For the benefit of Felix

jtsuited

Right felix asked me to pick a track and sort of give a critique of it in a musical sense, to show what i mean by 'intelligent'.
This is just a quick and short musical analysis of a track I think is sophisticated.

so here goes. i'll not get too music theory with ya and I've picked something quite simple and accessible.

linky majinky

Gui Boratto - Mr Decay

Ok this track starts with this perc noise and kick drum. now the perc noise is distinctive as it's running on a swingy 16th notes. more distinctive about it is that it's a sine/triangle wave mixed with a noise generater with a short amp decay (i'm almost sure it's from a nord rack or jp8000/jp8080) that's being modulated to a different amount in every bar so it doesn't sound repetitive as it's slightly different each time.

rather than use obvious 'drum' samples, most of the drum hits in this track are most likely synthesised by gui himself (i think he uses the access virus for drum sounds mainly)
and don't sound like 'drums' but more noises that work as drums that the producer has made himself ( the reason most of the successful producers have a distinctive sound is that they go about making all their own sounds from scratch making all their records sound unique and recognisable as being their works).

Now programming drum sounds out of any subtractive synth (or any other synthesis method for that matter) is not rocket science, but there is a certain amount of technological knowledge and skill that goes into it. Making one's own unique sounds (even drum sounds) requires a lot more knowledge and skill than using any drum machine (even though we all like to use the 808 or 909 sounds occasionally), and most importantly using any sample.

One of my main problems with a lot of house music these days (and in particular the funkier end of the spectrum), is the prevalence of the vengeance sample cd's loops in them (listening to the essential house vol. 1 + 2 loops is a little like going through beatport sometimes- you hear the same stuff used in a lot of tracks).

so hearing something like mr. decay is nice as it's own piece of work if you get me. not just using stock samples as the basis of your work. now that's just the perc sound we're talking about. jaysus we could be hear a while!!

one of the charming things about that sound is also that it's incredibly simple yet clever. it's one of the synthesis techniques use to emulate talking drums (the latin instrument, not what you think the drumbeat is doing when you're tripping).
but by modulating the decay (almost sure that's the reason the track is called mr. decay) on such a swingy line it gives this mad vibe of tension (notice i'm using terms like madvibe so not to lose you here) and release.

I've heard that sort of musical technique used only in certain forms of south/central american ethnic musics so hearing it used in techno is pretty unique. then again someone else could've done it before but i think it's pretty clever anywho.

ok second thing i like is that as the track is building up, the snare is only coming in on the 2nd beat of the bar (as opposed to the 2nd and 4th). so it seems like it's getting ready to start but only building. Don't hear that trick too often in electronic music so it's nice to hear it there too.

so we've covered the perc noise that runs through the whole track, and the snare coming in on only the 2nd beat for a while. jaysus we're gonna be here a while.

ok i'll quickly run through the rest.

1. the chordal structure is very nice in the way that the third chord holds for an extra bar before going back into the root.

2. the main melody that comes in with the sort of organ thing is mainly on the 16th notes that are swung and not on the downbeat which makes it seem 'bouncy' on top of the kick/bass. then the rhodes in on top of that only plays a sort of countermelody thing, as opposed to full chords (which is what 99% of producers would do there).

3. the arrangement of the track in general is a bit more complex than the intro/main/bridge/main/breakdown/outro formula than most dance music.
Which means that it mightn't be great on really drunk dancefloors (it'll confuse the drunks and without a snare roll every 16 bars some crowds lose interest like kids with adhd).

4. bassline having a 2 16th note gap between each it over 8 bars (i think) is nice.
a lot of techno uses it, you'll know what i mean when you hear the bassline in the chorus. it comes in on the first kick, then just before the second, then halfway between the second and third, etc.
anyone familiar with a pianoroll in a sequencer will probably know what this type of pattern looks like. it automatically comes back around 8 bars later to being on the kick (beats 1,2,3,4).

ya see we could be hear all day. if you want me to go on i can. this is just a small proportion of what i find 'intelligent' or 'sophisticated' about a track like that. and we haven't even got into timbres. Which is even more important in electronic music as it is often what defines the genre.

i'll find something i think is intellectually inferior now and i'll show what i mean. but i hope you've got the picture of what i meant now.

Now for those of you that don't know, I'm not some armchair pundit here. I'm a producer who has had a few releases out so far (one of which was big enough) and I have forthcoming releases on a few bigger labels including Harthouse sublabel New League recordings.

Scubadevils

Ok, thanks for that... pretty quick response with a lengthly description! I do in fact know that track too which helps, have that album alright. I had got bored of it back then when I bought it but think I overplayed it the first few days.

I understand to a degree also the construction lets say of a track, without the technical wording so can actually follow a lot of what you describe and can hear the elements you have mentioned as the tune progresses. Without knowing the technical descriptions or how the tune might have been made, I would struggle to describe what I hear, hence also my interest in learning a bit about production. Anyway, thats another subject I suppose.

Look forward now to the analysis of a 'poor' track.

jtsuited

oh just to clarify, i don't think you need any sort of formal qualification in ethnomusicology, computer music or anything like that to know anything about music.

let's be honest here, talking about music is like dancing about architecture. but felix did ask and so i think i responded.

i had one music technology student who could barely read absolutely knock me over with his knowledge and taste in music. he asked me to teach him how to play the bass and feck did he catch on quick.

musical aptitude is one of the mysteries of the human mind (most evidence points to it being a hereditary quality), and we'll never truly be able to value music in the realm of language.
after all music is a communication beyond the reaches of language. If we could say everything we wanted to and convey every emotion or thought through words we would have very little use for music.

so it's a massive complicated subject. but just to speak in a language some may understand (and which i prefer), 'that track is bloody fantastic'.

seannash

its great to read things like this because i fall into alot of the traps jt mentioned(vengeance sample cds im very fond of )
it also shows me how much further ive got to go,which is cool.
cant wait to hear the poor track,dont pick one of mine you bastard ha ha

jtsuited

Felixdhc wrote: »

Ok, thanks for that... pretty quick response with a lengthly description! I do in fact know that track too which helps, have that album alright. I had got bored of it back then when I bought it but think I overplayed it the first few days.

I understand to a degree also the construction lets say of a track, without the technical wording so can actually follow a lot of what you describe and can hear the elements you have mentioned as the tune progresses. Without knowing the technical descriptions or how the tune might have been made, I would struggle to describe what I hear, hence also my interest in learning a bit about production. Anyway, thats another subject I suppose.

Look forward now to the analysis of a 'poor' track.

that's sort of my point. the technical wording you talk about is essentially useless (apart from times like this!). i mean you know pretty much exactly what i'm talking about (i think). just i'd be a geek who'd know the terminology. the ability to express it really doesn't reflect anybody's musical aptitude.

it's just from working in music for so long with other people and teaching things like production you sort of have to be able to put things in words.

Scubadevils

jtsuited wrote: »

that's sort of my point. the technical wording you talk about is essentially useless (apart from times like this!). i mean you know pretty much exactly what i'm talking about (i think). just i'd be a geek who'd know the terminology. the ability to express it really doesn't reflect anybody's musical aptitude.

it's just from working in music for so long with other people and teaching things like production you sort of have to be able to put things in words.

No I definitely know what you are talking about alright, many years of disecting tunes in my head for mixing etc! Would really love to get into trying some production... just bought a new Mac recently so may take the plunge and buy Logic or something. I assume the only other item I would need for now is a midi controller and some books on basics?

Here is an example of a tune I love and have done since first hearing it earlier in the year... when you can, give me a bit of an analysis on it... be keen to hear the technical backdrop to it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk1TilbA7U0

jtsuited

Felixdhc wrote: »

I assume the only other item I would need for now is a midi controller and some books on basics?

hey don't buy a midi controller, i've a bcf2000 i'm wanting to get rid of for a couple of euro (and by that i mean about 20!).
yeah some books are good. actually no, feck it, you don't need books. just get logic, and get stuck in.

Scubadevils

jtsuited wrote: »

hey don't buy a midi controller, i've a bcf2000 i'm wanting to get rid of for a couple of euro (and by that i mean about 20!).
yeah some books are good. actually no, feck it, you don't need books. just get logic, and get stuck in.

Cool, well I will defo take that off your hands so if thats ok. Sick of thinking about it now, just have to do it!

jtsuited

Felixdhc wrote: »

be keen to hear the technical backdrop to it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk1TilbA7U0

that kind of stuff is actually really easy to make. before i was doing this four to the floor malarky i was doing that kind of stuff.
it's great fun, and really easy to learn because you have so much freedom.

basically all you need for those blippy things is a self oscillating filter (one with the resonance up so high the filter starts to make it's own noise (at the frequency the cutoff is set at). then its just a short amp decay, no sustain, no release. if you start messin with any synth (even the ones in garageband), you'll get that sound no problem.

the rest of that track sounds fairly simple from a production point of view. just a lot of classic 909 and 808 sounds (the 909 tom is a dead giveaway) for drums. Some analogue-y pads and then the aggressive bassline/lead thingy which is again some fairly classic analogue synth sound with a few parameters being modulated a bit.

easily achievable with any software out right now.

main thing with that type of track is to keep your snare coming down on the 1 every so often just to keep it different and irregular.

that track is very retro sounding so won't be too hard to do stuff in that genre with even the most modest setup (computers have made it extraordinarily easy to make music of the same style as yesteryear). that's not taking anything from the track, just that you'd be well chuffed with yourself fairly quickly due to the abundance of 'classic' sounds involved.

Scubadevils

jtsuited wrote: »

that kind of stuff is actually really easy to make. before i was doing this four to the floor malarky i was doing that kind of stuff.
it's great fun, and really easy to learn because you have so much freedom.

basically all you need for those blippy things is a self oscillating filter (one with the resonance up so high the filter starts to make it's own noise (at the frequency the cutoff is set at). then its just a short amp decay, no sustain, no release. if you start messin with any synth (even the ones in garageband), you'll get that sound no problem.

the rest of that track sounds fairly simple from a production point of view. just a lot of classic 909 and 808 sounds (the 909 tom is a dead giveaway) for drums. Some analogue-y pads and then the aggressive bassline/lead thingy which is again some fairly classic analogue synth sound with a few parameters being modulated a bit.

easily achievable with any software out right now.

main thing with that type of track is to keep your snare coming down on the 1 every so often just to keep it different and irregular.

that track is very retro sounding so won't be too hard to do stuff in that genre with even the most modest setup (computers have made it extraordinarily easy to make music of the same style as yesteryear). that's not taking anything from the track, just that you'd be well chuffed with yourself fairly quickly due to the abundance of 'classic' sounds involved.

Yeah I wouldn't mind fecking around with that type of sound initially anyway... it struck me as being something that could be easy enough to achieve with fairly predictable pattern changes etc.

jtsuited

Felixdhc wrote: »

Cool, well I will defo take that off your hands so if thats ok. Sick of thinking about it now, just have to do it!

if you've got a mac, crack open garageband there and start messing. it's an extraordinarily well designed DAW, and very similar to logic. If you can use garageband, you will instantly be able to get to grips with logic.

while some people might sneer at using garageband, I can tell you that it's summing engine is actually of a higher resolution than a certain other sequencer out there (don't want to get into the debate here so won't mention any names).

while i come from a musical/engineering/production background, i've seen people take to music production like ducks to water who had no experience or knowledge whatsoever of it. just don't get intimidated by all the fancy **** on screen.
feck, i'm known as a technical guru to some people and I often find i've been doing something completely arseways. the only people who know what everything does in logic are the certified trainers and the dudes who developed it.

i love helping out anyone who is making music so if you need any help just holler. I once said that to sean nash, now the fecker never stops asking me questions!!

seannash

jtsuited wrote: »

if you've got a mac, crack open garageband there and start messing. it's an extraordinarily well designed DAW, and very similar to logic. If you can use garageband, you will instantly be able to get to grips with logic.

while some people might sneer at using garageband, I can tell you that it's summing engine is actually of a higher resolution than a certain other sequencer out there (don't want to get into the debate here so won't mention any names).

while i come from a musical/engineering/production background, i've seen people take to music production like ducks to water who had no experience or knowledge whatsoever of it. just don't get intimidated by all the fancy **** on screen.
feck, i'm known as a technical guru to some people and I often find i've been doing something completely arseways. the only people who know what everything does in logic are the certified trainers and the dudes who developed it.

i love helping out anyone who is making music so if you need any help just holler. I once said that to sean nash, now the fecker never stops asking me questions!!

ha ha ha ha ha,biggest mistaqke you ever made was to give me your ichat address ha ha.
but you know it much appreciated and if you need advice on putting up a shelf im your man

Scubadevils

jtsuited wrote: »

if you've got a mac, crack open garageband there and start messing. it's an extraordinarily well designed DAW, and very similar to logic. If you can use garageband, you will instantly be able to get to grips with logic.

while some people might sneer at using garageband, I can tell you that it's summing engine is actually of a higher resolution than a certain other sequencer out there (don't want to get into the debate here so won't mention any names).

while i come from a musical/engineering/production background, i've seen people take to music production like ducks to water who had no experience or knowledge whatsoever of it. just don't get intimidated by all the fancy **** on screen.
feck, i'm known as a technical guru to some people and I often find i've been doing something completely arseways. the only people who know what everything does in logic are the certified trainers and the dudes who developed it.

i love helping out anyone who is making music so if you need any help just holler. I once said that to sean nash, now the fecker never stops asking me questions!!

I always assumed Garage Band was just a basic piece of software so didn't really bother with it, must give it a go again so. The one or two attempts at it did end in frustration and lack of patience but I will give it another shot with renewed enthusiasm

kenji

jtsuited wrote: »

if you've got a mac, crack open garageband there and start messing. it's an extraordinarily well designed DAW, and very similar to logic. If you can use garageband, you will instantly be able to get to grips with logic.

while some people might sneer at using garageband, I can tell you that it's summing engine is actually of a higher resolution than a certain other sequencer out there (don't want to get into the debate here so won't mention any names).

while i come from a musical/engineering/production background, i've seen people take to music production like ducks to water who had no experience or knowledge whatsoever of it. just don't get intimidated by all the fancy **** on screen.
feck, i'm known as a technical guru to some people and I often find i've been doing something completely arseways. the only people who know what everything does in logic are the certified trainers and the dudes who developed it.

i love helping out anyone who is making music so if you need any help just holler. I once said that to sean nash, now the fecker never stops asking me questions!!

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055418876:pac:

Edit:oops just noticed u replied to that thread:)

seannash

kenji wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055418876:pac:

Edit:oops just noticed u replied to that thread:)

you still didnt listen to him,you went wit fruity loops :D

kenji

seannash wrote: »

you still didnt listen to him,you went wit fruity loops :D

Well went with fruity loops first to see if i can get my head around it as it is recommened for beginners and couldnt justify spending cash on logic etc just yet.looking into doing a short course at the moment as i dont want to lose interest when making no progress as it seems very complicated at the moment

seannash

kenji wrote: »

Well went with fruity loops first to see if i can get my head around it as it is recommened for beginners and couldnt justify spending cash on logic etc just yet.looking into doing a short course at the moment as i dont want to lose interest when making no progress as it seems very complicated at the moment

dont bother man,course is a waste of money imo but thats for another topic,dont want to sidetrack this one

jtsuited

seannash wrote: »

dont bother man,course is a waste of money imo but thats for another topic,dont want to sidetrack this one

haha because there's a topic here!!