Forum rules
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.
spencertron wrote:I, Squarepusher, hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: acoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.
This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.
...
spencertron wrote:I, Squarepusher, hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: acoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.
This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.
A naive notion of creativity seems compromised if we consider that a given musical piece was at least partially dictated by the tools of its realisation. Although I emphasise that never can a musician escape the use of some sort of musical tool, there is nevertheless a choice which is always made, unwittingly or otherwise. We can choose whether to understand what rules the tool imposes on our work, or we can disregard them and leave the manufacturers as "sleeping partners".
I suggest we can enhance creative potential by a critical awareness of the modes of operation of these tools. Thus, I urge an unmasking of these black boxes of the contemporary musical landscape. Circuit bending can be one way - analysing and modifying electronic circuitry. Another is to understand the ways in which musical data is encoded and modified by currently ubiquitous digital means. In addition, various software platforms now exist which, with varying levels of flexibilty, allow users to generate their own instruments.
The modern musician is subject to a barrage of persuasion from manufacturers of music technology. The general implication is that buying new tools leads to being able to make new and exciting music. While it is true that certain degrees of freedom are added by new equipment, it is not the case that this entails wholesale musical innovation. What seems more likely is that new clichés are generated by users unanalytically being forced into certain actions by the achitecture of the machine. For me it is parallel, if not synonymous with a dogmatic consumer mentality that seems to hold that our lives are always improved by possessions.
Imagine the conception of structural rules to do with electric guitars before and after Jimi Hendrix. An instrument is always open to re-definition. Thus I encourage anybody remotely interested in making music to boldly investigate exactly what the rules are to which you, as a modern musician, are subject. Only thus can you have a hope in bending and ultimately rewriting them.
"real stand-out electronic artists do more by hand than you might think.
Meanwhile, there's an industry which sustains itself by selling novel technology that promises to make consumers sound like the big names. But it doesn't, because the big names aren't dependent on novel technology as such. Instead, they have an attitude, patience, and love for the process of sculpting glitchy beats, or writing cantatas, or crafting lyrics. We buy things that promise to glitch things up for us, because we're too scared or impatient or distractible to do the work of chopping things up by hand. The artists who succeed are the artists who just love that work. They love difficult exploration.
It's as if the iconic artists open up new musical territory, exploring on foot with very little equipment; then the music tech industry makes maps of the territory, produces vehicles to ferry consumers around it, sells GPS systems for the vehicles...
But the maps are inaccurate, and they guide consumers round the territory in a certain way - which isn't the same route the explorers took back in the day".
these thoughts on tools for making music carry alot of weight for me in regards to making choices about what you use for your sound...which is why i, and many others prefer a customizable programming environment such as Reaktor where the user is able to create simple instruments for making their tunes as opposed to using the next big software package or VST...
2manynoobs wrote:
one time I accidentally killed jimi hendrix in my dream. He was a puppet in my dream-stratego-game. I made a wrong strategical move and it killed him
£10 Bag wrote:i'm not sure that is the best advice you could give this man, fstz
1. stop smoking da crack
2. learn paragraphs
serious though,
crackhead wrote:i've come to learn about layering had ago with that n finding it quite diffulcult but its coming dont know if anyone could drop some hints on that one?... At present am playing around with layering the drum kits to enhance the sounds but have come to the conclusion that reason is not painting the picture i need
reason, fl studio, cubase, wangbase - use whatever
YOU'RE not painting the picture you need. believe me, your software is STUPID, you have to tell it exactly what to do. any piece of software! its not going to make the beat for you!
keep at it man, keep changing programs and practicing techniques.
remember that EVERY program has eqs, filters, compressors etc etc.
learning the tools inside out is more important than learning the toolbox
i see ,,,,pipe aside ,,then what is beta logic pro or one of the fl studio pakages and y
Man i use fl studio 9xxL producer edition. Its all about youtube tutorials man, Im telling you. Ill point you in the right direction with a few things as was done with me, but im still learning and part of the fun is the discovery of techniques, but getting your feet off the ground with developing a groove is important so here you go:
Look up "parallel processing" and "sidechain compression" also learn to use the fruity parametric eq2 and the on screen mixer (which youll learn for parallel processing and sidechaining anyway). That should steer you in the right direction and be relatively easy for you given your apparent history with fl studio.
One last ting, check out a guy on youtube called "FL Guru" his videos are short and sweet and easy to follow. Plus hes an aussie www.soundcloud.com/skerrick
2manynoobs wrote:
one time I accidentally killed jimi hendrix in my dream. He was a puppet in my dream-stratego-game. I made a wrong strategical move and it killed him
2manynoobs wrote:
one time I accidentally killed jimi hendrix in my dream. He was a puppet in my dream-stratego-game. I made a wrong strategical move and it killed him
fragments wrote:@OP: It seems you already like FL Studio. I've been using it for a long time and have been convinced that, at the moment, there is absolutely no need to relearn how to do everything I already no how to do (not a ton mind you) in another more expensive software program. I'd say stick with FL Studio while you are learning THE BASICS (a good place to start) and if you feel like you want to move on to something else later you can make that decision.
Switching to another DAW really, really probably isn't going to make your songs sound any better. Fortunately, there are no short cuts to becoming a good artist in any medium, unless you are simply a born genius.
Couldnt have said it better myself mang,
Realistically if one DAW was ACTUALLY better than the other it would be clear and evident and everyone would go with the better, fact of the matter is that ALL THESE PROGRAMS DO THE EXACT SAME THING AS EACH OTHER IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER (directed at troopa) and therefore its simply about finding the system that works for you. Its simply all layout based, i assure you ableton, reason, cubase and fruity etc are all just as capable as each other, and each of the programs has their own set of strengths and weaknesses, im finding that good producers dont so much abuse the strengths but counter the weaknesses in the sounds theyre making, before building and tastefully using the abilities of the program in a more technical based manner to achieve the sound they want. It takes patience. http://www.soundcloud.com/skerrick
Last edited by skerrick on Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
2manynoobs wrote:
one time I accidentally killed jimi hendrix in my dream. He was a puppet in my dream-stratego-game. I made a wrong strategical move and it killed him
2manynoobs wrote:
one time I accidentally killed jimi hendrix in my dream. He was a puppet in my dream-stratego-game. I made a wrong strategical move and it killed him
2manynoobs wrote:
one time I accidentally killed jimi hendrix in my dream. He was a puppet in my dream-stratego-game. I made a wrong strategical move and it killed him
2manynoobs wrote:
one time I accidentally killed jimi hendrix in my dream. He was a puppet in my dream-stratego-game. I made a wrong strategical move and it killed him
spencertron wrote:I, Squarepusher, hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: acoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.
This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.
A naive notion of creativity seems compromised if we consider that a given musical piece was at least partially dictated by the tools of its realisation. Although I emphasise that never can a musician escape the use of some sort of musical tool, there is nevertheless a choice which is always made, unwittingly or otherwise. We can choose whether to understand what rules the tool imposes on our work, or we can disregard them and leave the manufacturers as "sleeping partners".
I suggest we can enhance creative potential by a critical awareness of the modes of operation of these tools. Thus, I urge an unmasking of these black boxes of the contemporary musical landscape. Circuit bending can be one way - analysing and modifying electronic circuitry. Another is to understand the ways in which musical data is encoded and modified by currently ubiquitous digital means. In addition, various software platforms now exist which, with varying levels of flexibilty, allow users to generate their own instruments.
The modern musician is subject to a barrage of persuasion from manufacturers of music technology. The general implication is that buying new tools leads to being able to make new and exciting music. While it is true that certain degrees of freedom are added by new equipment, it is not the case that this entails wholesale musical innovation. What seems more likely is that new clichés are generated by users unanalytically being forced into certain actions by the achitecture of the machine. For me it is parallel, if not synonymous with a dogmatic consumer mentality that seems to hold that our lives are always improved by possessions.
Imagine the conception of structural rules to do with electric guitars before and after Jimi Hendrix. An instrument is always open to re-definition. Thus I encourage anybody remotely interested in making music to boldly investigate exactly what the rules are to which you, as a modern musician, are subject. Only thus can you have a hope in bending and ultimately rewriting them.
"real stand-out electronic artists do more by hand than you might think.
Meanwhile, there's an industry which sustains itself by selling novel technology that promises to make consumers sound like the big names. But it doesn't, because the big names aren't dependent on novel technology as such. Instead, they have an attitude, patience, and love for the process of sculpting glitchy beats, or writing cantatas, or crafting lyrics. We buy things that promise to glitch things up for us, because we're too scared or impatient or distractible to do the work of chopping things up by hand. The artists who succeed are the artists who just love that work. They love difficult exploration.
It's as if the iconic artists open up new musical territory, exploring on foot with very little equipment; then the music tech industry makes maps of the territory, produces vehicles to ferry consumers around it, sells GPS systems for the vehicles...
But the maps are inaccurate, and they guide consumers round the territory in a certain way - which isn't the same route the explorers took back in the day".
these thoughts on tools for making music carry alot of weight for me in regards to making choices about what you use for your sound...which is why i, and many others prefer a customizable programming environment such as Reaktor where the user is able to create simple instruments for making their tunes as opposed to using the next big software package or VST...
hopefully some of the above helps others
wow, what an old thread. everyone should read this though. Squarepusher really nailed it, I don't think anything else really needs to be said.
2manynoobs wrote:
one time I accidentally killed jimi hendrix in my dream. He was a puppet in my dream-stratego-game. I made a wrong strategical move and it killed him
