Buying a new computer

[Slov]

I only have few mins to write this post so I'll write a proper response later, but DAMN that track you made is sick! Don't know where to start but the drums are nice and I like how it slowly builds up, it's amazing! It's so good it reminded me of one of my fav songs of all time that I completely forgot about Galaxy in Janaki. You probably know Flying Lotus but if you don't check his music out. He's an amazing experimental producer.


gonna write more later!

[Phytotron]

Most of them didn't have access to musical instruments.

That's possibly the biggest myth of rap/hip-hop.

As to any supposed hip-hop culture, I don't condone encouraging Slov's blackface, either.

[sinewav]

Most of them didn't have access to musical instruments.

That's possibly the biggest myth of rap/hip-hop.

It's well known that some of the big names back then (Public Enemy, NWA) had some serious musical talent among them. But they aren't the whole of Rap, and Rap is only a subset of Hip-Hop. Hip-Hop is broad and includes some accomplished R&B musicians. But Hip-hop is not "two turntables and a microphone," the underground stuff people were doing at house parties, the stuff that drove the Rap movement.

[Phytotron]

Totally missed the point of my comment. One of the biggest myths of the origins of rap and hip-hop is that those who created it had no access to, and could not afford, instruments; that it was in part a byproduct of that. It's nonsense. It was a choice to not use real instruments.

You don't need to define the distinction between rap and hip-hop or their history for me, either.

[sinewav]

It was a choice to not use real instruments.

Right, I get that. I know the history too. But once people started to see the possibilities of creating and interacting with music without the need for instruments and years of training it was probably less of a choice and more an obvious course of action for many people. Cheap stereo equipment is always more accessible than a saxophone or a drum kit, assuming you live in an area where you can even practice either of those instruments without irritating your family or neighbors.

You don't need to define the distinction between rap and hip-hop or their history for me, either.

It's just that you lumped them together. Sorry, I've always been careful to talk about them this way. Rap is arguably the backbone of Hip-Hop, but they are really different things.

[Phytotron]

it was probably less of a choice and more an obvious course of action

I think that obvious course of action itself became a choice to skirt and do an end around legitimate creativitiy, artistry, and most certainly musicianship. In its infancy, it was just an extension of MC'ing and DJ'ing, part of the party; fine. But when it became an entity of its own....

[sinewav]

Ok, I can give you that. But, there are exceptions. Some of the stuff early DJ's and MC's did was downright amazing and took years of practice. Ever try scratching and beat-juggling? Not easy. And not everyone can rap. That stuff takes practice too. Just look at how much bad rap there is, haha.

Disclaimer: I stopped listening to rap after it peaked, sometime in 1998. I think there was some amazing stuff done in that genre, but overall it is pretty weak compared to other genres of music.

[Phytotron]

I'd say rap/hip hop died more like the early nineties, at least where anything mainstream or even on the fringe of the mainstream is concerned. Once anything consciousness-raising disappeared, and it became nothing but men as thugs and/or pimps, women as bitches and/or hos, materialism, decadence, and so forth—that's when rap and hip hop became the degenerate and decrepit modern-day minstrel show that it is. One that in almost every way reflects the minstrel show of the American 19th century, not only internally, but also its effect in the broader social and cultural sphere. And in some respects it's worse now that it's so internationally popular.

Eh, I've tried about a dozen different ways to go off on an elaboration of these points, but it's too deep a subject. Not complicated—it's goddamned oblivious, though so many are so oblivious to it. But it's a deep and lengthy subject, and one that would probably cause a fuss as all the white kids around here go "lol im not racist cuz i lisen to dis ma nigga." So, just leave it at that.

Now, conscious, intellectual, and political rap and hip hop still exist, but it's underground. It's nowhere approaching the mainstream. And most white folks, the primary consumers of rap/hip hop, wouldn't have it, either.


Anyway, that's concerning the lyrical and image side of it. As far as the, eh, "music" side of it, I believe that was always bogus. I don't believe that manipulating turntables (which hardly anyone uses anymore, anyway), no matter how challenging a skill, or using computers is musicianship or artistry. It's craft at best. I also consider the act of sampling—that lack of original material and theft from others—a fundamental and fatal, irredeemable flaw.

[sinewav]

I'd say rap/hip hop died more like the early nineties...

I think the last rap album I liked was Pharcyde's "Labcabincalifornia" (1995). After I got tired of that album, I realized I was tired of rap. So maybe you are right about the early 90's.

Once anything consciousness-raising disappeared...
...most white folks, the primary consumers of rap/hip hop, wouldn't have it, either.

Agree with everything here 100%.

As far as the, eh, "music" side of it, I believe that was always bogus. I don't believe that manipulating turntables (which hardly anyone uses anymore, anyway), no matter how challenging a skill, or using computers is musicianship or artistry. It's craft at best.

True, it is a dying art. But I'm still going to hold that it is musicianship. When I think of Q-Bert throwing down on the decks, I don't see a real difference between him and, oh let's say, Tito Puente taking a solo. The subtly, the rhythms, I can hear all the same properties of musicianship. Of course the writing and the emotion are not comparable by a long shot, so I'll give you that. But not every great player can write something moving. (I'm sure you find my comparison absurd, haha.)

Saying the use computers isn't musicianship certainly touches a nerve with me. For years I was verbally abused by my rocker friends would would accuse me of writing "****** computer music" (especially hurtful coming from musicians I loved playing with). I've always insisted that the use of a computer is just another musical tool and regardless of the "computer's" capabilities, you still need to be creative and invest the time. It isn't cheating.

I suspect that through this whole thread we are mostly disagreeing on definitions and agreeing on principals.

I also consider the act of sampling—that lack of original material and theft from others—a fundamental and fatal, irredeemable flaw.

Maybe. Again, I think it depends on how it is used. Also, Squarepusher.

[Slov]

I have a question about panning. Is there any general "rule" (I know there are no rules when it comes to making music, but just something to start me off) on what you can pan and how much? Is there any better way to pan something rather than just make it louder on one speaker?

I know that hi hats/shakers are usually panned a little to the left because it sits well in the mix. But it pretty much ends here. I guess stuff that you want to hit hard are usually on the same volume on both speakers (like kicks, bass?). What about snares? Instruments?

[Slov]

For example I have something I made last night. It has no intro or anything, it just goes right into it and after 4 bars the bass comes in and that's it.

I tried to find sounds that I thought nobody would like and try to make it into something enjoyable (failed too). But I just wanna ask how would you pan stuff here? Any advice?

I already panned everything how I guessed sounded the best. It might be a little too much stuff on the right? How do I know that? Like what's the best way to find out if both speakers have enough going on other by just listening to it and judging by your ear?

[The extension mp3 has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

[chrisd]

That is a great sound, slov! Maybe try to give it a bit more variation, it now sounds a bit like the same or mostly the same thing over and over again.

[Slov]

thank you chrisd, you are very kind! :)

yes I will definitely do that, this is just to get some advice on how to pan this correctly.. then I'll make it into around 2 minute track with a lot of change ups etc.

[sinewav]

I have a question about panning. Is there any general "rule" (I know there are no rules when it comes to making music, but just something to start me off) on what you can pan and how much? Is there any better way to pan something rather than just make it louder on one speaker?

There are definitely some things that make more sense than others. I'll first give you a very brief history of stereo, a little technical information about sound, and then some tips based on how I mix music.

Part I: History
The first thing to remember is that once upon a time there were no stereo devices. All audio recordings were in mono for many years before stereo devices became accessible to the general public. At that time, music producers and engineers were experimenting with two-track audio based on what hardware limitations they had, what the audience might play the recording back on, and certain trends in music. This is why some old recordings have crazy panning where one channel is the music and the other channel is the vocals, or maybe the dry instruments are on one side and the reverb was on the other. Here is a good example: The Beatles "I Want To Hold Your Hand." Spend some time listening to one channel or the other. Beatles recordings are notoriously annoying to listen too with a busted speaker in your car.

Most pop singles were mixed into monophonic sound until the mid 1960s, and it was common for major pop releases to be issued in both mono and stereo until the early 1970s. Many Sixties pop albums now available only in stereo were originally intended to be released only in mono, and the so-called "stereo" version of these albums were created by simply separating the two tracks of the master tape. In the mid Sixties, as stereo became more popular, many mono recordings (such as The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds) were remastered using the so-called "fake stereo" method, which spread the sound across the stereo field by directing higher-frequency sound into one channel and lower-frequency sounds into the other.

One question to ask yourself is "am I trying to reproduce a realistic audio field, or am I just trying to make an audio recording sound interesting?" Sometimes it's both.

Part II: Science
Your ears and brain go through a process called Sound Localization when you encounter any type of sound. Lower frequency sounds appear omnidirectional, that is to say, it is hard to determine what direction the sound is coming from. The opposite is true of higher frequencies. Think about a surround sound system; you have much more flexibility in placing the sub-woofer than the right and left speakers. The link above gets rather technical, but it's worth struggling through and I suggest you read at least the first few sections.

Also, your ears don't perceive sound at the same loudness across the frequency spectrum. This is one reason you need more power to drive a sub-woofer than a tweeter for the same feeling of loudness. The other reasons are much more technical and I won't get into them because they are overkill for this discussion.



Considering the above, would you want to put your deep, bassy kick drum in only one channel knowing that the listener won't really be able to identify which channel and you are taking some of the stereo's energy away from that sound? Probably not.

As a side note, when you press your music to vinyl the mastering agent might run your music through a crossover and mix all the low frequencies in mono. Why? Because having high amplitude sounds in only one channel make the needle skip!

Part III: Tips
When I write music, I generally mix in mono then push things to the side when I "need more room." As the frequency spectrum fills up, some sounds will overlap and become indistinct. At that point I take the two fighting sounds and separate them, like you would a couple children fighting over a toy. This way everything is heard and the mix sounds full. However, a full mix isn't always an interesting mix, so sometimes I exaggerate the panning. I would suggest listening to your mixes on a pair of high-quality speakers and a good set of headphones, then splitting the difference between the two. I run all my audio through a signal processor that let's me push a button to toggle between mono and stereo. Most modern DAW's have this feature built in on the master track, so I suggest you use it.

Of course, this is not how I mix all music. Sometimes I go for realism, like recoding a band or live drums, and sometimes I go for the surreal and abstract where sound placement seem arbitrary. This goes along with the "no rules" theory of songwriting, but even though there are no rules, some things make no sense to do because they are lost on the listener, physically (see science above).

[sinewav]

Like what's the best way to find out if both speakers have enough going on other by just listening to it and judging by your ear?

Yes, just use your ears. I listened to your sample a few dozen times, but I didn't hear anything that sounded bad. It's a good start. Seems like there is a lot of reverb and that can distort the spacial feel of things if used incorrectly. Reverb is actually pretty tough to master, so do some research on it. The pre-delay, diffusion, dampening, time... all those things affect the harmonic quality and spacial presence of sounds, so you need to know what you are doing (unless the reverb is just supposed to be a novel effect).

I was thinking about how your computer can't play a lot of tracks. One thing you can do is "do more with less." That means, change your writing style so you have only a few instruments/voices, but they keep doing interesting things. This way you won't have a need for more tracks. Below I've attached a map of the song I posted above (November). There are 4 melodies, and halfway through the song I just switch which voices play them. It makes for a dramatic change and there is little need to introduce new tracks.

Another thing you can do is dump your mix down to a new, single track and write stuff over that. This is a technique I learned when I was a kid and didn't have access to great recording gear. All I had was a broken Tascam Porta 05, so I needed to make get creative.



The technique is simple: record on three tracks and dump to the 4th. Make the 4th your new 1st, record 2 new tracks, repeat until the quality suffers too much. The bad part is you lose control over your mix. The good news is, you can save multiple copies of your project and go back to fix things.

Code: Select all

Drums____
         |
Bass_____|
         |
Piano____|
         |___Mix 1


Mix 1____
         |
Vocals___|
         |
Vocals___|
         |___Mix 2


Mix 2____
         |
Track 2__|
         |
Track 3__|
         |___Mix 3

So there you go. After these two posts I just wrote you should have no excuses left. I expect to hear some great, finished recording from you in the next few weeks. Go!