Dubstepforum.com

It's all about recording to vhs (that was this magical medium where special fuzzy things happened children) and back into the daw.

alphacat wrote:IMHO: You guys are all so close to the real crux, at least what I've discovered it to be lately in my own productions -

IF the original proposition is "much Dubstep lacks the sonic character/quality of earlier sample-driven music" and "it all sounds like it's made 'in the box' (computer) with plugins/software..." then:

Yes, this is largely true. But the missing component isn't sampling - it's the character/quality of what's being sampled, including its musicality - BUT ALSO and possibly more importantly, it's the fuckin' SIGNAL PATHS those recordings used, i.e. analog, line, stompbox, pre-amp, whatever -

i.e. taking it outside the box.

Even running your all-digital DAW-produced tune through a nice fat Avalon stereo compressor, or running your kicks out through hardware DBX 160's - even those simple things can add unbelievable life, warmth, character, definition to a track that began life as nothing more than 1's & 0's. Even using cassette recorders as a drum treatment can do impressive things!

Seriously.

Not to start an analog vs. digital flame-o-rama, because that shit's stupid. Use what works. Period. And don't be afraid to mix it up.

I agree somewhat. Part of the problem is textural. The computer sound is often shit. Thin, 2 dimensional. Digital. When you hit the limiter to get some volume for ghetto mastering, you end up with that horrible plastic computer sound. I think it's a definite part of the problem. The quest for loudness has started to give a similar sonic texture to a lot of music, even totally different genres. I spend a some time listening to chart music (I said listening to, not enjoying) and find that a lot of it feels almost identical. Dubstep is plagued with a lot of amateur mastering jobs, too.

My latest productions go in and out. Some go onto Revox and back again.

But, this still doesn't change the fact that some things are memorable and some things aren't. Production skillz aren't going to help you if you've got no ideas or write something even you can't remember when you wake up the next morning.

So, *some* Dubstep has a few things going against it, then, eh?

Me-too sound alikes...writing music that cannot be remembered...which is 'mastered' in a brutal way which robs the sound of any unique texture it might have once actually had.

Why don't you all just go make electronic classical music? In the end, this music is disposable. All of it. In 200 years, no one is going to be talking about "that innovative, moody dubstep tune." Just make what you like and let the people groove to what is fresh. I've made hip hop for long enough that I tend to make what sounds current, but with my own little spin. I'm doing the same with dubstep. And, get this, I'm having FUN! My stuff may be cdj fodder, but oh well. I have fun making it.

alphacat wrote:IMHO: You guys are all so close to the real crux, at least what I've discovered it to be lately in my own productions -

IF the original proposition is "much Dubstep lacks the sonic character/quality of earlier sample-driven music" and "it all sounds like it's made 'in the box' (computer) with plugins/software..." then:

Yes, this is largely true. But the missing component isn't sampling - it's the character/quality of what's being sampled, including its musicality - BUT ALSO and possibly more importantly, it's the fuckin' SIGNAL PATHS those recordings used, i.e. analog, line, stompbox, pre-amp, whatever -

i.e. taking it outside the box.

Even running your all-digital DAW-produced tune through a nice fat Avalon stereo compressor, or running your kicks out through hardware DBX 160's - even those simple things can add unbelievable life, warmth, character, definition to a track that began life as nothing more than 1's & 0's. Even using cassette recorders as a drum treatment can do impressive things!

Seriously.

Not to start an analog vs. digital flame-o-rama, because that shit's stupid. Use what works. Period. And don't be afraid to mix it up.

Oh christ. I hope and pray that the dubstep community doesn't end up descending into the same analog-vs-digital civil war that's plagued house and techno since computers were fast enough to emulate a synthesizer. Far too many people use "analog" as a missing crutch -- "if I had loads of expensive outboard gear my productions would be so great" -- bollocks they would. More like "if you were blessed with half an ounce of original thought..."

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you and I love hardware; I make extensive use of a reel-to-reel for tape echo and saturation and so on; I love the interaction you get with separate pieces of gear compared to working on a screen; I love the difference in workflow etc etc. If I had more money I would probably buy more analog gear. But really.... the fact that most recent dubstep sounds like it was made in the box is not *really* the issue. It's not about production values or mixdowns. The issue is a lack of songwriting imagination, and that's not solved by tubes, saturation or tape hiss.

static_cast wrote:

alphacat wrote:IMHO: You guys are all so close to the real crux, at least what I've discovered it to be lately in my own productions -

IF the original proposition is "much Dubstep lacks the sonic character/quality of earlier sample-driven music" and "it all sounds like it's made 'in the box' (computer) with plugins/software..." then:

Yes, this is largely true. But the missing component isn't sampling - it's the character/quality of what's being sampled, including its musicality - BUT ALSO and possibly more importantly, it's the fuckin' SIGNAL PATHS those recordings used, i.e. analog, line, stompbox, pre-amp, whatever -

i.e. taking it outside the box.

Even running your all-digital DAW-produced tune through a nice fat Avalon stereo compressor, or running your kicks out through hardware DBX 160's - even those simple things can add unbelievable life, warmth, character, definition to a track that began life as nothing more than 1's & 0's. Even using cassette recorders as a drum treatment can do impressive things!

Seriously.

Not to start an analog vs. digital flame-o-rama, because that shit's stupid. Use what works. Period. And don't be afraid to mix it up.

Oh christ. I hope and pray that the dubstep community doesn't end up descending into the same analog-vs-digital civil war that's plagued house and techno since computers were fast enough to emulate a synthesizer. Far too many people use "analog" as a missing crutch -- "if I had loads of expensive outboard gear my productions would be so great" -- bollocks they would. More like "if you were blessed with half an ounce of original thought..."

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you and I love hardware; I make extensive use of a reel-to-reel for tape echo and saturation and so on; I love the interaction you get with separate pieces of gear compared to working on a screen; I love the difference in workflow etc etc. If I had more money I would probably buy more analog gear. But really.... the fact that most recent dubstep sounds like it was made in the box is not *really* the issue. It's not about production values or mixdowns. The issue is a lack of songwriting imagination, and that's not solved by tubes, saturation or tape hiss.

Yeah, exactly. I can still remember Midnight Request Line and that sounds like a tinkle town plastic computer toy production, but it sticks because it has something going for it.

Nice discussion!

There is a problem with dubstep productions today, but it's not the absence of sampling.

Problem is lack of riddim, lack of space, lack of hook, lack of originality.

These are earned skills, not things that just happen because you have the right gear or know a piece of software well. Certainly not because you're the coolest mufucka ever and sample horns from some old funk record..

The problem with dubstep or any music these days or at any time in history is people thinking there is a certain 'right' way of making music and that 'their' way of making music is the right one.

You can call that 'right' way using 75% samples in a tune or using nothing but chainsaw sounding presets, it don't matta, it all relies on taking any individualism out of music.

Basically, every one should do as they please.

almost everytime i start a new tune its because i found something i want to sample.

Always worked with samples, but recently got a beat up 1200 and some vinyl, and am in sample heaven.

I think the sound of sampling brings a textural quality to music.

I also think that stealing the divine wisdom of lost masters brings something to sample based music.

I also think that sampling forces you to study the music you are sampling, and to gain a greater understanding of the musicality of the music you are sampling. In much the same way, I imagine, that dj'ing forces you to understand at least the broader concept of arrangement, if not actual musical structure.

Sampling is good for dubstep.

I keep trying to post on this thread but my rants start going on a million different tangents So fuck it I am going to avoid all of that and say that there is a lot going right for dubstep too. You read some of these threads and you would think it is a style of music that has come and gone when the truth is it is bigger than it ever has been. And the bad we are talking about is what goes along with being a popular band wagon genre. There is nothing you can do about that tho. I mean you can clog up the forum with moaning posts. It doesn't do any good. I think it is best just to stay away from the stuff you don't like and big up the stuff you do like as cliche as that is. I go through beatport and shit looking for new tunes and at time I am appalled by some of the music that people think is good enough to put a price tag on but then you run into some tunes that make you smile. I have no problems filling my crates up with new tunes so I guess it can't be that bad.

im about to start running my tracks thru an analog tape machine & then back thru to digital. i really wanna master the 8track ay.
it seems that hybrid is the way forward. like think of it... start with a daw, use samples & synths, plugins & hardware, mixdown to tape, master too digital & then get that shit pressed!!! sounds like abit of fun for me.

soulshynchyld wrote:im about to start running my tracks thru an analog tape machine & then back thru to digital. i really wanna master the 8track ay.
it seems that hybrid is the way forward. like think of it... start with a daw, use samples & synths, plugins & hardware, mixdown to tape, master too digital & then get that shit pressed!!! sounds like abit of fun for me.

Honestly mate, this is so much fun it should be illegal! You will find yourself stockpiling old tape players, VCRS etc as each one has its own unique sound and feel.

I went through loads of different ones till I decided on the couple I have now. I wouldnt be without them tbh.

Good luck man, let me hear the results!

yeah using a toft 24track analog mixing desk & recording with a tascam 1/2'' reel to reel 8 track. the joys ah!!crazy shit really... dont get to use the SSL till next year damn it!lolz

On the problem with dubstep productions...

Side stepping the analog vs. digital debate, the problem with dubstep productions today is (IMO) that so many of them are made by people who use other dubstep tracks as their inspiration.

DnB started going tits up for the same reason a while back, producers were just listening to tracks within their own genre and then making tracks of that same genre without drawing on outside influences.

You get this production based inbreeding that means certain elements found within dubstep (see: wobble, filth) are picked up on by producers by other producers who are then copied by other producers and so on and so forth.

True, you do still get tracks that can adhere to the 'rules' of dubstep (however you interpret them to be) and that are amazing. But it's like breeding dalmations - they look wicked with the spots and everything, but most of them are so inbred they can't stand up by themselves.

This is a broad generalisation and I am by no means applying this to all dubstep producers/artists


On sampling....

It's awesome and people should do more. Audacity is free to use and I think that every machine that is ever on the internet should have a copy installed. Set the input to stereo mix and sample EVERYTHING that you come across during the day. Radio streams, BBC Radio4 comedy programmes, YouTube videos, fucking EVERYTHING.

Hell 90% of what you get, even 99%, you might listen back to the next day and realise it is shit. But you get some fucking gems, get unique sounds, plus the smug sense of self satisfaction that you're not using sample packs.

Find samples you like, loop them in your DAW and then layer sounds around them. So many tunes I hear (not limiting this to the dubstep genre by any stretch) are basically ploddy rhythm tracks that ZOMG AMAZING have had a 70s disco loop shoehorned into them to add some panache. Bollocks to that.

I'm not going to wax lyrical about the why's and wherefores of sampling, but I recommend having a gander at BMT's take on it here.

j-one wrote:I was making hip hop when I first started and that was pretty much all sample based. Didn't get into VST's and the like until I started playing with dubstep. I like to mix them both, I do really like the raw sound you get from sampling and always liked some vinyl crackle but I find sound design a really creative process too.

what kind of hip hop? oldskool New York 808 style or new style Miami junk?:)

wub wrote:the problem with dubstep productions today is (IMO) that so many of them are made by people who use other dubstep tracks as their inspiration.

DnB started going tits up for the same reason a while back, producers were just listening to tracks within their own genre and then making tracks of that same genre without drawing on outside influences.

Yeah agree 100%. When Dubstep started out the buzz around it was centred on the fact that it drew inspiration from EVERY scene going.

Now (in the main) we just have it being influenced by itself. Which ultimately means it will end up disappearing up its own arse.

for some reason i cant make generic dubstep. i had been making dream effect eletronic hip hop. when i started listening to dstep it clicked with me instantly. now im making some weird tripper shit, alot of things on my soundcloud are experimental.... but i implore you to listen to my track resonant minds, its so subtle yet empowering. it is what is right about dubstep!! chea

onyx still uses samples check his new 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7Ov4OzDVA

FKD-Promotions wrote:onyx still uses samples check his new 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7Ov4OzDVA

lol:/

I think what's happening is a lot of producers feel like their music has to comply with the 'rules of dubstep', obviously music has to have some specific features to be labelled dubstep but there is a lot more to the genre then some people realise which is where all this same-as-this dubstep seems to be coming from. There's a lot of similar sounding dubstep out there so producers need to do whatever they can to make there sound stand out, whether that's doing a load sampling or running the whole thing through an old tape deck, anything to make it sound different.

A lot of people have said that guitars are basically presets but you can make so much different music with them, this is pretty much bullshit. sooooo much guitar based music sounds the same and it's only a select few who really stand out so they are dealing with the same problems facing dubstep and pretty much every other genre.

On the original point of sampling, I think it's great when you know how to use it effectively and it's the same with synths. unfortunately a lot of producers don't know how to use these tools properly and we end up with movie sample + teh wobblez. again I think this comes down to producers trying to follow rules that don't even exist.