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.
Is it harder to excel in music industry in the "inernet era" than back in the 90's?
... and early 2000's.
Back then, as a producer, you had to invest a considerable amount of money at least in a hardware sampler, a synth, a mixer... and recording on cd's or DAT not so easy.
Now everyone can start producing nearly for free with professional gear.
Besides, nowadays there is an overwhelming amount of offer and even people that make well produced stuff don't get any attention.
Seems like it's harder now to start and succeed.
Think you've answered your own question there, although it depends what you consider 'excelling'?
In regards to 'Besides, nowadays there is an overwhelming amount of offer and even people that make well produced stuff don't get any attention.' This has always been the case, it isn't a new thing. If someone is making great music they need to make the effort to promote themselves in order to get heard.
Music software is so accessible, internet digital labels popping up everyday - it is in fact easier to break in to the music industry than ever before, but how successful you are is determined by the quality of your music (In most cases ).
I'm not sure if you're talking about Drum & Bass or just music in general, but I think it was a lot harder back in the day to be successful, regardless. The level of talent was unreal & the standards were generally a lot higher. The public were not so easily fooled back then.
always try to make music which nobody can resist. that is the right attitude. there are tracks from the 90s i played for some dudes in (very) little towns who only listened to radio - and the next week they petitioned the mayor to bring in the internet only so that they can get dnbs
with todays produced dnb i would have to search 10x (maybe 100x) more for tracks with the same disarming/sincere/funky-groovy/scifi attitude... and considering that i am not a DJ, that is a LOT of time. 99 percent of new tracks sounds just like the radio (which, to be frank, is worse than in the 90s...)
so yeah, from a certain perspective it is harder to excel because people (especially people who listen at home) need to search a great deal more to find you. they have to sift through mountains of noisia-subfocus-spor lookalikes and hospitality clones in order to find something worth listening three times.
in the same time, i am firmly convinced that a track depends on the TIME INVESTED, not the tools or money invested. and by time invested i am not only referring to the time invested in production but also the time invested in style (i.e. how much time have you spent experiencing/searching for what you want to express/create)
at the end of the day, if i give you a basket full of mushrooms or a trailer full of mushrooms - you will find those delicious redcaps in roughly the same time
Its easier to make good tunes now, or atleast well produced tune. Generally in the 90s a well produced tune would = a good tune but they were few and far between but generally a well produced tune that sounded good would be released 1 way or another. There was still a lot of crap as it goes, wasnt all timeless classics although a lot of mediocre stuff was released and was good, was less emphasis on snares and hz and more on vibe and the flow of a tune.
Thing is there were not many studios and you really had to know someone that knew how to use it or spend a fortune on gear and learn it, this was some sort of QC I guess. Was a totally different concept and probably more like bands hiring a studio.
Nowadays well produced music is everywhere and it just means someone has smashed the hell out of the crack copy limiters. Endless source of info and guides everywhere, free samples available everywhere, endless amounts of synths etc however this = masses and masses of same. 99% of music sounds similar as its been done on identical gear with identical samples and identical plugins and using identical methods rather than crate digging for samples and getting hold of whatever gear they could, down to the hifi cd player, turntable or video player they sampled off.
In fairness getting tracks signed now means nothing unless its to 1 of about 10-15 labels, i'm old skool and a vinyl press for me is where I take notice. Every man and his dog has had releases just not many on wax. So it is actually easier if anything now to get a track signed however I think its harder to get a track signed to a reputable label ie Ram, Critical, Shogun etc as there are less label releasing.
I think it was harder to influence people because there was less in your face advertising. Was a lot less music in fairness, no music channels, no downloading, no Simon Cowell, no dnb on Radio 1 nothing free so if you wanted to hear new music you would go out and hear it in clubs or in record shops, tape packs etc and invest in it.
I just swear there was never the brainwashing like there is now. The likes of Skrillex, C&S, Pendulum etc just rammed in your face, people are just obsessed and seem to think they are the be all and all. Nearest I got to this was Dillinja circa 94-97 but in fairness he was smashing it so hard.
Nowadays well produced music is everywhere and it just means someone has smashed the hell out of the crack copy limiters. Endless source of info and guides everywhere, free samples available everywhere, endless amounts of synths etc however this = masses and masses of same. 99% of music sounds similar as its been done on identical gear with identical samples and identical plugins and using identical methods rather than crate digging for samples and getting hold of whatever gear they could, down to the hifi cd player, turntable or video player they sampled off.
I wonder how true this is...would we hear more unique dubstep basslines if everyone and their little sister wasn't using Massive, Vengeance Club Sounds, and the same how to Skrillex youtube tutorials?
In relation to the very last part of the quote I keep wondering if the unlimited possibilities of the modern DAW do more to limit people then set them free creatively? When you can go in any direction how much does the direction matter?
SunkLo wrote: If ragging on the 'shortcut to the top' mentality makes me a hater then shower me in haterade.
My belief is that because so much of the software needed to make tunes these days is available for free, most people who pirate it don't bother investing any time in learning how to use it properly as it has no value to them...if they paid £400 or whatever then they'd be more inclined to spend time learning how to use the software, making it uniquely theirs, taking the time to find the special in's and out's.
But as it's disposable, that is freely available, then they have no financial interest invested in it...so why bother learning it if it didn't cost anything? Far easier to go online and find out how to use it, again for free, as opposed to taking the time to learn.
The disposable software attitude leads to disposable video tutorials, YouTube is evident enough of that. Crap begets crap and the quality of what is being demonstrated vs. what is being carried over gradually falls apart as we cascade down the levels at breakneck speed, until the sound is devalued to the point where it becomes utterly transient in nature.
Digital record labels are setup (again, nothing invested in them to speak of, so why bother so much about quality control?), and the cycle perpetuates itself. The quality falls apart further as people who have downloaded cracked software hear tunes on low level digital labels that aren't up to standard and think hey I can do that, and go and attempt a poor imitation of an already poor product...the prophecy becomes totally self fulfiling when they themselves put out their low level trash on their own digital label and WHOOP DE FUCKING DO they're a signed artist and label owner in one fell swoop, and all for the price of a broadband connection.
Well said. I certainly think there is a ton of that going on! Although I, shamefully, have payed for some software I've don't use/haven't really spent much time with ...but that is more an issue of time and my bad habit of shopping online with a six pack and pay check...
Still. Let's say someone who has payed and is dedicated has whatever DAW and a few good VSTs...I wonder if the unlimited possibilities might still hinder such a person. Obviously plenty of folks make amazing music all in the box...and I'm probably just being dumb/nostalgic ...really missing the guerrilla aesthetic of the scene...the illegal parties...making do with what you have...working inside limitations.
Also really sick of having to shift through piles of shit...
Monday. Fuck...
SunkLo wrote: If ragging on the 'shortcut to the top' mentality makes me a hater then shower me in haterade.
Been fucking hypnotised by this today. Need to try and make more epic tunes, I'm hating this short loop/small track mentality that has crept in to my stuff recently. I think my over reliance on what are basic intros is really helping a whole lot to contribute to this. I want to try maybe extending sections, automation and ideas permitting, doubling them maybe. Though is that a quick fix? An 8 bar intro becomes a 16 bar intro, a 16 bar roll out goes to 32, 64...128...that's too long standardly but the idea is still fermenting.
Though to think it's just a question of doubling the length of things would be blase to say the least. Automation factoring aside, which over an extended period would be practically inaudible...though then again now I think about that it would give an excellent evolution of sound. A wet/dry version of the same synth line, for example, one gradually filtering in whilst the other gradually filters out over 64 bars...obligatory sidechaining on their respective EQs to the kick drum to give the breathe & flutter. The automation gradually develops over the course of the pattern, plus there would be that sweet spot moment when they cross over.
At 120bpm, 64bars would take (2 beats per second, 64 x 4 = 256 beats, so that's...) just over 2mins give or take a bit...this technique would obviously require so additional programming, particular in terms of the drums to keep the vibe enough to hold interest whilst maintaining that vibe in itself.
Then again, taking the concept one stage further we introduce wet/dry drum mix. The dry drums, fair enough. The 'wet' drums, term used very loosely here...and this is all off my head conceptual shit right now;
Drum elements arranged tastefully
Decent drum loop sent to bus, tiny bit of compression to gel it together (dry) (may not be necessary, see below point 7)
Drum bus is then also routed to a seperate 'In' channel on the mixer
(interesting bit) this In channel is then bandsplit out in lows/mid/highs, then back in to a 'Wet' bus
So we have the dry drums playing through their bus, and the wet drums playing out through the bandsplit channels
Wet drums can now be fucked with individually...glitch effects on the hi hats...reverb on the long end...frequency rolling (again, automated) on the mids
Dry drums and wet drums (from their respective busses) can now both finally be routed into a "Master Drums" bus. At this point I'm thinking a compressor to gel it all together, meaning my earlier point about a compressor (2) may be redundant. This would be trial & error
The dry/wet/bandpass/bus concept could be easily replicated across other elements...fuck doing that just on pads ...but again all conceptual. One of those will need to sit and properly fiddle, maybe a new template, to get the in's and out's finalised.
UPDATE - 22/6/12
Taking the discordant pads intro idea a step further, just sketched out a rough 60 bar loop track. Using a single VST (TAL-Elek7r0, go to for weird synth noises) and a messed with preset, created 4 equal sections with basic pad sequences sketched out, few random notes in and around to break things up.
Bandsplit down, filter gradually rising on the mids over the course of the 60bars, 170bpm, then heavy delay on the pad bus output with gradual wet-to-dry convert (Same as the filter in a way) over the course of the 60bars.
Couple of random beat loops I had laying around from another project, some ring modulation on the pad for extra movement, then a cut off 'end' place holder to give the delay/reverb that has been added time to decay naturally.
Bounce out with some rough around the edge mixdown/basic mastering gubbins on the master to give a feel and jobs done. Beats are jumpy and need some programming variation, but the feel and throb from the pads/synth in the background (single VST for the sounds) are enveloping. Added some additional sidechaining on the drums/perc so that one directly triggers the other and some random sketch cuts to vary the hits (and thus the subsequent sidechain pulsing) for more breathing.
Rough around the edges but an idea of what I was trying to visual above and some basic learning exercise to work on. Will upload the output tomorrow if it still sounds as good when I get into the office (see a few lines above)
Loving these thoughts going on here...I can't seem to get away from 1:00-1:30 intros...I've not been worried about conventional structures lately ...but keeping things interesting is always a challenge. Loving that drum routing plan. That could be useful all over the place. Much better plan than always trying to cram one more piece of interest into the frequency space of a tune.
I like the idea for pads too...I've been trying simple things like chopping and/or reversing my melody and scattering bits of that through out the intro...so you get a whiff of what's cooking...I think automation and bussing is probably the route to go to keep elements interesting throughout a tune.
SunkLo wrote: If ragging on the 'shortcut to the top' mentality makes me a hater then shower me in haterade.
How about fark the intro, make it the first beat and then get to work. The intro only really makes sense in dj mixable music, where an intro is almost required. Outside of that, it is just an excuse for lazyness.
nowaysj wrote:How about fark the intro, make it the first beat and then get to work. The intro only really makes sense in dj mixable music, where an intro is almost required. Outside of that, it is just an excuse for lazyness.
That Seba tune I posted has a 2min beatless intro, which I wouldn't say was there for mixing purposes.
nowaysj wrote:Why not let your tune lay down the intentions of your tune?
Exactly...the main part of the tune, the focus point...this should be what drives it IMO. Start in the middle (or not) and work out from it. Fill the whole 512 bars with every pattern and element there is, a solid wall of sound. Then reduce the elements, subtractive arrangement style.
- Try adding ambient layers of sound (pads/background noise) to give some extra texture without over powering the main elements.
- Experiment with panning left or right on certain elements (not full panning, adjust to taste). Think of the tune as a box. Right in the middle of the box is the listener. You have the whole box to fill with sound, if that helps on a conceptual level?
- For shakers/percussion, try recording in the hits by hand using your controller...you'll get variations in placement and velocity, giving it a human element. Some of them may sound off...my advice would be to get your drum beat running and record a 16 bar shaker/perc line by hand, then listen back and chop out the bits you don't like, and loop the bits you do.
- Finally, get yourself a copy of a tune you like, and listen to it over and over, making notes on what element are in the mix and arrive at what times, for example;
Vinyl crackle in background
Bongo loop
Vocal sample
Synth/deep pads
Synth/Higher bleeps
2nd vocal sample
Piano hook
Drop into synth bleep, different pattern
synth pads build
bass drop, gradual with [can't read my handwriting here]
sub kick & stuttery snare
Bongos come back
vocal samples on heavy delay
Variation in bongos
Bass drops
Piano comes back
2nd vocal sample
Bongos in and out
Piano variation
Synth bleeps
Drop, roll out, strip out
Syntax is a bit off in some of them, and haven't used the 'correct' terms for some of the elements, but the main thing is that I associate my notes with what I was hearing as the tune progressed. Then fired up FL and tried to recreate what I'd heard, using the above as a template. Didn't sound anything like the original, but it was enough of an excerise to give myself a grounding in a few new methods, plus had a pre existing structure to base things on, even if the finished product was quite far removed from the original.
Try and replicate the structure to give you an idea of what changes make on the feel of the tune. When you're happy, do it with another tune. Repeat.
Then try and replicate the way the sounds are interested. Don't necessarily confuse this with having to replicate the sounds themselves, just their arrangement and arrival in the tune.
So I've been trying to incorporate my guitar into productions lately, but the issue I've always run into is this: As soon as people recognize a guitar, or a lead guitar anyway, their expectations of that guitar players ability shoot through the roof exponentially, as opposed to being okay with a producer just repeating a 16 bar melody on a synth with some automation. For some reason, once you introduce that live element, I am making a commitment to songwriting and musical ability that I feel the need to follow through with.
The other side to this is "well, why not just sample your guitar like anything else". Which if I were not a guitarist at heart, would work really well. But as soon as I try to introduce any amount of guitar into the mix I feel like I'm doing myself a disservice for not practicing and getting fluent with it again, enough to overcome that valley of "overly produced crappy guitar player" (which is just applying the same techniques that would be applied to synths, except that the expectations of the listeners change like I mentioned) and into "oh he actually knows what hes doing"
it took me years to finally admit that I need to do the latter and just start practicing. This means pretty much that productions will take 10x as long, but luckily the majority of that time can be spent away from a computer.
I could have made a new thread but I figured this fit here.
I've mused on the guitar. I would completely leave it out of electronic music. It just brings way to much baggage with it. People just start listening to the guitar. Then you've got ANOTHER guitar song on your hands.
I think sampling riffs for hip hop beat production still works though. And you don't really need to practice much, just practice that phrase for a bit, then lay it down.
...but that is more an issue of time and my bad habit of shopping online with a six pack and pay check...
...but again all conceptual. One of those will need to sit and properly fiddle, maybe a new template, to get the in's and out's finalised.
