killik
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
29
Posts :
186
Posted : Feb 23, 2012 14:17
really cool thoughts architekt. i think i know that feeling you described in your opening post. its like u can almost hear what should come next. the next step is to synthsize what u heard.
often it doesnt work for me to recreate it just like i imagined it but thats not always bad. on the way there u can "discover" new direction u could also go for.
wouldnt it get quite predictable? your brain always tells you this one direction that u always take. wouldtn making music become uncreative ?
im not quite sure about it since my brain isnt that well trained yet. just a few thoughts.
i remember an interview with hans zimmer, a film music composer, where he said the endresult never sounds like he imagined and hes kind of ashamed when people listen to it. but its still superb.
Architekt
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
22
Posts :
110
Posted : Feb 23, 2012 14:40
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 14:17, killik wrote:
often it doesnt work for me to recreate it just like i imagined it but thats not always bad. on the way there u can "discover" new direction u could also go for.
Same here, I usually end up somewhere different too, but it gets closer overall after time.
Quote:
wouldnt it get quite predictable? your brain always tells you this one direction that u always take. wouldtn making music become uncreative ?
I don't think so because you can deliberately think of a sound or idea that you haven't done before. Thinking definitely has less limitations for sound creation than a synthesizer. You realize quicker when you are just using the same techniques, and take an alternate approach before you even start making the sounds.
Quote:
i remember an interview with hans zimmer, a film music composer, where he said the endresult never sounds like he imagined and hes kind of ashamed when people listen to it. but its still superb.
Wow that's interesting. I guess everyone has a different reaction to their own music.. How do you feel about your finished tracks? Do you like to listen to them and play them more than other tracks?
Kryten
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
333
Posted : Feb 23, 2012 15:44
Really interesting discussion here. I like the idea of that approach, but as you said, it needs a lot of practice.
I do this(music stuff) for about 3 years now and still I have the problem that I mostly fail when I try to recreate the ideas in my head. All I've done for now evolved from experimenting with sounds...
I hope this will change with more experience and the ideas will stay in my head when I try to make them real
On your last post: Its hard to tell for one self when you are a bit more critic about your own work. If people tell you that they like the track you just did, its hard to tell if they only want to be friendly, don't care or really saying what they think. Especially when you think your music is crap after you spent thousands of hours with it My first track:
http://soundcloud.com/kryten/
minus
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
103
Posts :
1614
Posted : Feb 23, 2012 19:25
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 10:38, jsrobinson wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 10:19, minus wrote:
lots of well established artists using mathematics as base for thier creations,, with complex tight knitted patterns interwoven intellegently using basic natural structures and mathematic patterns to break it down
IMO this seems like nonsense. Name an artist you believe takes this approach?
You might find a group like Tool doing this now and again as an aside.
You might also find artists like Steve Vai who, imo, play way overly technical to really enjoy, and get into.
But to imply this is a common, or even professional approach, seems really inaccurate.
i never implied it was "common" very few artists actually utilise these kind of approaches,, but my point was artists do utilize mathematics and other natural patterns visible in nature, and use them with an artistic eye and make good use of it.
now since i am a self learned artist ( meaning i dont have any sound engg degree etc) i am self taught, and learned to make sounds all by myself,, so over the years i eventually realised or noticed is that ,, music only "Flowz" when the notes are harmonically balanced, that is,, musically correct, as in chords and chord progressions,, ,,only then your track will sound good or flow of the track will be musically and harmonically balanced,, you have to get the musical pattern right, ofcourse artists can explore these with their own custom touches and personal inputs, but all musically right works, have a pattern, which r mathematically or musically precise. and this implies what i meant in the first place
jekvan
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
70
Posts :
406
Posted : Feb 23, 2012 20:56
Well,as an engineering student myself and having been worked as an electronics practical engineer,I can say that the structural approach you learn in your studies takes second place after experimentation.Talking at academical level,most practical systems neglect lower orders,make several assumptions,and even then ,mostly it is just making a model and then work and rework.Because complex systems contain complex issues,ones that you can't forsee.
Here is what I think about it:As a creator,good chunk of goodness you create is by accident.And I think that what you seeking just comes from experience,that is all (that is hearing sounds not only as passive "listener").Vangelis and Hanz Zimmer both said that they discover stuff ,so I wouldn't sweat it that much,just keep doing it,and if you got the talent for it (I mean,some people just can hear music better then others,and make it better as a result) it will be all good.
From all the things I lost,that sandwitch cost me most :)
e-motion
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
71
Posts :
933
Posted : Feb 24, 2012 08:00
@Architekt
I'm a left brainer like you meaning I value logic and racionality. Now let me tell you one thing about it... it sucks for music!
Music is apreciated with the right side of your brain (it's something you feel, not something you should think about). You shouldn't think too much when producing.
I do agree that there are times where you feel "this needs a sound like that", you make it and it totally rocks, but there are many times you go with the flow experimenting and come up with something amazing. There are also times where you really don't know how to make the next 8-bar loop but then you grab what you have, randomly scramble it, fix it, and bam music has just been made.
I think the secret to make music is... go with the flow and don't think too much (but don't just do random things either).
But there's one thing I agree with you about engineering: you should be prepared and have the tools. That means, build an organized library of samples and self-made patches (lots and lots of them with variety) so that when the flow hits you, you have the tools to go with it, and don't slow down too much turning knobs.
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
8
Posted : Feb 25, 2012 07:21
@Architekt
Being an Engineering student , I can understand that way of looking at music/composing.
The Right balance between that and The Experimental side is the best potion to consume i suppose!
@e-Motion
Agree that You should be prepared and have the tools under your grasp. Completely transforms your creative potential when you know "How to do what you need to do get what you want !"
Architekt
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
22
Posts :
110
Posted : Feb 25, 2012 12:35
I've just uploaded a track I've made in the workshop section using this approach only.
It's not quite finished. More eqing and mixing and arranging and extending to be done, but the body of it is there.
I've definitely been able to fit a lot more into this track than I have on previous tracks without it sounding too cluttered, or sounds being out of place (I think!). Would be interested to hear your thoughts on it and if you can hear the approach affecting the songwriting.
I used some new techniques too like half timing the snare, messing with the fullon bassline quite a bit by sidechaining other basses to the main bass, and a key change in the last 32 bars (not root note but scale mode change: phyrgian mode -> harmonic minor). None of this was done through experimentation, although I didn't always arrive at the sounds I had in my head.
http://www.soundcloud.com/architektnz http://dj.beatport.com/architektnz http://www.facebook.com/architektpsynz
specymen
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
119
Posted : Feb 26, 2012 02:44
interesting thoughts about song writing.
for me a track is half made by me and half made by the creative processus (i mean conscious and unconscious). so i can agree with your method but only for a part of the process. the other part is out of any mind control....it's music !!
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Feb 27, 2012 00:42
I actualy sometimes get out of the room and listen to the sound through the walls and from a distance.
It is easier to get the big picture of the sound of the track and the main elements even if they are not there. So basicaly make something going on. Get out of the room. You will hear what the next sound should be and what is a crucial part and what can be filtered out its ghost echoes whispering in your brain. Take a Do and try to put every possible note after it.
Sometimes my brain autocompletes everything to Em.... But what does it mean ? Am i engineered ???
http://soundcloud.com/magimix-1/chilling-forest-whispers Wierd shit happens :)
teatime
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
29
Posted : Mar 6, 2012 10:15
Architekt, I hear what you're saying, and your idea has great merit! In my experience however the best course of action is to continually experiment throughout the creation of a song. I am also a final year engineering student, and thinking of songs as problems, and applying problem solving skills to them has been of great benefit to me, however, every single time I've created something amazing it has been due to brute force experimentation. Normally when I start a song I do have some elements in mind, and filling in the gaps with ideas you consciously is a very necessary thing (a song cannot survive on luck and experimentation alone). I agree that practise is very important, this is my seventh year of making psytrance, and I'm only just reaching a level where I feel my music is of a quality that I would comfortable release it.
IMHO planning is good for the initial impulse to get the process going, but there is a certain point where you do something accidentally or change something without really thinking about it, then when you listen to it again something magical appeared, like the song got a life of it's own and you can just hang on for dear life and just create it That being said, talk is talk, and just listening to me talking isn't very interesting - per demonstration of what I mean, below is a 1min link to a song I'm working on.
It's still very much a work in progress, but the part I'd like to point out is 00:50 onwards. Through the process of creating the break the automation starting at 01:04 just appeared. Just to elaborate that sound consits of a mix of detunes saws and squares passing parralel through two bandpasses, then through a chorus with a high feedback and the delay time modulated. What makes that sound (after 00:50) so awesome to me is the combination of filtercutoff modulation and modulation of the delay time - something I could not have planned, but that just magically appeared....
wizanda
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
24
Posts :
283
Posted : Mar 6, 2012 12:42
Found recently, that the more of the journey you create, the easier it is to see what happens next.
Yet hadn't pondered training the brain to become more musical; as a musician on instruments, its automatic to fill in the blanks instantly.... Yet found technically it becomes like digital construction; which changes the inherent dynamic musical ability of just flowing, into something more rigidly structured. www.wizanda.comwww.soundcloud.com/wizanda
teatime
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
29
Posted : Mar 7, 2012 10:52
In retrospect I answered too hastily, without considering what you said thoroughly enough, and I agree with you more than I initially thought. That being said, I do feel the need to qualify my answer somewhat - in terms of the composition of the song, i.e the order in which elements are arranged and how many of which kind are layered where, I follow a similar approach to you - I listen to the segment in question over and over and over, and eventually "know" what I have to do. This process, however, is in inextricably linked to experimentation, faffing with synths, playing around with element positions and so on, so simply rendering the song and listening to it a lot does not help as much as opening my DAW and listening there. As I have grown more experienced in making music this process has sped up, not so much because I know better what I want now, but because I am more familiar with the tools and their functional limits.
On the other side, the physical sound design is very experimental. When making a new sound I start out with a rough idea of what kind of sound I am making, some loose idea of what the amp envelope should look like, the kind of midinote lengths I'm looking at and the main elements of the song (i.e what parameters should be modulated to give the sound the essential characteristic I want to impart upon it).
I have more I want to write, because I find this topic very interesting, but I am late for class, so I will have to do so at a later stage http://www.soundcloud.com/teatime_psy
