 |
|  Productivity vs. innovation? [MUSIC] | |
|
 |
Tyr
  Artist
Topics: 66
Replies: 1054
Registered: 04.Jan.05 |
 |
I have from time to time (ok a billion times) started making a song, went into the "zone" (that is making tunes comes easy and you can do alot in a short while) but have then thought "maybe this hihat needs a little eq" or "this synth doesn't quite fit, maybe I'll tweak it" or my personal favorite "this is a preset, using presets is lame", then I spend some time fixing the issue at hand, and 2 hours later I discover that I totally lost the mood I was in and while the song sounds slightly better, I'd probably be better of if I had just kept going with the songmaking.
The question I mean to ask is:
Do you guys think it's a good idea in general to be adding effects, swapping/changing instruments etc during the composition stage? If so, is it to avoid using presets (being uber innovative), make the instruments fit, or just making the song sound cooler with some kickass effects?
In my personal experience I have to say this is a thing I wish I could just do later when the song is finished, but what do you guys think? |
|
Cooth
 Member
Topics: 59
Replies: 3588
Registered: 02.Jan.03 |
|
Tyr wrote on 08 Jul. (7:05) :
Do you guys think it's a good idea in general to be adding effects, swapping/changing instruments etc during the composition stage? If so, is it to avoid using presets (being uber innovative), make the instruments fit, or just making the song sound cooler with some kickass effects?
In my personal experience I have to say this is a thing I wish I could just do later when the song is finished, but what do you guys think? |
I think that if if you are on a specific part of your song and you want to forge the sounds and climate of it, applying all kinds of effects is very much in place. Consider this: you are making a 5 minute song for a week and all this time you don't really know what which part will sound like. All the time you think "no, it's a good practice to be done with the composition first". But why? If you feel that the effect or the timbre is important for the part you are working on - there's nothing wrong with getting it right. Otherwise, you're not really sure how the arrangement will work in the end.
As for presets - if one's rejecting a preset just because it's lame to use one, I say it's lame practice itself. Having said that, I always use presets, usually just modify them to fit my needs. It's all a question of what you want to do. Sometimes you want to create something that sounds different from anything that was done before. Sometimes you just want to write beautiful music that expresses you. Sometimes something in between.
What I've learned in my life, both private and professional: do not follow a good practice only because it's said to be good practice. That's bad practice. |
|
Louigi Verona
Member
Topics: 384
Replies: 3827
Registered: 22.Aug.03 |
Yes, I agree with Cooth - generally, anyway.
Using presets is fine. People have used "presets" for most of their history - because one can look at all acoustic instruments as presets, created by the instruments craftsmen.
The only time when using preset is not fine is when you are aiming to create a sound from scratch. It has nothing to do with composing music and is a separate profession. Sound engineers are actually hired to create presets for synthesizers, both hardware and software.
Actually, this obsession with originality, which has its roots deep in the philosophy of the western culture, is absurd at times. Why would one need to have EVERYTHING authored in the work for it to be a good one? Why can't it be based on someone else's work?
A place to release albums online (2180 hits) |
|
kilon
Artist
Topics: 36
Replies: 614
Registered: 09.Jul.05 |
On the other hand, I will have to disagree with Cooth.
I like most people started with presets, later to discover that great music cannot be made with presets.
Almost all top musicians use people that make presets for them and that says alot.
But I have come to conclusion that spending more time on a piece wont make it better necessarily. Music is also about balance , and know when to stop.
But as golden rule , effort equals to better result, epic music album were out of sheer dedication and commitment of the artist.
Of course in then end it is also a matter of choice,. For example I believe spending more time on a piece in most cases equals to better quality. I used to spend at least 30 hours per track. Now I spend 1-3 hours . Why ? Because it loads more fun to do so.
KILON (1.000.000 hits , 1 broken bone) |
|
Cooth
Member
Topics: 59
Replies: 3588
Registered: 02.Jan.03 |
kilon wrote on 09 Jul. (11:34) :
I like most people started with presets, later to discover that great music cannot be made with presets.
|
Why? |
|
mrsix
Member
Topics: 95
Replies: 1834
Registered: 01.Nov.04 |
|
Good topic Tyr. I sometimes have the same problem.
But as Cooth says, sometimes concentrating on one small part and adding effects, instruments etc can help improve a specific part and help with the composing process.  This is generally how I write.
Lately though I have been thinking that it would be good to actually write/record a basic song from start to finish, to perfect the composition, and then go back and add effects, instruments etc. I have only written one song that I have actually done this and I was very happy with the results...I have been meaning to forge a set of rules to ensure I do it on every occasion..but sadly I think I lack that particular musical talent - to just write a song from start to finish. I write music by writing a section at a time, perfecting it, then moving on to the next. Most of my ideas for the remainder of the track come from what I compose/edit on the existing sections.
I have a habit of using the same setup all the time, so can also relate about the presets. With me, it's always a piano, my Guitar and Line6 Pod and the same drum samples. But as Lougi says.. this is normal. Additionally, this may be your 'sound' that you have perfected and are happy to use.
So I can sort of relate to both points
Like most things, I would say - if you are not happy with your recording process, then try something else out. But if you come back time and again and are happy with the original composition process, then I think you dont need to change anything at all.
giggedy giggedy |
|
John Marwin
Artist
Topics: 58
Replies: 1842
Registered: 30.Jun.03 |
I definitely focus more on getting into that zone than ironining out the small hihat kinks.. unless of course, my zone is getting focused on making a certain wibe that just needs *that* level of trembling crash with -+7 microns of tone adjustment.
So yeah, I work fast and hard, and then I focus on getting the smaller stuff out of the way later.
Signature. |
|
kilon
Artist
Topics: 36
Replies: 614
Registered: 09.Jul.05 |
|
Cooth wrote on 09 Jul. (12:37) :
kilon wrote on 09 Jul. (11:34) :
I like most people started with presets, later to discover that great music cannot be made with presets.
|
Why? |
Because 90% of the presets are from crapish to boring. Esoecially software presets are really bad even with big name synth like FM8 and Absynth etc . Harware suffers from this as well (see Acess Virus, Andromeda etc ) . Unless of course you are into acoustic sounds where it makes perfect sense to use presets.
I recently visted a friend who had korg radias, a well sounded but rather weak synth. I started to browse through the presets to get a general feeling, and choose what sounds I did like, 99% of what I choosen was presets that my friend had made ( i thought that it was all factory presets cause my friend is very new into music) and that from a person that messes with synths for only one year!
I am must confess that even I am surpised me how better my sounds are from on board presets and many of them usually take me from 10 minutes to half an hour.
Another friend of mine is deep in sound synthesis he posses many analog and va as well a Harmoniser effect unit (which is consider one of the best) the sounds he is making is beyond anything I have heard.
And preset sounds is only the tip of the iceberg , there are other stuff like mixing, effects, compression that the small details can make the diffirence between a nice track to an amazing track.
And then there is the melody-composition-arrangement etc.... so many things that can be touched and improved and offer alot more that can produce a much better result than an a more automatic approach...
You cannot beat with trick any hard way made track . No pain no gain.
But I agree working fast is alot more fun.
KILON (1.000.000 hits , 1 broken bone) |
|
g
Member
Topics: 10
Replies: 2037
Registered: 03.Jan.03 |
kilon wrote on 10 Jul. (8:16) :
Cooth wrote on 09 Jul. (12:37) :
kilon wrote on 09 Jul. (11:34) :
I like most people started with presets, later to discover that great music cannot be made with presets.
|
Why? |
Because 90% of the presets are from crapish to boring. |
I think 90% of the sounds used for a song need to be boring or crapish, if you know what I mean... They can't all be spectacular and powerful, that would just be porn. |
|
Louigi Verona
Member
Topics: 384
Replies: 3827
Registered: 22.Aug.03 |
|
Harware suffers from this as well (see Acсess Virus, Andromeda etc ) |
Those presets are actually quite serious. They are carefully engineered and that careful engineering can be seen in the final mix. For instance, if it is a bass, it will not interfere with the leads, because the person who was making it was a good engineer. So I would say that hardware presets are (usually) very well thought through.
You might not exactly like them, but you can't please everyone. My firend, a big fan of Virus, loves a lot of presets.
A place to release albums online (2180 hits) |
|
|
Latest Topics
![[194.144.4.24]](pics/ip.gif){kind=small}
