Regarding the title of this post - no, I haven't discovered a new synth which is geared entirely towards our trance pluck needs.
Which is probably a good thing - if we all started using the "ultimate pluck synth", we may quickly tire of those sounds appearing in many of the songs we hear.
No, today's post is about taking any of the synths we currently have in our studio and automatically turning every preset into a pluck. Or a bass. Or a pad. Or whatever.
A number of you have probably worked this out before now (and potentially there are some synths out there which make this process easy).
The way it's done is by using automation to "lock in" certain aspects of the sound. The parameters which are locked in are totally open to personal preference, though typically if the general "shape" of the sound should be retained, then the following parameters should be locked in:
Amplitude: Attack, Decay, Sustain and Release
Filter: Attack, Decay, Sustain, Release, Type, Cutoff Frequency and Resonance
Any other desired aspects of the sound (whether it should have delay/reverb applied, or unison, or whether the oscillator shapes should be retained, etc etc) can be locked in.
It takes a bit of time to set up all the automation - I use MIDI for my hardware synths, and set it to toggle slightly on the first 64th note of each bar - for example, from value 88 to value 89 - simply enough to trigger the parameter change.
Once the slightly tedious task of setting up is done, however, the synth opens up many more choices to us. We can enter (or copy/paste) in the notes and hit the play button, and any sound we turn to will take on our desired characteristics (at the start of each bar). These will be mixed with a wide range of other characteristics to create exotic new combinations, many of them ideally suited for our needs.
A great thing about this process is that these sounds are "original" (I don't want to get into a discussion about where originality begins and ends here...). Many of us (myself included) use presets and tweak them slightly, but don't deviate greatly from the original sound. Some of us (myself included) try to program our own sounds and get frustrated when they don't sound too good - sure, they're original, but so what? I could write an original atonal song with a random melody - originality for it's own sake is pointless. The process mentioned here allows us to become instant sound designers - using sonically pleasing aspects of sounds designed by talented sound designers, and combining them with many other combinations, to create sounds whose origins nobody will recognize.
I save all the MIDI clips in a single project so I can open it along with a new project and drag the desired clips across. Of course, another way would be to save each separate clip into a designated folder and import it into the project from there. I name them according to the synth and the original sound.
This process will probably work just as well with soft synths - in some ways, even better, since the parameters will likely be named (rather than referring to the manual for which of the 127 MIDI CC numbers control the desired parameter!) I haven't actually tried this with a soft synth however - it may not be as easy to drag the "automation clip" to a new project. It would depend on the DAW being used.
Well, that's all for this blog post. I hope it helps some of you who may have been getting tired of the sounds in a particular synth - this should inject it with some new life!
All the best,
Fabian
Monday, July 4, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Using send effects
A short post today about send effects. How to use them, why to use them.
For most producers, today's content will be a case of "move along, nothing to see here".
Okay, for the rest of us:
Send effects refer to effects/ processors set up on a sequencer's "send" channels. Rather than being applied directly to an instrument/ a sound, this effect is available for many instruments/sounds to be routed into, at different levels.
Common effects used on send channels are:
REVERB
If reverb is applied to each instrument/sound individually, it can sound like they're all in separate spaces, which can sound very confusing.
Using a send effect and sending more of some instruments and less of others into it means that all the instruments are sharing a space, providing a more convincing sound stage. The effect can be further improved by creating a couple of send channels which feed into the reverb channel, and putting short delays onto these send channels. This way, some sounds can be routed directly into the reverb (far away sounds, where the direct and reverbed sounds will reach the listener at the same time), some sounds can be routed into the reverb via a 25 millisecond delay (such as some lead sounds which aren't absolutely up front of the mix) and others can be routed via a 50ms delay (such as a snare at the front of the mix), which will a while to hit the back of the mix and come back to the listener as reverberation.
A different way of accomplishing this would be to copy each of the tracks going into the reverb, and simply pushing each one back in time the desired amount (with the fader at 0 and the channel fed into the reverb send pre-fader).
Some people set up a number of different send reverbs. I typically set up two for my trance songs - a long "hall" type reverb (which mainly treats my lead sounds) and a short "room" type reverb (which mainly treats my drum and bass sounds).
DELAY
Tempo-synced delays can add some sonic interest to a lot of sounds. If we're applying a distinctive delay to a particular sound it's probably best we apply it to that particular sound, but for more conventional delay effects it's fine to send several sounds through the same delay. I usually have two send delays set up for my trance songs. Both are left-right delays with a bit of feedback, set at different rhythmic patterns (for example, a 2/16ths, 3/16ths delay and a 3/16ths, 6/16ths delay). This way sounds can quickly be spiced up by routing them through one delay line or the other (or even both). Treating a number of sounds with the same delay pattern also adds cohesiveness to a mix.
Less common effects are:
CHORUS/STEREO WIDENERS
I occasionally experiment with these on a send track. As with delays, this provides a quick and easy way to add stereo width to a number of instruments. It generally works best with only two or three sounds running through it at the same time, since if everything is wide, nothing is wide. Using automation, width can be added to instruments at various points during a song.
COMPRESSION
One way of achieving the "New York Compression" effect, where a heavily compressed version of a sound is mixed with the original, uncompressed sound, is via a send. A whole group of sounds (for example, a drum kit) can be routed through the compressor.
An added benefit of using sends such as reverbs is that a high quality, resource hungry reverb can be used - since there is only one instance in the mix rather than ten, we're much less likely to run out of processing power.
EQs can be applied before or after send effects, to shape the frequencies we want passing through the effect and to shape the frequencies coming out of it. Low end is often removed from send effects, since bass can quickly build up. Lifting the high end up will make the effect stick out more, whereas bringing the high end down a bit will blend the effect in.
Send effects also allow for creative mix manipulation - we can bring the level of reverbs and delays up during transitions, or during certain sections of a song. We can briefly drop an effect out, raise its feedback, change its stereo image - there are many possibilities.
I hope some of you found this useful!
Fabian
For most producers, today's content will be a case of "move along, nothing to see here".
Okay, for the rest of us:
Send effects refer to effects/ processors set up on a sequencer's "send" channels. Rather than being applied directly to an instrument/ a sound, this effect is available for many instruments/sounds to be routed into, at different levels.
Common effects used on send channels are:
REVERB
If reverb is applied to each instrument/sound individually, it can sound like they're all in separate spaces, which can sound very confusing.
Using a send effect and sending more of some instruments and less of others into it means that all the instruments are sharing a space, providing a more convincing sound stage. The effect can be further improved by creating a couple of send channels which feed into the reverb channel, and putting short delays onto these send channels. This way, some sounds can be routed directly into the reverb (far away sounds, where the direct and reverbed sounds will reach the listener at the same time), some sounds can be routed into the reverb via a 25 millisecond delay (such as some lead sounds which aren't absolutely up front of the mix) and others can be routed via a 50ms delay (such as a snare at the front of the mix), which will a while to hit the back of the mix and come back to the listener as reverberation.
A different way of accomplishing this would be to copy each of the tracks going into the reverb, and simply pushing each one back in time the desired amount (with the fader at 0 and the channel fed into the reverb send pre-fader).
Some people set up a number of different send reverbs. I typically set up two for my trance songs - a long "hall" type reverb (which mainly treats my lead sounds) and a short "room" type reverb (which mainly treats my drum and bass sounds).
DELAY
Tempo-synced delays can add some sonic interest to a lot of sounds. If we're applying a distinctive delay to a particular sound it's probably best we apply it to that particular sound, but for more conventional delay effects it's fine to send several sounds through the same delay. I usually have two send delays set up for my trance songs. Both are left-right delays with a bit of feedback, set at different rhythmic patterns (for example, a 2/16ths, 3/16ths delay and a 3/16ths, 6/16ths delay). This way sounds can quickly be spiced up by routing them through one delay line or the other (or even both). Treating a number of sounds with the same delay pattern also adds cohesiveness to a mix.
Less common effects are:
CHORUS/STEREO WIDENERS
I occasionally experiment with these on a send track. As with delays, this provides a quick and easy way to add stereo width to a number of instruments. It generally works best with only two or three sounds running through it at the same time, since if everything is wide, nothing is wide. Using automation, width can be added to instruments at various points during a song.
COMPRESSION
One way of achieving the "New York Compression" effect, where a heavily compressed version of a sound is mixed with the original, uncompressed sound, is via a send. A whole group of sounds (for example, a drum kit) can be routed through the compressor.
An added benefit of using sends such as reverbs is that a high quality, resource hungry reverb can be used - since there is only one instance in the mix rather than ten, we're much less likely to run out of processing power.
EQs can be applied before or after send effects, to shape the frequencies we want passing through the effect and to shape the frequencies coming out of it. Low end is often removed from send effects, since bass can quickly build up. Lifting the high end up will make the effect stick out more, whereas bringing the high end down a bit will blend the effect in.
Send effects also allow for creative mix manipulation - we can bring the level of reverbs and delays up during transitions, or during certain sections of a song. We can briefly drop an effect out, raise its feedback, change its stereo image - there are many possibilities.
I hope some of you found this useful!
Fabian
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Sidechain Dynamics
Ah, sidechains.
So much potential for creative fun. So much potential for adding groove. For keeping instruments out of each others way. For totally rampant overuse throughout the last decade at least.
With that last point I'm referring to sidechain compression, which has been used to create heavy pumping effects in countless songs over the past while. It's use has become so prevalent it simply seems normal to me now.
I've used sidechain compression for a while now. I like the way it opens up space for my kicks and enhances groove. For the most part, I don't go too wild with it, though from time to time I'll get into some heavy pumping pad action.
Anyway, today's post is about sidechain processing - compressors, gates and expanders. Between these three processors, and a variety of input signals, lies a whole bunch of creative fun.
I'll just touch briefly on what sidechaining means and how it is typically set up.
Normally, when we run a sound through a dynamics processor, it reacts to the sound running through it - a compressor will turn the level down when the sound goes above the threshold, a gate opens when the sound goes above the threshold. With sidechaining, the processor doesn't care what's going on with the sound it's working on. It reacts to a separate signal, coming in via the sidechain input. The input signal (or "trigger") is typically set up on a separate channel in our sequencer, and is routed into the sidechain input. Depending on how we're using it, we may turn the trigger's level all the way down and send the signal to the sidechain input pre-fader. This means that it doesn't matter how much we move the trigger's fader, including turning it all the way down - the signal will be sent to the sidechain input at a constant level.
I'll go through some examples of how sidechaining can be used:
Sidechain compressing a bass to a kick: Low frequencies can quickly get out of control when both a kick and a low bass play at the same time. Sending the kick into a compressor acting on the bass means the bass will clear out of the way every time the kick plays. Problem solved! For the input trigger, there are a couple of options. We could use the actual kick we're using in the song, and send it post-fader. This means that only as much compression as required will occur - if the kick fades in or out at some point, the compression will gradually increase/decrease as required. However, sometimes we want to apply a steady, consistent pump to our bass, regardless of what's happening with the kick we can hear. An option is to put a copy of the kick on a separate track, program a steady beat, turn the level down to 0 and send it to the sidechain compressor. This way the bass will pump consistently throughout the song. Yet another option is to use a different trigger - kick drums often have long boomy tails, which can compress more of the bass than is actually required. For this reason, I generally use a very short closed hihat sample as the trigger. This allows me to set the timing of the pump very precisely by using the compressor's hold or release parameters.
Sidechain compressing any other sound to a kick: See above. Pads, pumping heavily on the offbeat, are common. Leads can come down very briefly, using a low ratio - hardly noticeable, but helpful for clearing out room for the kick. Percussive loops can groove in time with the kick. Heck, we could go so far as to send every sound except the kick into a group channel and compress the entire group every time the kick hits. Mega pump!
Sidechain compressing guitars/pads to a lead or vocal: This is similar to what radio announcers do when they speak over the top of a song that's playing - they start speaking, the music instantly drops down in volume so we can hear them clearly, then the music rushes back up when they stop speaking. We won't generally apply the effect in anywhere near as extreme a way - it's quite unmusical. But the principle remains - we want the centerpiece of our song to come through clearly - we want to make out every word, hear every note of the melody. So we lightly compress a wall of guitars using a vocal input, or a big pad using a lead input. Done subtly, most listeners won't even notice that it's happening - we've simply found a way to go over 0 dBs in the digital realm, that's all. (please don't take that statement at face value!) For this application, we want to send the vocal/ lead in post-fader, so the other sounds drop back only as much as needed. We'll generally want to use a release slow enough that the sound comes back up naturally when the vocal/ lead stops, rather than rushing up and letting the listener know exactly what was going on - though obviously this is a creative decision for each of us!
Sidechain compressing an instrument's reverb/delay to that instrument: This effect turns the reverb down when the instrument is playing, then brings the reverb back up as the instrument fades away. There are a number of creative applications for this, ranging from very subtle to quite extreme. It can be applied to short room reverbs and large caverns. Likewise, it can be applied to delays. It could potentially be applied to other effects (distortion, chorus and so on), but the effect would be much shorter in nature - it would only apply to the end of each note (unless it's a distortion which feeds back on itself!)
Sidechain gating/expanding a pad with a rhythmic pattern/loop: Using a short, snappy gate, a pad can be chopped into an interesting lead pattern by running a drum loop (or any other rhythmic element) into the gate's sidechain input. If the pad features some nice evolving modulation, this will keep running throughout the chopped up sequence - quite different to actually playing the same sequence and having the modulation start from the same point each time a note is triggered. Rhythmic loops with a wide dynamic range can work better than highly compressed loops - a wide dynamic range means there is a more defined space between "note on" and "note off". Using compressed loops will require finer tuning of the input threshold. A more subtle version of the chopped gated effect can be created by using an expander with a low ratio - the sound will only drop marginally between transients, rather than completely cutting out. Using automation, this also allows us to smoothly transition from unbroken pad chords/notes to heavily chopped chords/notes and back again.
Automating or changing the input trigger: A lot of the time, the automation will need to be reasonably heavy-handed to make an impact on the way the dynamics processor reacts. The input trigger can be heavily EQ'd - if we are punching out a rhythmic pattern using a percussive loop into a gate, an EQ can change the percussive loop so the kick comes through much more prominently (or another area of the loop). A transient designer can be attached to the percussive loop, transitioning it from very short and snappy to more smooth and drawn-out.
There are many more creative possibilities. Whether it's punching parts of sounds out or punching them in, whether it's pushing something away from another sound or locking it to it, or even whether it's a very subtle application which transparently solves an issue, sidechaining is a very handy resource to have at our fingertips.
Have fun, keep making great music!
Fabian
So much potential for creative fun. So much potential for adding groove. For keeping instruments out of each others way. For totally rampant overuse throughout the last decade at least.
With that last point I'm referring to sidechain compression, which has been used to create heavy pumping effects in countless songs over the past while. It's use has become so prevalent it simply seems normal to me now.
I've used sidechain compression for a while now. I like the way it opens up space for my kicks and enhances groove. For the most part, I don't go too wild with it, though from time to time I'll get into some heavy pumping pad action.
Anyway, today's post is about sidechain processing - compressors, gates and expanders. Between these three processors, and a variety of input signals, lies a whole bunch of creative fun.
I'll just touch briefly on what sidechaining means and how it is typically set up.
Normally, when we run a sound through a dynamics processor, it reacts to the sound running through it - a compressor will turn the level down when the sound goes above the threshold, a gate opens when the sound goes above the threshold. With sidechaining, the processor doesn't care what's going on with the sound it's working on. It reacts to a separate signal, coming in via the sidechain input. The input signal (or "trigger") is typically set up on a separate channel in our sequencer, and is routed into the sidechain input. Depending on how we're using it, we may turn the trigger's level all the way down and send the signal to the sidechain input pre-fader. This means that it doesn't matter how much we move the trigger's fader, including turning it all the way down - the signal will be sent to the sidechain input at a constant level.
I'll go through some examples of how sidechaining can be used:
Sidechain compressing a bass to a kick: Low frequencies can quickly get out of control when both a kick and a low bass play at the same time. Sending the kick into a compressor acting on the bass means the bass will clear out of the way every time the kick plays. Problem solved! For the input trigger, there are a couple of options. We could use the actual kick we're using in the song, and send it post-fader. This means that only as much compression as required will occur - if the kick fades in or out at some point, the compression will gradually increase/decrease as required. However, sometimes we want to apply a steady, consistent pump to our bass, regardless of what's happening with the kick we can hear. An option is to put a copy of the kick on a separate track, program a steady beat, turn the level down to 0 and send it to the sidechain compressor. This way the bass will pump consistently throughout the song. Yet another option is to use a different trigger - kick drums often have long boomy tails, which can compress more of the bass than is actually required. For this reason, I generally use a very short closed hihat sample as the trigger. This allows me to set the timing of the pump very precisely by using the compressor's hold or release parameters.
Sidechain compressing any other sound to a kick: See above. Pads, pumping heavily on the offbeat, are common. Leads can come down very briefly, using a low ratio - hardly noticeable, but helpful for clearing out room for the kick. Percussive loops can groove in time with the kick. Heck, we could go so far as to send every sound except the kick into a group channel and compress the entire group every time the kick hits. Mega pump!
Sidechain compressing guitars/pads to a lead or vocal: This is similar to what radio announcers do when they speak over the top of a song that's playing - they start speaking, the music instantly drops down in volume so we can hear them clearly, then the music rushes back up when they stop speaking. We won't generally apply the effect in anywhere near as extreme a way - it's quite unmusical. But the principle remains - we want the centerpiece of our song to come through clearly - we want to make out every word, hear every note of the melody. So we lightly compress a wall of guitars using a vocal input, or a big pad using a lead input. Done subtly, most listeners won't even notice that it's happening - we've simply found a way to go over 0 dBs in the digital realm, that's all. (please don't take that statement at face value!) For this application, we want to send the vocal/ lead in post-fader, so the other sounds drop back only as much as needed. We'll generally want to use a release slow enough that the sound comes back up naturally when the vocal/ lead stops, rather than rushing up and letting the listener know exactly what was going on - though obviously this is a creative decision for each of us!
Sidechain compressing an instrument's reverb/delay to that instrument: This effect turns the reverb down when the instrument is playing, then brings the reverb back up as the instrument fades away. There are a number of creative applications for this, ranging from very subtle to quite extreme. It can be applied to short room reverbs and large caverns. Likewise, it can be applied to delays. It could potentially be applied to other effects (distortion, chorus and so on), but the effect would be much shorter in nature - it would only apply to the end of each note (unless it's a distortion which feeds back on itself!)
Sidechain gating/expanding a pad with a rhythmic pattern/loop: Using a short, snappy gate, a pad can be chopped into an interesting lead pattern by running a drum loop (or any other rhythmic element) into the gate's sidechain input. If the pad features some nice evolving modulation, this will keep running throughout the chopped up sequence - quite different to actually playing the same sequence and having the modulation start from the same point each time a note is triggered. Rhythmic loops with a wide dynamic range can work better than highly compressed loops - a wide dynamic range means there is a more defined space between "note on" and "note off". Using compressed loops will require finer tuning of the input threshold. A more subtle version of the chopped gated effect can be created by using an expander with a low ratio - the sound will only drop marginally between transients, rather than completely cutting out. Using automation, this also allows us to smoothly transition from unbroken pad chords/notes to heavily chopped chords/notes and back again.
Automating or changing the input trigger: A lot of the time, the automation will need to be reasonably heavy-handed to make an impact on the way the dynamics processor reacts. The input trigger can be heavily EQ'd - if we are punching out a rhythmic pattern using a percussive loop into a gate, an EQ can change the percussive loop so the kick comes through much more prominently (or another area of the loop). A transient designer can be attached to the percussive loop, transitioning it from very short and snappy to more smooth and drawn-out.
There are many more creative possibilities. Whether it's punching parts of sounds out or punching them in, whether it's pushing something away from another sound or locking it to it, or even whether it's a very subtle application which transparently solves an issue, sidechaining is a very handy resource to have at our fingertips.
Have fun, keep making great music!
Fabian
Friday, May 13, 2011
We are not Average Listeners
As producers, we are not average listeners. It is helpful to recognize that the majority of people who listen to our music don't experience it the way we experience it. They don't listen to other music the way we tend to listen to it. It's hard for us to switch off our production experience and listen purely for enjoyment - if that bass gets buried in the mix during the chorus, it could be hard for us to ignore, even if the song overall is fantastic. We may chase "perfection", but many great, hugely popular songs fall far short of this. It's useful to keep this in mind.
Here are some thoughts on how average listeners listen to music, and how this may differ from how we producers/engineers listen.
Average listeners:
-Don't know and don't care you've used loops. This includes musical loops, even the main musical hook of the song.
Tip: we should do what feels right to us. If we can sleep fine and use loops, we should keep using them - and take no notice of people who say loops make baby Jesus cry.
-Don't care about the gear you've used - hardware/software, analog/digital, synthesizer/sampler/rompler.
Tip: we should use whatever we're using to make great music. Producer nobody on forum nowhere only uses and likes music made with 1970s analog synthesizers? Good for them and irrelevant for us.
-Won't notice or care about the hours of work you put into small background details.
Tip: we can keep spending these hours on our passion. Who cares if other people don't notice, or care? We care. These hours are quality music time, "us time". Unless we're actually obsessing over details which literally nobody will ever notice.
-(As with every field), will greatly underestimate how hard it is to create a great sounding, musically pleasing song.
Tip: we should keep making great sounding, musically pleasing songs. In the end, that's what matters, not that we created the bass patch ourselves and used twenty tracks for the vocal line. Let people simply enjoy them or dance to them, even if they think it's as easy as making toast or building a spaceship.
-Are into the current hot trend which many of us may find unlistenable. That's why the current hot trend is selling more than our style.
Tip: we can be inspired by the current trend or stick with our style. Either way works. We're only going to create good, listenable music if we're somewhat engaged with our creation - if we hate the current style, we're not going to be able to create great music in that style. In the end, we can't control the public's tastes, but we can control the quality of the music we create, whatever our style happens to be.
-Are going to talk about hooks/easy-to-describe-noteworthy things - "hah! I kissed a girl!". If your song is based on a very effective chord progression and interesting rhythmic groove, people are going to have a lot of difficulty talking about it to their other non-musical friends.
Tip: are we making music for other producers, or a wider audience? In some ways creating music for other producers is easier - they'll often cut us some slack. They may praise us if we've used some technical wizardry and disregard our ineffective groove or complete lack of melody. The dancefloor isn't as forgiving. If we're going for a wider audience, we need to make sure the wider audience can easily communicate our song to each other - a simple, catchy melody they can hum, a memorable lyric, some kind of hook.
-Are going to love our song and think it's perfect. As producers, as people who have developed an intimate relationship with sound over years, it can sometimes be a while between songs we hear which blow us away, which we consider "perfect". When I was younger, before I learned how music was created, how all the bits were put together, I sometimes got that feeling several times on an album. Sure, we can appreciate the skill of the artist or producer, but we can't unlearn our art and listen to songs with a pure music fan's ears (well, maybe if they're songs in a style we've never tried to create).
Tip: We should get our music out there and give people a chance to love it. The person who builds a cover song entirely out of loops using cheap software in a couple of hours and gets people dancing has contributed more than the person who has been working on an original analog synth composition for the past year and shelves it because it "isn't perfect".
I'm sure there are a lot of other examples I could have used. The main thing for us to bear in mind is that the majority of people don't listen to music the way we do.
Keep making great music!
Fabian
Here are some thoughts on how average listeners listen to music, and how this may differ from how we producers/engineers listen.
Average listeners:
-Don't know and don't care you've used loops. This includes musical loops, even the main musical hook of the song.
Tip: we should do what feels right to us. If we can sleep fine and use loops, we should keep using them - and take no notice of people who say loops make baby Jesus cry.
-Don't care about the gear you've used - hardware/software, analog/digital, synthesizer/sampler/rompler.
Tip: we should use whatever we're using to make great music. Producer nobody on forum nowhere only uses and likes music made with 1970s analog synthesizers? Good for them and irrelevant for us.
-Won't notice or care about the hours of work you put into small background details.
Tip: we can keep spending these hours on our passion. Who cares if other people don't notice, or care? We care. These hours are quality music time, "us time". Unless we're actually obsessing over details which literally nobody will ever notice.
-(As with every field), will greatly underestimate how hard it is to create a great sounding, musically pleasing song.
Tip: we should keep making great sounding, musically pleasing songs. In the end, that's what matters, not that we created the bass patch ourselves and used twenty tracks for the vocal line. Let people simply enjoy them or dance to them, even if they think it's as easy as making toast or building a spaceship.
-Are into the current hot trend which many of us may find unlistenable. That's why the current hot trend is selling more than our style.
Tip: we can be inspired by the current trend or stick with our style. Either way works. We're only going to create good, listenable music if we're somewhat engaged with our creation - if we hate the current style, we're not going to be able to create great music in that style. In the end, we can't control the public's tastes, but we can control the quality of the music we create, whatever our style happens to be.
-Are going to talk about hooks/easy-to-describe-noteworthy things - "hah! I kissed a girl!". If your song is based on a very effective chord progression and interesting rhythmic groove, people are going to have a lot of difficulty talking about it to their other non-musical friends.
Tip: are we making music for other producers, or a wider audience? In some ways creating music for other producers is easier - they'll often cut us some slack. They may praise us if we've used some technical wizardry and disregard our ineffective groove or complete lack of melody. The dancefloor isn't as forgiving. If we're going for a wider audience, we need to make sure the wider audience can easily communicate our song to each other - a simple, catchy melody they can hum, a memorable lyric, some kind of hook.
-Are going to love our song and think it's perfect. As producers, as people who have developed an intimate relationship with sound over years, it can sometimes be a while between songs we hear which blow us away, which we consider "perfect". When I was younger, before I learned how music was created, how all the bits were put together, I sometimes got that feeling several times on an album. Sure, we can appreciate the skill of the artist or producer, but we can't unlearn our art and listen to songs with a pure music fan's ears (well, maybe if they're songs in a style we've never tried to create).
Tip: We should get our music out there and give people a chance to love it. The person who builds a cover song entirely out of loops using cheap software in a couple of hours and gets people dancing has contributed more than the person who has been working on an original analog synth composition for the past year and shelves it because it "isn't perfect".
I'm sure there are a lot of other examples I could have used. The main thing for us to bear in mind is that the majority of people don't listen to music the way we do.
Keep making great music!
Fabian
Friday, April 29, 2011
why should people listen to our music?
There are millions of very competent musicians and engineers in the world.
Many of them have staggering technical skills.
And many of the songs these technical wizards create aren't worth listening to, apart from being used as technical references. For lovers of music, these songs offer nothing compelling.
Much like all the "shred guitarists" who can play thousands of meaningless notes per minute, if we as producers try to distinguish ourselves by way of technical prowess we are heading down a dead end. Perhaps we can get work as an engineer or teacher, but it's unlikely our songs will resonate with the average listener.
On an individual level it's not ideal that we're now competing with a million other producers rather than a few thousand. It means, on average, more is required from us to separate our music from the millions of other songs which are created each year. In the end, the artists who have something meaningful to impart will find it easier to connect with listeners.
Production is important, but I believe that songwriting is more important than ever. (I'm trying to help out on the technical/production side with insidemixes - hopefully this will shortcut the path to great sound for a number of people, allowing them to focus their attention on their unique voice).
We are not average listeners, and we would do well to remember this. Average listeners like catchy melodies, lyrics, grooves, hooks. If we want to connect with them, we should spend much more time working on these skills relative to our engineering skills.
If you think you can't write catchy melodies, spend some time listening to catchy melodies. Hum along to them to get a feel for the note placements and intervals. Then spend some time coming up with new melodies - start with an empty head (heh) and let the notes come. Maybe it'll be simple, maybe it'll be complex. Happy, sad or some other mood. Maybe the melody will have some large intervals. Maybe some note bending. Whatever, get it happening in your head until it's ready to put into your sequencer in a rough form. Plenty of time to tidy it up later on.
Get ten melodies down. If you haven't written many melodies before, most of them will be fairly average and aren't worth pursuing. But perhaps one or two will have a bit more merit. It's much easier to gauge this the day after writing the melody down - it'll be much easier to sort good ideas from bad ones, and come up with improvements to the good ones.
Do this process often, learn what works and what doesn't, and you'll get to a point where you're writing very catchy melodies.
Of course, I don't mean to discount other learning aids - videos, lessons, books (such as "how music works"). These can be helpful for many of us.
The same process applies to writing great lyrics and to coming up with danceable grooves and memorable hooks.
At this point, where we have so many excellent tools at our disposal, where we have access to so much quality information relating to our art, we should be giving the world a larger selection of fantastic music than at any time in the past.
So let's keep at it!
Fabian
Many of them have staggering technical skills.
And many of the songs these technical wizards create aren't worth listening to, apart from being used as technical references. For lovers of music, these songs offer nothing compelling.
Much like all the "shred guitarists" who can play thousands of meaningless notes per minute, if we as producers try to distinguish ourselves by way of technical prowess we are heading down a dead end. Perhaps we can get work as an engineer or teacher, but it's unlikely our songs will resonate with the average listener.
On an individual level it's not ideal that we're now competing with a million other producers rather than a few thousand. It means, on average, more is required from us to separate our music from the millions of other songs which are created each year. In the end, the artists who have something meaningful to impart will find it easier to connect with listeners.
Production is important, but I believe that songwriting is more important than ever. (I'm trying to help out on the technical/production side with insidemixes - hopefully this will shortcut the path to great sound for a number of people, allowing them to focus their attention on their unique voice).
We are not average listeners, and we would do well to remember this. Average listeners like catchy melodies, lyrics, grooves, hooks. If we want to connect with them, we should spend much more time working on these skills relative to our engineering skills.
If you think you can't write catchy melodies, spend some time listening to catchy melodies. Hum along to them to get a feel for the note placements and intervals. Then spend some time coming up with new melodies - start with an empty head (heh) and let the notes come. Maybe it'll be simple, maybe it'll be complex. Happy, sad or some other mood. Maybe the melody will have some large intervals. Maybe some note bending. Whatever, get it happening in your head until it's ready to put into your sequencer in a rough form. Plenty of time to tidy it up later on.
Get ten melodies down. If you haven't written many melodies before, most of them will be fairly average and aren't worth pursuing. But perhaps one or two will have a bit more merit. It's much easier to gauge this the day after writing the melody down - it'll be much easier to sort good ideas from bad ones, and come up with improvements to the good ones.
Do this process often, learn what works and what doesn't, and you'll get to a point where you're writing very catchy melodies.
Of course, I don't mean to discount other learning aids - videos, lessons, books (such as "how music works"). These can be helpful for many of us.
The same process applies to writing great lyrics and to coming up with danceable grooves and memorable hooks.
At this point, where we have so many excellent tools at our disposal, where we have access to so much quality information relating to our art, we should be giving the world a larger selection of fantastic music than at any time in the past.
So let's keep at it!
Fabian
Friday, April 15, 2011
Learning from Great Songs
Whenever we listen to music we learn from it. This happens whether we're consciously aware of it or not. Some pieces of music won't appeal to us and (subconsciously) we'll have an awareness of why they don't appeal. Likewise with songs which we love as well as the many songs we neither openly love nor detest. We're always learning what works and what doesn't, from our perspective.
We may open up our sequencer and start with a blank slate, but our minds aren't blank slates. When it comes to crafting a pleasing mix, we'll be guided by the music we've listened to. If our guitars don't sound chunky enough, we only know that because we've heard nice chunky guitars. If our kick drum doesn't have enough impact, we recognize it because we've heard satisfying kick drums in songs we like the sound of.
Given that we're always learning, I'd recommend doing it consciously. If we hear a beautiful lush pad in a song, we shouldn't rely on serendipity to bring it forth in a year's time, when a similar pad may fit perfectly into our current song. Focus on the pad and try to describe it as fully as possible - how wide is it? Is it only represented in the mid range, or does it have decent low and/or high end as well? Is there any modulation - panning, filters, delay effects? How does it interact with the other sounds - are there particular other sounds which help to frame the pad and make it sound the way it does? The more detail we can use to describe what we're hearing, the better we'll be able to recreate and incorporate the sound into our own sonic palette.
This leads me to the main topic of this post. It's great to describe a sound in detail, but in my experience the next step is more important - actually attempting to recreate the sound. I've addressed the issue in some of my posts already regarding the "copying vs originality" aspect of this. In short, as I've already said, we're learning all the time whether we're doing so consciously or not. Recreating sounds won't lead to any less original music than starting with a blank slate. It will however give us more techniques to use when we're making music.
Here's how I go about recreating songs.
I like to build songs up from the foundation - the kick and bass. The first thing I do is look for sections in the song/ album where these are as exposed as possible. When I find a song which is a good candidate, I'll import it into my sequencer and adjust the project's tempo to the tempo of the song. Some sequencers (such as Ableton Live) do this automatically, but mine doesn't, so I just loop a four bar section and adjust the tempo until the section loops cleanly.
Then I set the loop markers so a two bar section with a decently exposed kick drum is looping. The first bar plays the original audio, the second bar is silent (either via volume automation or simply cutting the original audio and moving the section after the first bar out of range of the loop). Then I go through my kick samples, in whichever sample library is closest to the style of sample I'm looking for. I'll hear four of the original kick, then four of the kick I'm previewing. I make note of kicks which sound close to the attack transient, kicks which sound close to the body and kicks which sound close overall. It's great when I find a kick which is close on its own (even better when I find the exact kick the original artist used!), but I have no problems splicing together a great sounding kick using the attack portion of one and the body of another. The thing to keep in mind when cutting out the parts of each kick that aren't required is to enable the "snap to zero crossing" option. Otherwise the audio will pop every time it plays the uncleanly spliced kick. Over the course of a song that's a heap of pops! Once I've gone through my kick library I may have noted down 20 kicks. I'll go through these again and keep narrowing it down until I find the closest one(s).
Once I have a kick which is pretty close I compare it to the original by running a frequency analyzer over both channels and seeing what differences that shows up. Obviously if the original version has other sounds playing I make allowances for these. I'll make a few EQ adjustments to get my kick even closer to the original.
Now that I have a decent version of the original kick it will be easier to hear and audition the other sounds relative to it. Ideally every sound would be isolated at some point during the song/album. When that doesn't happen it's helpful to have a very similar kick sound and listen to where the other sounds are sitting relative to it - level-wise, frequency-wise, their stereo width, panning and so on. Sometimes I'll look at a frequency analyzer, in which case it's definitely handy having a similar kick so I can focus on what the other sound is adding, rather than trying to judge which frequencies belong to the kick and which to the other sounds.
Kicks are often dry, mono and in the middle, whereas other sounds are more likely to be further processed. I note the reverb and delay that have been added to sounds, as well as any other treatment and do my best to replicate these.
After the kick I'll either proceed to the hihat and snare, or the bass. It depends on which element is most exposed. In this example I'll do the bass first.
I have a number of samplers and synthesizers I'm reasonably familiar with, so I'll generally know which one to turn to for a sound similar to the original bass sound. As before, I loop a section where the bass is exposed (if available), or where it's predominantly the kick and bass playing. I'll work out the notes the bass is playing and create a MIDI version to send to my sound source. Then I repeat the sound selection process - going through bass sounds, making notes of the sounds which are closest to the original, modifying parameters to push the sound closer to the original. Again, I may have noted down 10 to 20 sounds, which I'll progressively narrow down to the one I'll use.
The hihat and snare/clap are generally quite straightforward. Sometimes I'll adjust the pitch or length of a sample but generally I'll be content with something which fulfills the same role as the original sample rather than seeking an exact match.
I find a lot of mid/ higher bass sounds in trance very difficult to recreate. They often have filter modulation, phasers, delays or a myriad of other effects applied to them. Often this will be where I have to concede defeat for the time being. On a few occasions I've inserted a different mid bass sound which essentially fulfills the same function, which resulted in a very solid foundation to build pad and lead sounds onto for my future original productions.
I won't go into detail for the other sounds, since the same principles apply. I have a number of guitar amp emulators when I'm trying to match heavy guitar sounds in metal songs. I look for a similar sounding preset and work from there. For high percussive loops I choose a similar style of loop rather than trying to match it perfectly. For pad and lead sounds I listen to the relationship between them and the solid foundation I've already created. Essentially, the more songs I recreate, the better I'm able to hear small differences in sounds. Over time, when selecting sounds, I'm eliminating more of them before I note them down as candidates. Hopefully one day I'll reach a point where I can just go through and choose the best sound without making any notes. More experience with my sample libraries will help, as would an enhanced knowledge of synthesis.
To sum up, our music libraries are the best learning resource we have. If we take the time to study them and to experience their creation directly (to the best of our ability), we'll make tremendous progress. Each song is a new experience, which will stretch us and make us grow. Great masters of classical music transcribed music of the composers they admired in order to achieve this direct experience with the music they loved. I heartily encourage the practice.
I hope you've found this useful, keep making great music!
Fabian
We may open up our sequencer and start with a blank slate, but our minds aren't blank slates. When it comes to crafting a pleasing mix, we'll be guided by the music we've listened to. If our guitars don't sound chunky enough, we only know that because we've heard nice chunky guitars. If our kick drum doesn't have enough impact, we recognize it because we've heard satisfying kick drums in songs we like the sound of.
Given that we're always learning, I'd recommend doing it consciously. If we hear a beautiful lush pad in a song, we shouldn't rely on serendipity to bring it forth in a year's time, when a similar pad may fit perfectly into our current song. Focus on the pad and try to describe it as fully as possible - how wide is it? Is it only represented in the mid range, or does it have decent low and/or high end as well? Is there any modulation - panning, filters, delay effects? How does it interact with the other sounds - are there particular other sounds which help to frame the pad and make it sound the way it does? The more detail we can use to describe what we're hearing, the better we'll be able to recreate and incorporate the sound into our own sonic palette.
This leads me to the main topic of this post. It's great to describe a sound in detail, but in my experience the next step is more important - actually attempting to recreate the sound. I've addressed the issue in some of my posts already regarding the "copying vs originality" aspect of this. In short, as I've already said, we're learning all the time whether we're doing so consciously or not. Recreating sounds won't lead to any less original music than starting with a blank slate. It will however give us more techniques to use when we're making music.
Here's how I go about recreating songs.
I like to build songs up from the foundation - the kick and bass. The first thing I do is look for sections in the song/ album where these are as exposed as possible. When I find a song which is a good candidate, I'll import it into my sequencer and adjust the project's tempo to the tempo of the song. Some sequencers (such as Ableton Live) do this automatically, but mine doesn't, so I just loop a four bar section and adjust the tempo until the section loops cleanly.
Then I set the loop markers so a two bar section with a decently exposed kick drum is looping. The first bar plays the original audio, the second bar is silent (either via volume automation or simply cutting the original audio and moving the section after the first bar out of range of the loop). Then I go through my kick samples, in whichever sample library is closest to the style of sample I'm looking for. I'll hear four of the original kick, then four of the kick I'm previewing. I make note of kicks which sound close to the attack transient, kicks which sound close to the body and kicks which sound close overall. It's great when I find a kick which is close on its own (even better when I find the exact kick the original artist used!), but I have no problems splicing together a great sounding kick using the attack portion of one and the body of another. The thing to keep in mind when cutting out the parts of each kick that aren't required is to enable the "snap to zero crossing" option. Otherwise the audio will pop every time it plays the uncleanly spliced kick. Over the course of a song that's a heap of pops! Once I've gone through my kick library I may have noted down 20 kicks. I'll go through these again and keep narrowing it down until I find the closest one(s).
Once I have a kick which is pretty close I compare it to the original by running a frequency analyzer over both channels and seeing what differences that shows up. Obviously if the original version has other sounds playing I make allowances for these. I'll make a few EQ adjustments to get my kick even closer to the original.
Now that I have a decent version of the original kick it will be easier to hear and audition the other sounds relative to it. Ideally every sound would be isolated at some point during the song/album. When that doesn't happen it's helpful to have a very similar kick sound and listen to where the other sounds are sitting relative to it - level-wise, frequency-wise, their stereo width, panning and so on. Sometimes I'll look at a frequency analyzer, in which case it's definitely handy having a similar kick so I can focus on what the other sound is adding, rather than trying to judge which frequencies belong to the kick and which to the other sounds.
Kicks are often dry, mono and in the middle, whereas other sounds are more likely to be further processed. I note the reverb and delay that have been added to sounds, as well as any other treatment and do my best to replicate these.
After the kick I'll either proceed to the hihat and snare, or the bass. It depends on which element is most exposed. In this example I'll do the bass first.
I have a number of samplers and synthesizers I'm reasonably familiar with, so I'll generally know which one to turn to for a sound similar to the original bass sound. As before, I loop a section where the bass is exposed (if available), or where it's predominantly the kick and bass playing. I'll work out the notes the bass is playing and create a MIDI version to send to my sound source. Then I repeat the sound selection process - going through bass sounds, making notes of the sounds which are closest to the original, modifying parameters to push the sound closer to the original. Again, I may have noted down 10 to 20 sounds, which I'll progressively narrow down to the one I'll use.
The hihat and snare/clap are generally quite straightforward. Sometimes I'll adjust the pitch or length of a sample but generally I'll be content with something which fulfills the same role as the original sample rather than seeking an exact match.
I find a lot of mid/ higher bass sounds in trance very difficult to recreate. They often have filter modulation, phasers, delays or a myriad of other effects applied to them. Often this will be where I have to concede defeat for the time being. On a few occasions I've inserted a different mid bass sound which essentially fulfills the same function, which resulted in a very solid foundation to build pad and lead sounds onto for my future original productions.
I won't go into detail for the other sounds, since the same principles apply. I have a number of guitar amp emulators when I'm trying to match heavy guitar sounds in metal songs. I look for a similar sounding preset and work from there. For high percussive loops I choose a similar style of loop rather than trying to match it perfectly. For pad and lead sounds I listen to the relationship between them and the solid foundation I've already created. Essentially, the more songs I recreate, the better I'm able to hear small differences in sounds. Over time, when selecting sounds, I'm eliminating more of them before I note them down as candidates. Hopefully one day I'll reach a point where I can just go through and choose the best sound without making any notes. More experience with my sample libraries will help, as would an enhanced knowledge of synthesis.
To sum up, our music libraries are the best learning resource we have. If we take the time to study them and to experience their creation directly (to the best of our ability), we'll make tremendous progress. Each song is a new experience, which will stretch us and make us grow. Great masters of classical music transcribed music of the composers they admired in order to achieve this direct experience with the music they loved. I heartily encourage the practice.
I hope you've found this useful, keep making great music!
Fabian
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Seeing the Big Picture
Often we get caught up in the little details. Which is okay, since all the little details make a large difference to the final song.
Now and then, however, we need to step back and see where we're headed. If we finish one song and dive straight into the next and rarely take the time to reflect on our long-term goals and direction, we may lead ourselves into a creative rut. We may compose, produce and mix our songs in habitual ways, not growing as much as we could. We may get bored and disillusioned with the music we make, feeling that our last five songs were just minor variations on the same theme.
We may have lost touch with musical trends; we shouldn't follow trends for the sake of trying to be successful - if the trend doesn't naturally excite us then we're not going to be able to create exciting music in that trend. Being aware of trends can be helpful even if they don't excite us overall. Perhaps among the new sounds we don't like there's also a trend towards a drier sound (that is, less reverb), which we may see as appealing.
Seeing the big picture with regard to which of our songs are strong enough to warrant taking them through to completion involves leaving some time between the original composition and the subsequent production. I've read interviews with people who have worked on classic albums, where each of the eight to twelve songs are very strong. The artists/ bands would have up to 80 songs to choose from when they started recording the album. Not every song was developed past an initial draft. We can learn from this - if we want to create one or two very strong songs, we should compose ten to twenty rough ideas before deciding which ones to take through to the next step. This saves an incredible amount of time compared with taking every single idea through to completion.
Seeing the big picture with regard to learning about and working on aspects of our art - songwriting, production, engineering - means we may not finish any songs for a while. However, it also means that every single song from then on will sound better (well, if we have learned and practiced effectively). If we're struggling to make our bass sound good in our mixes it will make a big difference to put aside our current song and spend a week or two focusing purely on bass sounds.
I've done this a number of times and improved a lot as a result. I once put together around 100 combinations of kick drum and bass sounds. I went through all my synthesizers and samplers and found appealing bass sounds, then matched them with kick sounds which complemented them. A large number of the 100 attempts were rubbish. But 20 sounded quite good and five sounded fantastic, providing me with solid foundations to build five of my next songs onto. I may not have created any songs for a couple of weeks, but I had a lot more experience with my sound sources and putting these sounds together. Vastly preferable to working on and finishing a song with a kick and bass combination which may have fallen around position 30 of the 100 and despairing that the song doesn't sound great overall!
This approach can be applied to any aspect we wish to improve - writing melodies, creating chord progressions, improving our arrangements and song flow, finding better ways to group sounds, finding ways to make better use of our send effects and a thousand other things. If we listen to enough great music we'll have a good feeling for where we need to improve.
Touching again on sound sources - seeing the big picture means getting to fully understand and appreciate the sounds each of our instruments, samplers, drum machines, synthesizers and so on can give us. Each instrument has a range of sounds it can produce - there is no synthesizer which can produce the sound of every other instrument. As in the previous paragraph, this happens largely through working with the instrument, using it in a large number of productions/ practice sessions, experiencing how the sounds fit together with the other sound sources at our disposal. It takes time to understand and get the most out of an instrument. New sound sources can be inspiring and very useful, but if we constantly look to the new to provide us with "amazing sounds" we will struggle with achieving solid, well-produced songs.
As always, I hope some of you have found this useful. It's very satisfying to take a step back and appreciate how far we've come and how much potential we have to create even better music in the future!
Fabian
Now and then, however, we need to step back and see where we're headed. If we finish one song and dive straight into the next and rarely take the time to reflect on our long-term goals and direction, we may lead ourselves into a creative rut. We may compose, produce and mix our songs in habitual ways, not growing as much as we could. We may get bored and disillusioned with the music we make, feeling that our last five songs were just minor variations on the same theme.
We may have lost touch with musical trends; we shouldn't follow trends for the sake of trying to be successful - if the trend doesn't naturally excite us then we're not going to be able to create exciting music in that trend. Being aware of trends can be helpful even if they don't excite us overall. Perhaps among the new sounds we don't like there's also a trend towards a drier sound (that is, less reverb), which we may see as appealing.
Seeing the big picture with regard to which of our songs are strong enough to warrant taking them through to completion involves leaving some time between the original composition and the subsequent production. I've read interviews with people who have worked on classic albums, where each of the eight to twelve songs are very strong. The artists/ bands would have up to 80 songs to choose from when they started recording the album. Not every song was developed past an initial draft. We can learn from this - if we want to create one or two very strong songs, we should compose ten to twenty rough ideas before deciding which ones to take through to the next step. This saves an incredible amount of time compared with taking every single idea through to completion.
Seeing the big picture with regard to learning about and working on aspects of our art - songwriting, production, engineering - means we may not finish any songs for a while. However, it also means that every single song from then on will sound better (well, if we have learned and practiced effectively). If we're struggling to make our bass sound good in our mixes it will make a big difference to put aside our current song and spend a week or two focusing purely on bass sounds.
I've done this a number of times and improved a lot as a result. I once put together around 100 combinations of kick drum and bass sounds. I went through all my synthesizers and samplers and found appealing bass sounds, then matched them with kick sounds which complemented them. A large number of the 100 attempts were rubbish. But 20 sounded quite good and five sounded fantastic, providing me with solid foundations to build five of my next songs onto. I may not have created any songs for a couple of weeks, but I had a lot more experience with my sound sources and putting these sounds together. Vastly preferable to working on and finishing a song with a kick and bass combination which may have fallen around position 30 of the 100 and despairing that the song doesn't sound great overall!
This approach can be applied to any aspect we wish to improve - writing melodies, creating chord progressions, improving our arrangements and song flow, finding better ways to group sounds, finding ways to make better use of our send effects and a thousand other things. If we listen to enough great music we'll have a good feeling for where we need to improve.
Touching again on sound sources - seeing the big picture means getting to fully understand and appreciate the sounds each of our instruments, samplers, drum machines, synthesizers and so on can give us. Each instrument has a range of sounds it can produce - there is no synthesizer which can produce the sound of every other instrument. As in the previous paragraph, this happens largely through working with the instrument, using it in a large number of productions/ practice sessions, experiencing how the sounds fit together with the other sound sources at our disposal. It takes time to understand and get the most out of an instrument. New sound sources can be inspiring and very useful, but if we constantly look to the new to provide us with "amazing sounds" we will struggle with achieving solid, well-produced songs.
As always, I hope some of you have found this useful. It's very satisfying to take a step back and appreciate how far we've come and how much potential we have to create even better music in the future!
Fabian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)