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
Friday, April 29, 2011
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)