 03:12
|
|
|
Will saul and everyone on the 'simple' label are getting quite melodic now too. I've been well into pretty much everything they've put out in the past year. they also put out a free mix every month you can stream off the site. (skip the sideshow one though) http://www.simplerecords.co.uk/#/mixes
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 03:44
|
|
|
Yoozer posted:
Just check the last few tatw tracklists, plenty of good stuff edit: a recent favourite of mine was Adymus - Kaleidoscope wayfinder fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Mar 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 09:42
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:Just check the last few tatw tracklists, plenty of good stuff That track is wonderful, thanks for getting me to play it. Other recommendations: Signalrunners - Meet Me In Montauk (Oliver Smith Remix) Tritonal featuring Christina Soto - Let Solitude (Original Mix) and their (Air Up There Mix) The Thrillseekers - City of Angels (Club Mix) Lastly: DJ Eco - American Blues (DJ Eco & Martin Roth Edit) and DJ Eco - Lost Angeles, both the original and Breakfast remix are great, the latter being absolutely amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 10:11
|
|
|
SynthesizerKaiser posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 11:02
|
|
|
...
colonp fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 11:16
|
|
|
What is exactly a "multi band compressor"? I've got a certain notion of what a regular compressor does, but what is it's difference with a multiband one? Thanks people for all the info. PS: quote:what chall think about this? Sounds really cool, seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 17:42
|
|
|
KaosPV posted:What is exactly a "multi band compressor"? I've got a certain notion of what a regular compressor does, but what is it's difference with a multiband one? it lets you compress specific frequency bands, basically. Handy if you want to get f.ex just the 100-200hz area pop alittle extra or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 19:09
|
|
|
http://tindeck.com/listen/gndu heres an updated longer version, i added some drops and poo poo vocals are going on it soon, thats why its kinda atonal for a while and sparse
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2009 22:16
|
|
|
Why do you guys produce electronic music, and what styles attract you most? Not to get too art-faggy about it, but I really like the way techno seems to progress without actually going anywhere, and it strikes me as an apt metaphor for a lot of life, so if there is something 'ordinary' to try to work out in musical form, techno seems to be the way to do it. That is certainly a lot of the allure for me. It also seems to be a good place to flex nuts in a subtle way rather than the over the top wankery that comes with try to show off in rock, hip-hop, or what have you. Just trying to get an idea of what drives a lot of these tracks. You often hear artist in other genres running off at the mouth about what inspires them, but when you get to the electronic guys, they tend to say something along the lines of "I heard some and I liked it, so I made more of it" Anyone else? Am I retarded? evilocity fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Mar 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 00:39
|
|
|
evilocity posted:Why do you guys produce electronic music, and what styles attract you most? I'm not sure what you mean by: does not progress anywhere. Do you mean the songs stay the same through out? Because a good dance song, techno or not, should at least build and fall to excite its audience. Unless of course you're looking to make filler. Speaking of inspiration, it's hard to pinpoint where it comes from. Everyone is different, Photek says he was inspired by jazz records from the 60s and 70s. Justice say theirs comes from disco.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 01:29
|
|
|
My sound comes from having a morbid fascination with all things dark (not that i'm a dark person in the slightest, I just see a lot of room and potential in it) - a lot of hip hop too, although you wouldnt notice it. It's an elaborate toy to me, I like playing with sounds and seeing how they interact and change into new things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 01:59
|
|
|
I make music because I like being good at poo poo and also because I want more cool stuff to listen to AND because I'm kind of perpetually chasing that good feeling that comes from really good music and I'm looking for the button to produce that on demand.. maybe. And sometimes because people pay me to do it, and sometimes because a friend needs music for a project. I'm drawn to a certain kind of trance because at its best, it's such an energetic, yet intricately melodious kind music that just makes me happy, I guess. I don't even have a drugged-out past that would make it a thing of nostalgia, the music just accesses some pleasure center directly I guess. Techno was an aquired taste, but I've found a real love for the rolling, stomping, grooving, kicking hard techno. I tried to get into many other styles, with varying success. The only thing that has completely turned me off so far is dubstep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 02:19
|
|
|
Yeah, the first part of wayfinders works for me too. Getting better at things is enjoyable, I like learning stuff. Especially things that have no correct answer - it's why I got into CG too. The standard gets raised with everything produced, there is no such thing as perfect but always a constant progression towards it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:That DJ Eco track is basically the same as Meet me in Montauk though I don't want to noise this forum up with a trance debate but I disagree with that statement. evilocity posted:Why do you guys produce electronic music, and what styles attract you most? I'm producing because to be a world class DJ you need to be making your own tracks. As it turns out I also really like making sounds and writing notes. My goal is to be at the level where I can take the things I hear in my head and know exactly what I need to do to make it a reality, and also to get people around the world interested in having me over to their country to DJ for them. Really, I just love dance music -- It's a wonderful experience that's doubled when you can share it with other people who feel the same way about it as you do. In terms of tastes I like everything from electro-house to progressive house, Anjunabeats to most music at 140 bpm, and lately even a lot of dnb. Mainly I chase goosebumps, a feeling that I can't get enough of. Sometimes I can even get the chills from just a memory (Example: remembering the vocal samples from Bryan Kearney & John O'Callaghan - Exactly or the lyrics of "Beauty Hides in the Deep"). On the flip side of that coin the ecstatic feeling I get when a DJ drops a great new track in at the perfect moment is a wonderful rush. "Progessive" trance tracks can be very moving for me in particular; for a time the Martin Roth remix of California Sunset felt like I was in love. To tie this back to production I recently got goosebumps from my own airy breakdown. I still have leaps and bounds to go but it was still a very satisfying moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 08:29
|
|
|
Here's a track I'm working on, I'm looking for any kind of feedback if you have it. Thanks! http://yfinder.de/prev/way-htfu-preview.mp3
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 12:34
|
|
|
It's certanly well produced, the synths may be a bit cheesy for me but thats a musical taste thing. One thing that does throw me off is how at the end it softens up a lot - you start off with a really heavy solid beat and a fairly deep bassline, but it all goes a bit airy towards the end. I dont know if this is because it's unfinished as it's also a bit short for a club track but i'd like to see those softer synths build up further towards noise, loosing more definition as they go ready for a really deep break which strips it all back. It's very good though, the small bits of variation to spice it up work well and sound natural (these I am jelous of, I am poo poo at this), it just doesnt end up exactly where I was hoping it would. Beat at the start is solid, I thought it was straight up techno at first. I cant really comment on the synths mid way because I'd say the same about anything in that kind of trance...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 12:49
|
|
|
Thanks! I think I'm going to drop the lead that comes in at the end, or maybe reserve it for a breakdown or fills only and make it a lot more improvisational and jazzy, don't know yet. It's an okay melody, but a little too cheesy for myself, I freely admit. When I was coming up with it, I noticed that I can pretty much improvise indefinitely over the bed, so it might be a cool part for a live performance at some point. On the whole, I'll probably go in a less flowery direction and away from this "main part/off part" song structure. I really like the chord stabs with the twinkly synth though, so those will probably stay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 13:09
|
|
|
evilocity posted:Why do you guys produce electronic music quote:and what styles attract you most? Re: wayfinder and dubstep - yeah, when I heard it at first I also didn't really know what to think of it, but it's probably more fit for clubs. Also, it feels like it's trying to sprint (drum 'n bass) but but holds back every time, and stuff like Burial - I think that's just great (but not typical for dubstep). quote:but when you get to the electronic guys, they tend to say something along the lines of "I heard some and I liked it, so I made more of it" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 13:18
|
|
|
Quincy Smallvoice posted:it lets you compress specific frequency bands, basically. Handy if you want to get f.ex just the 100-200hz area pop alittle extra or what have you. Any free one I could get my hands on to experiment? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 13:52
|
|
|
...
colonp fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 16:52
|
|
|
colonp posted:
I am stealing this for later
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 18:15
|
|
|
evilocity posted:Why do you guys produce electronic music, and what styles attract you most? I listen mostly to deep/soulful/funky house, because it makes me happier and more energized than pretty much anything. And techno, I love the way it's invigorating and hypnotic at the same time. And UK garage, ragga jungle, old-assed electro, lots of great music. I got interested in making music with computers when I was about 13 and had an Atari 800, which had some fairly primitive notes-on-a-staff type software (Music Construction Set) and also some tracker-type programs. I tinkered a little bit with the internals of the POKEY sound chip towards something that approached synthesis, though I only had a basic idea of stuff like attack, decay, and timbre. A few years later I got an Atari ST, and while I never dug that much into the details of its sound hardware, it DID have built in MIDI ports (what a great feature) and so I eventually got hold of a CZ-1000 (which sounded great but was a questionable choice for a first synth, as its phase distortion synthesis is still one of the more daunting and complex methods of synthesis I've seen). After high school my habit started getting serious and I started accumulating more gear and a proper sequencer (Mastertracks Pro) -- the ST also ran Cubase and Creator/Notator (which later became Logic), and I still to this day have not seen a music computer that's as rock solid stable as that little 8mhz Atari. I've always loved the DIY-friendliness of electronic music, how you can put together a whole project without having to coordinate with bandmates or worry about finding space to make noise in. I play guitar too, and got intrigued by how the recording and production process could be an instrument in and of itself (I think getting turned on to Eno and Wendy Carlos did a lot to get me thinking in this direction). h_double fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Mar 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 20:50
|
|
|
Yoozer posted:That's what you get without proper music theory education I think what it is more than that is just that the rockstar mentality is really in opposition to the way that a lot of electronic music culture operates. It's natural to expect rock and jazz musicians to pontificate at length about their inspirations and experiences because we have a tendency to tie these people very strongly with a perceived public persona, but that doesn't really work in a lot of electronic music. Certain genres like techno not only accept anonymity but see it as a badge of honor. Some of techno's most celebrated artists are defined by their hostility to the traditional process of interviewing and touring. There's very much a mentality of letting the music speak for itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 22:44
|
|
|
Beta for Live 8 is available for Live customers. The new Operator is loving awesome. http://www.ableton.com/beta
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 22:50
|
|
|
Like I said, I'm going to hug these people at the Messe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
Dammit, I really wish I owned the full version of Live right now. Still using LE here. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2009 23:39
|
|
|
The new custom waveform editor on Operator makes the thing sound like a whole new instrument. Normally, waveform editing is cool and all, but the fact that operators routing algorithms can make the four oscillators modulate each other like they do, really takes Operator to the next level. There's a lot more you can do there than with other instruments with similar waveform editing, just because of that ability to modulate. Limiter actually works well, too. I tried to gently caress with it, and the compression algorithm really helps keep it in check, without sounding like rear end and a half.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 00:11
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good tutorial on FM synthesis, specifically operator. Subtractive synthesis has always just clicked with me but operator is like one big mystery to me. I would love to be able to get better at using it, it seems really powerful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 01:40
|
|
|
Anacostia posted:Does anyone have a good tutorial on FM synthesis, specifically operator. Subtractive synthesis has always just clicked with me but operator is like one big mystery to me. I would love to be able to get better at using it, it seems really powerful. The only real difference in Operator is that you can use the algorithm changer to have oscillators modulate each other. The A-B-C-D algorithm is pretty basic stuff, four oscillators, nothing fancy happening. The A | B | C | D algorithm is just one oscillator making sound, but is being modulated by everything above it. Live has a tutorial for Operator. It's not a scientific in-depth one, but it teaches you how to use the routing algorithms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 08:28
|
|
|
Anacostia posted:Subtractive synthesis has always just clicked with me but operator is like one big mystery to me. I would love to be able to get better at using it, it seems really powerful. Stop thinking in terms of separate oscillators and start thinking in terms of "pairs" and "components". This works better with 6-op, though. If you want to use classic subtractive thinking, pick the A-B-C-D algo (each one parallel) and use saw waves on each of 'm. When you make a classic subtractive bass sound, you generally pick 1 or 3 oscillators, tune them, and throw them in a lowpass filter. With FM, you pick the "body" of the bass (plain old sinewave pitched 1 octave down), and the "top" (2 or 3 operators to give it a metallic edge). Subtractive mixes the oscillators and puts everything in one big meatgrinder (the filter). With additive, you lack the filter (pretty much most of the time) but you get a pair (2 operators) which function both as filter and as oscillator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 09:11
|
|
|
evilocity posted:Why do you guys produce electronic music, and what styles attract you most? Just a little bit retarded, because you're comparing apples and oranges! Production is not the same thing as performance. When you say techno, I take it you mean EDM (Electronic Dance Music). From a performance POV, you're absolutely right, in my opinion: Rock is more fun than EDM, because in EDM you usually don't perform stuff, whereas in rock you do! From a production POV, EDM is much more exciting than any acoustic genre. You have all the synths, VSTs, samples and effects in the WORLD at your disposal, so you're not limited to the same old tired: guitar, bass, drums, keyboard, vocals. Producing a rock track is pretty boring. You just record the performers, EQ a bit, compress a bit. Not really a whole lot you can do as a producer. In EDM, you create the sounds from scratch, can tweak every little detail, add more new exciting sounds, warp and twist the poo poo out of stuff - just to see what you end up with! So to sum it up: I personally think producing EDM is much more fun, because you get so much more freedom than you would in any acoustic genre. Now, what I suspect you also were talking about is the musicality of EDM. I'll be talking about the general popular music here, so don't get angry if I didn't mention Aphex Twin or Coldplay. You're right, EDM isn't very complex from a musical perspective most of the time. Cascada's songs for example are fairly simple, but then again, so were the Ramones. How many chords did the Ramones use to make music that millions of listeners enjoyed? Simple music isn't necessarily boring music and complex music isn't necessarily fun music. It's subjective! It's just music. Different cups of tea!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 15:42
|
|
|
The Fog posted:Just a little bit retarded, because you're comparing apples and oranges! Good post, I agree completely I'll add that theres a certain paradox in EDM arrangements that I enjoy as well compared to traditional rock/pop music. One the one hand you have the tried and tested build, first break, development, second break and final intense buildup to a final release. Most EDM tracks employ this rather rigid structure in some form. On the other is the absolute freedom you have with all the little sounds, sequences and small details you can place within the aforementioned structure. Also, for me, what DRIVES EDM is the relationship between tension buildup and release, which I feel is absolutely crucial to make a good dancefloor track work. Because after all, it is a form of music with a set and absolute purpose; rock the dancefloor. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
...
colonp fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 17:07
|
|
|
The Fog posted:From a production POV, EDM is much more exciting than any acoustic genre. You have all the synths, VSTs, samples and effects in the WORLD at your disposal, so you're not limited to the same old tired: guitar, bass, drums, keyboard, vocals. That's a little bit like saying "painting portraits is boring, you're limited to just faces" -- but yet within that one simple subject you can have everything from Rembrandt to Picasso to Warhol. Look at something like 1970s dub reggae -- King Tubby, Scientist, Lee 'Scratch' Perry -- which is a HUGE HUGE influence upon modern music, everything from DJ culture to punk. They were producing simple pop songs, the same old guitar/bass/drum/keys/vocals, and by way of creative use of the mixing board (plus a couple of spring reverbs, tape delays, etc.) they invented a whole new style of music. The producer had suddenly also become a composer and performer. It's sort of tough to directly compare a rock producer to an EDM producer, because the latter blurs the lines even further between composition, engineering, and musicianship. A rock producer sometimes takes a relatively transparent role, but can have a huge influence upon a band's sound. Go listen to albums like Sgt. Pepper and Dark Side of the Moon, and how much is going on with the production (and in the case of Sgt. Pepper, keep in mind George Martin did it all with four tracks of tape). Listen to Phil Spector's production on the Ronnettes' "Be My Baby", then go listen to some albums produced by Rick Rubin and Butch Vig and Eno, and think about how much diversity there is just recording the same old instruments. This is all relevant to electronic musicians because if that much diversity is possible with guitars and drums, think about how much MORE you ought to be able to do when you can conjure sounds wholly from thin air (in a similar vein, lately I have been digging into the Classic Tracks archives from Sound on Sound which is full of interesting lore).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 18:00
|
|
|
colonp posted:Additive? Don't you mean FM? .quote:Also please post a track you've done yoozer!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2009 19:19
|
|
|
Yoozer posted:FM starts with a sinewave and adds sidebands; while you are usually not given the deeper control like pure additive, it's certainly a subset of As the owner of a K5000s I would have to disagree. The additive engine works completely differently to an FM one. You are basically assigning amplitudes to "harmonics" which are simply pure sine waves at harmonic frequencies. None of these modulate one another, it's totally different. Also all of the additive stuff I've played with has filters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
toadee posted:The additive engine works completely differently to an FM one. What you do with FM (or more correctly phase modulation, since it's cheaper computationally) is purely an additive job. You don't start with a waveform with lots of harmonic content and whittle it down; you start with a waveform with a single harmonic and add harmonic content. Painting vs. sculpting. The difference is that with a pure additive synthesizer you get to (and worse, have to) determine which harmonics to increase in volume while with the DX it depends on the settings of the operators - which means side-effects that are harder to predict and limitations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2009 08:01
|
|