Dubstepforum.com

All you need to make dubstep is 'The Algorithmic Dubstep maker' made in Pure Data...hit play, hear it evolve, zero effort, random results everytime

Everyone saying this is shit, its really fucking hard to get into making electronic without any help. This magazine could help beginners into producing in general, and those beginners could go on to make some real fucking tunes. Some might make clone stuff, but people are already making boring tunes as it is. Every new producer is a opportunity and a good thing.

Everyone saying this is shit, its really fucking hard to get into making electronic without any help. This magazine could help beginners into producing in general, and those beginners could go on to make some real fucking tunes. Some might make clone stuff, but people are already making boring tunes as it is. Every new producer is a opportunity and a good thing.

agreed...

freqone wrote:

Everyone saying this is shit, its really fucking hard to get into making electronic without any help. This magazine could help beginners into producing in general, and those beginners could go on to make some real fucking tunes. Some might make clone stuff, but people are already making boring tunes as it is. Every new producer is a opportunity and a good thing.

agreed...

2nd'd

i can't see how this is on the bad end of the spectrum... there are worse magazine that can be picked up...

is it some resources of that magazine posted online, so it can be read.

DJ KLAIM wrote:I understand why people are bit annoyed, the magazine is making it sound like there is a formula to making Dubstep.

I think Dubstep producers are doing a good enough job at making it sound like there is a formula, but like... using the same formula.

eshscramble wrote:i can't see how this is on the bad end of the spectrum...

No-one is saying that, it's just aimed more at beginners than professionals.

dubstee wrote:

eshscramble wrote:i can't see how this is on the bad end of the spectrum...

No-one is saying that, it's just aimed more at beginners than professionals.

I think this is what people are referring to...

seckle wrote:inevitable and depressing on one level

It's funny how people seem to want the scene to move forwards, but when some decent coverage comes along, they turn their noses up.

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote:

eshscramble wrote:i can't see how this is on the bad end of the spectrum...

No-one is saying that, it's just aimed more at beginners than professionals.

I think this is what people are referring to...

Well that is what it is - the clue is in the subtitle: "Make Music Now". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just the way it is.

Shafey wrote:

seckle wrote:inevitable and depressing on one level

It's funny how people seem to want the scene to move forwards, but when some decent coverage comes along, they turn their noses up.

There's no shortage of coverage in the press for dubstep. Not sure how tutorials on how to make dubstep pastiche tunes are going to push the scene forward though.

Surely an awful lot of developments in modern music came from someone trying to copy something and screwing it up? Sorry, I mean "adding their own individual sound".

dubstee wrote:

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote:

eshscramble wrote:i can't see how this is on the bad end of the spectrum...

No-one is saying that, it's just aimed more at beginners than professionals.

I think this is what people are referring to...

Well that is what it is - the clue is in the subtitle: "Make Music Now". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just the way it is.

Shafey wrote:

seckle wrote:inevitable and depressing on one level

It's funny how people seem to want the scene to move forwards, but when some decent coverage comes along, they turn their noses up.

There's no shortage of coverage in the press for dubstep. Not sure how tutorials on how to make dubstep pastiche tunes are going to push the scene forward though.

You've misunderstood. I was using Seckle's quote as an example of someone who perhaps doesn't like this kind of coverage, after you said no-one was saying it's a bad thing.

Don't know about you but I can't recall too many occasions where a dubstep article has been the main feature of a music magazine and has dominated the front cover - A handful of times at most.

Clearly you have some kind of affiliation to sound on sound. It's coverage in these channels which is going to attract more people into the scene and articles/features like tutorials will obviously encourage people starting out to experiment with something new - if you can't see that as a positive thing then quite frankly, you are a donut.

duck wrote:Surely an awful lot of developments in modern music came from someone trying to copy something and screwing it up? Sorry, I mean "adding their own individual sound".

Exactly.

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote:

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote:

eshscramble wrote:i can't see how this is on the bad end of the spectrum...

No-one is saying that, it's just aimed more at beginners than professionals.

I think this is what people are referring to...

Well that is what it is - the clue is in the subtitle: "Make Music Now". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just the way it is.

Shafey wrote:

seckle wrote:inevitable and depressing on one level

It's funny how people seem to want the scene to move forwards, but when some decent coverage comes along, they turn their noses up.

There's no shortage of coverage in the press for dubstep. Not sure how tutorials on how to make dubstep pastiche tunes are going to push the scene forward though.

You've misunderstood. I was using Seckle's quote as an example of someone who perhaps doesn't like this kind of coverage, after you said no-one was saying it's a bad thing.

Don't know about you but I can't recall too many occasions where a dubstep article has been the main feature of a music magazine and has dominated the front cover - A handful of times at most.

Clearly you have some kind of affiliation to sound on sound. It's coverage in these channels which is going to attract more people into the scene and articles/features like tutorials will obviously encourage people starting out to experiment with something new - if you can't see that as a positive thing then quite frankly, you are a donut.

When did I say the coverage was a bad thing? I only said it wasn't a bad thing that Computer Music is more aimed at beginners than SOS.

HOWEVER - If you think that any coverage in the press is automatically good for dubstep then you're quite mistaken I'm afraid. The main result of the increase in popularity of the music over the last couple of years has been a lot more average music. People who make good music don't need a genre-based tutorial to tell them what to do, they experiment and develop their own sound, rather than copying other things. Of course, most people making dubstep now just copy what other people do and all an article like this is going to achieve is attract more of that kind of person to dubstep.

dubstee wrote:

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote:

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote: No-one is saying that, it's just aimed more at beginners than professionals.

I think this is what people are referring to...

Well that is what it is - the clue is in the subtitle: "Make Music Now". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just the way it is.

Shafey wrote:

seckle wrote:inevitable and depressing on one level

It's funny how people seem to want the scene to move forwards, but when some decent coverage comes along, they turn their noses up.

There's no shortage of coverage in the press for dubstep. Not sure how tutorials on how to make dubstep pastiche tunes are going to push the scene forward though.

You've misunderstood. I was using Seckle's quote as an example of someone who perhaps doesn't like this kind of coverage, after you said no-one was saying it's a bad thing.

Don't know about you but I can't recall too many occasions where a dubstep article has been the main feature of a music magazine and has dominated the front cover - A handful of times at most.

Clearly you have some kind of affiliation to sound on sound. It's coverage in these channels which is going to attract more people into the scene and articles/features like tutorials will obviously encourage people starting out to experiment with something new - if you can't see that as a positive thing then quite frankly, you are a donut.

When did I say the coverage was a bad thing? I only said it wasn't a bad thing that Computer Music is more aimed at beginners than SOS.

HOWEVER - If you think that any coverage in the press is automatically good for dubstep then you're quite mistaken I'm afraid. The main result of the increase in popularity of the music over the last couple of years has been a lot more average music. People who make good music don't need a genre-based tutorial to tell them what to do, they experiment and develop their own sound, rather than copying other things. Of course, most people making dubstep now just copy what other people do and all an article like this is going to achieve is attract more of that kind of person to dubstep.

Bruv, can you read properly?

I didn't say you said it was a bad thing. escscramble said he couldn't see how this was on the bad side of the spectrum to which you said "no-one is saying that" - but they were. hence why I quoted seckle's comment.

I'm not saying that any media/press coverage is a good thing. I'm saying that it may as well be in these channels, i.e, music related. Understand?

People who make good music don't need tutorials - on the whole yes this is true and is why an article like this is great for beginners or people thinking about making tunes but don't know how to go about it. However as already proved in this thread, there are established producers from this genre and I'm sure from others, that read mags/articles like these too.

I've not read this article, and probably won't, so I can't say how it's gonna influence someone's production, but yeah, if it specifically shows people how to "MAKE THE FATTEST, DIRTIEST, BAITEST WOBBLE EVER IN THE WORLD!!!", then yeah there'll be a few more heads jumping on the wagon.

I can obviously see the "bad" side, aka the formula debate. But thats been had in just about every way possible now. So fair play to the new punters, play on! But I cant be arsed with it again

My point is that im actually tempted to buy this now after seeing this thread. Ive been teaching myself around the ole production programs recently, and while it has been sloooow progress ive finally gotten to a point where I feel I can "finish" tunes. Trouble is, they still often sound weak as hell, and I think a dubstep oriented guide to mixdowns/mastering could be just the ticket! Also, im sure theres lots of little things I would pick up from that would be golden.

Mind you, while im here...if anyone knows a good web link to somewhere that explains the theory behind/how to do mastering yourself it would be much appreciated

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote:

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote:

Shafey wrote: I think this is what people are referring to...

Well that is what it is - the clue is in the subtitle: "Make Music Now". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just the way it is.

Shafey wrote: It's funny how people seem to want the scene to move forwards, but when some decent coverage comes along, they turn their noses up.

There's no shortage of coverage in the press for dubstep. Not sure how tutorials on how to make dubstep pastiche tunes are going to push the scene forward though.

You've misunderstood. I was using Seckle's quote as an example of someone who perhaps doesn't like this kind of coverage, after you said no-one was saying it's a bad thing.

Don't know about you but I can't recall too many occasions where a dubstep article has been the main feature of a music magazine and has dominated the front cover - A handful of times at most.

Clearly you have some kind of affiliation to sound on sound. It's coverage in these channels which is going to attract more people into the scene and articles/features like tutorials will obviously encourage people starting out to experiment with something new - if you can't see that as a positive thing then quite frankly, you are a donut.

When did I say the coverage was a bad thing? I only said it wasn't a bad thing that Computer Music is more aimed at beginners than SOS.

HOWEVER - If you think that any coverage in the press is automatically good for dubstep then you're quite mistaken I'm afraid. The main result of the increase in popularity of the music over the last couple of years has been a lot more average music. People who make good music don't need a genre-based tutorial to tell them what to do, they experiment and develop their own sound, rather than copying other things. Of course, most people making dubstep now just copy what other people do and all an article like this is going to achieve is attract more of that kind of person to dubstep.

Bruv, can you read properly?

I didn't say you said it was a bad thing. escscramble said he couldn't see how this was on the bad side of the spectrum to which you said "no-one is saying that" - but they were. hence why I quoted seckle's comment.

I'm not saying that any media/press coverage is a good thing. I'm saying that it may as well be in these channels, i.e, music related. Understand?

People who make good music don't need tutorials - on the whole yes this is true and is why an article like this is great for beginners or people thinking about making tunes but don't know how to go about it. However as already proved in this thread, there are established producers from this genre and I'm sure from others, that read mags/articles like these too.

I've not read this article, and probably won't, so I can't say how it's gonna influence someone's production, but yeah, if it specifically shows people how to "MAKE THE FATTEST, DIRTIEST, BAITEST WOBBLE EVER IN THE WORLD!!!", the yeah there'll be a few more heads jumping on the wagon.

escscramble said he couldn't see how this was on the bad side of the spectrum - REFERRING TO THE QUALITY OF COMPUTER MUSIC MAGAZINE.

I said "no-one is saying that" - REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH IT HAD BEEN NOTED (AND DENIED) THAT COMPUTER MUSIC IS AIMED MORE AT BEGINNERS, THIS ISN'T A COMMENT ON IT'S QUALITY, JUST WHO IT IS AIMED AT.

You then quoted Seckle's comment, entirely missing the point of the two previous comments. And then you ask me if I can read. Well done.

And re: your point about using tutorials, the "established producers" defending Computer Music in this thread are responsible for making and releasing exactly the kind of derivative rubbish that tutorial articles often lead to.

dubstee wrote:

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote:

Shafey wrote:

dubstee wrote: Well that is what it is - the clue is in the subtitle: "Make Music Now". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just the way it is.
There's no shortage of coverage in the press for dubstep. Not sure how tutorials on how to make dubstep pastiche tunes are going to push the scene forward though.

You've misunderstood. I was using Seckle's quote as an example of someone who perhaps doesn't like this kind of coverage, after you said no-one was saying it's a bad thing.

Don't know about you but I can't recall too many occasions where a dubstep article has been the main feature of a music magazine and has dominated the front cover - A handful of times at most.

Clearly you have some kind of affiliation to sound on sound. It's coverage in these channels which is going to attract more people into the scene and articles/features like tutorials will obviously encourage people starting out to experiment with something new - if you can't see that as a positive thing then quite frankly, you are a donut.

When did I say the coverage was a bad thing? I only said it wasn't a bad thing that Computer Music is more aimed at beginners than SOS.

HOWEVER - If you think that any coverage in the press is automatically good for dubstep then you're quite mistaken I'm afraid. The main result of the increase in popularity of the music over the last couple of years has been a lot more average music. People who make good music don't need a genre-based tutorial to tell them what to do, they experiment and develop their own sound, rather than copying other things. Of course, most people making dubstep now just copy what other people do and all an article like this is going to achieve is attract more of that kind of person to dubstep.

Bruv, can you read properly?

I didn't say you said it was a bad thing. escscramble said he couldn't see how this was on the bad side of the spectrum to which you said "no-one is saying that" - but they were. hence why I quoted seckle's comment.

I'm not saying that any media/press coverage is a good thing. I'm saying that it may as well be in these channels, i.e, music related. Understand?

People who make good music don't need tutorials - on the whole yes this is true and is why an article like this is great for beginners or people thinking about making tunes but don't know how to go about it. However as already proved in this thread, there are established producers from this genre and I'm sure from others, that read mags/articles like these too.

I've not read this article, and probably won't, so I can't say how it's gonna influence someone's production, but yeah, if it specifically shows people how to "MAKE THE FATTEST, DIRTIEST, BAITEST WOBBLE EVER IN THE WORLD!!!", the yeah there'll be a few more heads jumping on the wagon.

escscramble said he couldn't see how this was on the bad side of the spectrum - REFERRING TO THE QUALITY OF COMPUTER MUSIC MAGAZINE.

I said "no-one is saying that" - REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH IT HAD BEEN NOTED (AND DENIED) THAT COMPUTER MUSIC IS AIMED MORE AT BEGINNERS, THIS ISN'T A COMMENT ON IT'S QUALITY, JUST WHO IT IS AIMED AT.

You then quoted Seckle's comment, entirely missing the point of the two previous comments. And then you ask me if I can read. Well done.

And re: your point about using tutorials, the "established producers" defending Computer Music in this thread are responsible for making and releasing exactly the kind of derivative rubbish that tutorial articles often lead to.

So how have I missed the point?? I understood what eshscramble was referring to and haven't commented to suggest otherwise!?



I know a lot of dubstep producers (that more than likely you own some of their work) not from this thread that use/read these mags for tips & info. Rubbish is a matter of opinion, almost regardless of its popularity - by the sounds of it, I'm quite sure I'd deem a lot of what you consider great music from 100% original and uninfluenced producers fairly rubbish, but I aint gonna hold a grudge against it.

The point is this is going to be useful for new dubstep producers whilst also giving people who might not have heard dubstep or are unfamiliar with it, a bit of background about the music.

Argument done.

Goodbye.

DUBSTEP IS OURS. NOONE ELSE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEARN THE BASICS. WE DON'T WANT ANY NEW IDEAS ROUND HERE.

fuck me.

dubstee wrote:And re: your point about using tutorials, the "established producers" defending Computer Music in this thread are responsible for making and releasing exactly the kind of derivative rubbish that tutorial articles often lead to.

Thats deeeeeep bruv! Sad thing is in this day and age on this site now if you make one kind of music your an outcast in some (very ignorant) peoples minds! Age old answer, dont like it dont listen to it but to comment like that isn't cool bruv!

What exactly have you done in Dubstep to have such a high opinion?! You have 60 something comments, you clearly have no idea about the history/future of Dubstep yet you can say something like that about the producers in this thread who have worked hard for years and years! Of the producers in this thread your looking at shitlaods of releases,work - doesnt that stand for anything irrelevent to the fact you might not like their music?