| Author
|
Oldschool Goa Tricks & Tips?
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 04:06
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-26 20:14, Ðårk §hivå wrote:
thank u mr shaman for sum very interesting tips and i thought u were always only up 2 trix 
also wud like to get that extreme filter sounds very interesting
|
|
Sorry... I didn't check the link... here is a link to the new page with rubberfilter and few new plugs:
http://www.savioursofsoul.de/Christian/?page_id=8
  "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 04:18
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-26 20:53, sly wrote:
the best method imo is just to use your ears (and a subwoofer if you have) and tune everything to your liking. better results than with maths (even thats also important for certain things).
|
|
The best method is to have available as many methods as possible and try each one in order to see which one will work best.
Ears are important, but it takes years to train hearing in order to be able to rely only on what you hear. Even when you do... why use only ears? Wherever there is structure in nature you'll find mathematics. You can not make music without it. Pitch, scales, ratios, intervals, quantization, iteration, reverbation, chorus, flange, phaser... it's all based on very precise mathematical rules. Why do people freak out when you suggest that some things work best when you follow certain mathematical rules?
No need to get excited about that and judge what is good for other people based on how old they are and what do you think about certain techniques. That makes no sense at all.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
sly
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
183
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 16:31
|
Quote:
|
The best method is to have available as many methods as possible and try each one in order to see which one will work best.
|
|
totally agree.
Quote:
|
You can not make music without it. Pitch, scales, ratios, intervals, quantization, iteration, reverbation, chorus, flange, phaser... it's all based on very precise mathematical rules. Why do people freak out when you suggest that some things work best when you follow certain mathematical rules?
|
|
there are patterns... everywhere in nature 
totally agree and nowbody's freaking out...
i read your post again and to be honest, i didn't get it at all. why do you multiply 2.4hz with 9? if you ask me you always have to take the factor 2. like 2.4 x 2 x 2 x 2... (i don't know how to make this exp. sign on my keyboard, but you know what i mean). like this you calculate something between D and D#...
i don't feel like bitching around, i guess you know more about mathematics than i do.
but i analyzed a few oldschool tracks and it's not like most of them are 144bpm in F (last one i checked from shidapu was 146.1 in G#). maybe just ststistically 144bpm and/or F fits good to psy in general.
i know how important mathematical based settings of almost everything in electronic music are, but not for root key and bpm. i know you can do, it can be even nice. but then have look on colin oood's god chart...
http://oood.net/public/Note_-_Freq_-_BPM_Conversion.xls
this one makes sense to me compared to your spaced calculations...
Quote:
|
No need to get excited about that and judge what is good for other people based on how old they are and what do you think about certain techniques. That makes no sense at all.
|
|
no, i think it makes sense. age is not important but i can see on this forum that this guy is very active looking for information. i just wanted preventing him and other newbies (especially those who are looking for THE formula to make psy) from wasting their time with imo useless maths.
maybe i'm wrong and this is the most important thing in the world. would be interresting to know if people who release do it like this...
read heretical's post. the most important things on two lines. enough to play around a hole day and learn many new things.
take it easy, i didn't wanted to offend you. i just had too much time while working and these were my thoughts
and yeah, just one thing. perfect fifth of F is C, not A#. you were talking about 5 semitones, the fith is 7 semitones above the root key... |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 17:46
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 16:31, sly wrote:
i read your post again and to be honest, i didn't get it at all. why do you multiply 2.4hz with 9? if you ask me you always have to take the factor 2. like 2.4 x 2 x 2 x 2... (i don't know how to make this exp. sign on my keyboard, but you know what i mean). like this you calculate something between D and D#... |
|
If you multiply frequencies only by factor of 2, 4 or 8 you'll have only octaves... right? So in order to get scale you have to use different factors. You can use rational numbers (like 3, 5, 6, 7, 9...) or irrational numbers (like 1.618 which is phy ratio). So when you multiply C (close to 32 Hz) with 1.5 you get G (close to 48). So when played together they are coherent. While C goes trough 3 cycles G makes exactly 2 cycles and it's perfect harmonic because zero crossing point overlaps perfectly. But if you check equal temperament tuning you'll find out that only few notes are coherent. Frequencies in octaves above 3rd are so fast that we can hardy hear the difference, but below 100 Hz that imperfection is quite annoying to anyone with a decent pitch perception. That is the reason why we use only certain combination of notes like pentatonic scale etc. Those combinations are quite close to perfect. However, there are ways to go around this "equal temperament" issue and make music more coherent or fluid if you want.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 16:31, sly wrote:
i analyzed a few oldschool tracks and it's not like most of them are 144bpm in F (last one i checked from shidapu was 146.1 in G#). maybe just ststistically 144bpm and/or F fits good to psy in general. |
|
146.1 divided by 60 is 2.435 Hz. Multiply that with 8 and you have 19.48 Hz which is D#. Five half steps up (you're right, that's pentatonic of perfect 4th) and you have G#. Different multiplication factor but still the same principle
You have to realize that most of the time when we make music we set bpm rate, pick out some bass sound and than we're experimenting with different root keys. Most of the time will pick out the root key that sounds best to us. The logic behind "what sounds best" is coherence and mathematics. So most of good sounding tracks will be quite close to my theory even if the producer have never heard of coherence and different tuning scales. Our ears are trained to detect harmony (coherence) as something favorable to disharmony (incoherence)... So I've just invested some time in order to figure out some principle behind "what sounds right" and so far I believe I've found it. Your example also works in that direction as you can see.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 16:31, sly wrote:
take it easy, i didn't wanted to offend you. i just had too much time while working and these were my thoughts
and yeah, just one thing. perfect fifth of F is C, not A#. you were talking about 5 semitones, the fith is 7 semitones above the root key... |
|
I'm not offended... don't worry. I don't get offended so easy
And you're right. I was talking about 4th interval which is 5 half steps (pentatonic scale). Perfect 5th is 7 half steps. My mistake.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
sly
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
183
Posted : Apr 27, 2008 23:09
|
yep, everything very correct.
but mate, this is the fundament of the whole music theory.
frequency of the root key multiplied by
1.12 = 2nd
1.26 = 3th (major)
1.33 = 4th
1.5 = 5th
1.69 = 6th
1.88 = 7th (major)
to jump over octaves just multiply these factors with 2 per octave.
example: C1 is 32.7 hz, to come to A3 which is the 6th two octaves higher just multiply with 6.76 (1.69 x 2 x2).
sure i'm in major scales now, but it would be too much to discus all these scales out there.
o.k, nothing new to you. i know. but let's talk about the coherence to bpm.
let's look at a track of 145 bpm what means 2.416 hz tones, right?
2.416 hz is shit to calculate, so let's move some octaves higher. 2.416 x 8 (what is 3 octs) = 19.328 (D#1)
does it mean that a track of 145 bpm must be in D#? no, of course not. you can multipliy by 9 = F, 10 = G, 11 = shit between G# and A,
12 = A#...
but usually you are in scale and not the biggest crackhead producing psy would tune the stuff to root frequency multiplied by 11, cause you really need the cent knob for such things.
now you can combine. root key multiplied by 1.5 is the perfect fifth. 1.5 x 8 = 12.
2.416 x 12 = 29 hz = A# (also perfect fifth)
but if i prefer i can multiply by 10 and i'm on G# (fourth), or by 9 and you have F (major 3th) AND EVERYTHING IS STILL SOUNDING GOOD.
that means you can multiply by many factors and the music will be in scale. you just need a regular keyboard and same tuned synths. so invest in music theory and not in maths, couse music theory is just the translation of the figures behind.
ok maybe is better not to multiply by 1.55 cause on 145 bpm (root D#) it would be B (six half steps above). have to check if b sounds bad on that speed
like you wrote in your other post 144bpm should be in F to sound oldschool. i don't think so. with this formula 130 = D#, 150 = G. and if you take other keys you can't multiply by 9. if you multiply by an different factor you are just doing the same thing than moving the midi patterns up and down...
if you analyze music you will always find maths correlation between scale and bpm cause it's in the music itself. don' think about when composing. you can't do much wrong with a keyboard.
that's why i said trust your ears. almost everything is possible.
is still sometimes fun to think about when not making music
cheers
|
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 03:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
frequency of the root key multiplied by
1.12 = 2nd
1.26 = 3th (major)
1.33 = 4th
1.5 = 5th
1.69 = 6th
1.88 = 7th (major) |
|
you do realize that only 4th and 5th are coherent with root key?
Other ratios are close, but not close enough for low frequency elements like kick and bass line.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
let's look at a track of 145 bpm what means 2.416 hz tones, right?
2.416 hz is shit to calculate, so let's move some octaves higher. 2.416 x 8 (what is 3 octs) = 19.328 (D#1) |
|
This one is close enough. D#1 is 19,445 so you miss only 0,1 Hz
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
you can multipliy by 9 = F, 10 = G, 11 = shit between G# and A,
12 = A#... |
|
well you're not being precise
7 x 2,416 = 16,912 / C = 16,351 no coherence
9 x 2,416 = 21,744 / F = 21.826 close enough
10 x 2,416 = 24,16 / G = 24,499 no coherence
11 x 2,416 = 26,576 / G# = 25,956 A = 27,5 no coherence
12 x 2,416 = 28,992 / A# = 29,135 close enough
13 x 2,416 = 31,408 / B = 30,867 C = 32,351 no coherence
So there's really only few notes that are coherent with 145 bpm. You can try to play together 2 sine tones (you can use Octopus to enter precise frequency for each of 8 osc's). Make one 62.816 Hz (2,416 x 13 x 2) and other one 61.734 Hz (that's B2). Play them together and tell me if they sound right... you'll understand better why all that fuss about few cents and coherent notes and bpm.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
AND EVERYTHING IS STILL SOUNDING GOOD. |
|
Good to you... but maybe I found some tunings to be better after years of playing and making music. We all have different criteria.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
so invest in music theory and not in maths, couse music theory is just the translation of the figures behind. |
|
I've played guitar for more than 12 years mostly playing commercial and jazz music. Last 10 I'm into electronic music. So I know music theory quite well and I know what I'm saying when I say that equal temperament tuning is bullshit of the century that made music very limited.
So NHF but seams like you need to gain some understanding of harmony, pitch ratios and current equal temperament tuning.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
ok maybe is better not to multiply by 1.55 cause on 145 bpm (root D#) it would be B (six half steps above). have to check if b sounds bad on that speed |
|
you really don't understand what coherence is, do you? Ratio of 1 to 1.55 does not produce a harmonic. 1 to 1.5 is harmonic because while "1" goes trough 3 cycles "1.5" makes 2 cycles. While "1" goes trough 4 cycles "1.33" goes trough 3 cycles. That are harmonics... 1.55 is rubbish...
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
like you wrote in your other post 144bpm should be in F to sound oldschool. i don't think so. |
|
I said that kick drum should be in F (which is like standard tuning for classic kick drums). Bass line only needs to be coherent with frequency of kick drum and track tempo. Of course there are many variations beside one I've mentioned... I've just pointed out the principle... variations are welcome.
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
if you analyze music you will always find maths correlation between scale and bpm cause it's in the music itself. don' think about when composing. you can't do much wrong with a keyboard. |
|
Well keyboard is wrong to start with, but I don't have a desire to debate about that again. Search for older topic named 432 Hz tuning and you'll find detailed description of that problem.
ps: there is absolutely NO correlation between BPM and pitch ratios unless you bother to find one.
I'm tired and this is getting way off topic... You're free to ignore everything I have wrote in this thread as well as every other user who wishes to do so. I'm not spreading the new religion... I'm simply sharing informations and I'm not going to spend any more time defending my observations from ridiculous statements like:
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-27 23:09, sly wrote:
like you wrote in your other post 144bpm should be in F to sound oldschool. |
|
You could at least read carefully and try not to distort my statement so that they fit your "arguments". You're just wasting my time from the start... If you experiment you'll hear the difference... if you continue to act upon belief you'll obviously just continue to waste my time. So NHF, but it's EOD.
cheers!
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
sly
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
183
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 12:19
|
Quote:
|
I said that kick drum should be in F (which is like standard tuning for classic kick drums). Bass line only needs to be coherent with frequency of kick drum and track tempo. Of course there are many variations beside one I've mentioned... I've just pointed out the principle... variations are welcome.
|
|
kickdrum is a fucking bent sine, so just listen what sounds good. even if it sits on F there are a lot of other frequencies.
Quote:
|
So I know music theory quite well and I know what I'm saying when I say that equal temperament tuning is bullshit of the century that made music very limited.
|
|
making basslines only on 4th and 5th according to bpm is bullshit of your post and makes psy very limited.
sure you played jazz and not pop?
http://download.yousendit.com/D3F8AB8C7C6A6A11
that is 143 bpm, first 8 bars in F# and then 8 bars in G#. kickdrum something around A. the problem of that sample is that it is not well mixed and not mastered yet (and not finished at all). not the missing coherence imo.
yes, we are wasting our time. so i won't post on this topic anymore.
think zak can decide by himself if everything bassy should be in F, G# and A#...
and you better read carefully. i just said maybe you are right a little bit and it's better not making bass on tritone of the root frequency...
but what i do sometimes is even worse so i don't give a shit.
|
|
|
|
ZakFenlon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
47
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 12:36
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-26 22:56, heretical wrote:
to me the biggest thing about the goa sound is the phrygian mode and tweaking the filter cutoff by hand.
you can find the notes for any key using this piano chord web thing
http://www.nfo.net/MFILE/
Just start by making a 16th note pedal and then move the "melody" notes up an octave, put some delay on the line and viola. If you do this in phrygian with a tweaked saw its kind of hard to not sound like goa.
|
|
what is the phrygian mode ?
My mummy said that there were no monsters, at least no real ones!
Listen to Shiva Shidapu! |
|
|
|
Elad
Tsabeat/Sattel Battle
Started Topics :
158
Posts :
5306
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 13:23
|
shamantrixx stop confuse peaple (the kid is 13!!)
this mathematics comes 10 years after you allready know to make music , its most defintly not the base for beautiful music making...
and hey , kick not must be sine anywayz , square one is the only one work in techno
anywayz zak the one tip that will bring you farther then all those blurbs here , is to get music teacher , learn about 2-3 years while testing what you learn in the track... trust me you will make 200% better music then most peaple realese today with 0 musical knowledge and only cubase tricks they pass from one to other www.sattelbattle.com
http://yoavweinberg.weebly.com/ |
|
|
|
aXis
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
116
Posts :
2562
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 13:32
|
this is a bible for new producers in one school of thought .
Also Elad is very correct, which is the second truth here.
Hey Zak , Just DO UR THING !!!
Do not focus to make psy or hip hop , MAKE ur own music. |
|
|
|
sly
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
183
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 14:43
|
sorry to everybody for this sensless offtopic posts.
i was quite confused from all these maths. now i calculated many things again and came to the conclusion that everything i wrote was bullshit like everything shamantrixx wrote is bullshit too.
except that only the fifth of the root according to bpm can make full cycles.
but i still say its not important.
better listen to the others posting here.
and shamantrixx, sorry for the rudeness. peace. i know what coherence is and you do probably even better. but we don't have the same opinion about.
actually i just wanted to say the same thing elad postet before... |
|
|
|
FreakyFreQuencies
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
51
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 15:59
|
I think everyone, who want make music should go to Mathematics School, not Musical
This way of thinking limit creativity of newbie.
And I think is too much for newbie for start
|
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 17:00
|
Everybody experiences far more than he understands. Yet it is experience, rather than understanding, that influences behavior. It never ceases to amaze me.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 18:08
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-04-26 18:45, shamantrixx wrote:
Also try to control the exact duration of each sound (like kick drum and a bass) not to overlap each other. That will make a strong "pump & run" effect. If you have multiple elements triggering at same time try to delay them with a few msec. For example when a snare hits together with the kick drum try to delay a snare and the snare will "bite" the kick tail instead of clashing with it. Usually few msec. is more than enough.
|
|
This seems is a recipe for bad production. Choose sounds or EQ them so that they fit nicely together. Don't make the timing sloppy to try and fit things together...
I do the exact opposite of what shamantrixx proposes. I edit and cut every sound so that the peaks are sample accurately aligned. Very often I will listen to something I am working on and be annoyed because it doesn't sound tight. Surely enough, when I zoom in far enough I find something that is a few samples off beat and needs fixing. Fuck sloppy timing!
UnderTow |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Apr 28, 2008 18:54
|
You do realize that groove IS timing deviation? Also you must be aware that psychoacoustic plugs often do that same exact thing by phase "correction" and most loudness maximizers use that anyway.
btw: you can produce a bad sounding music using just about any recipe. Usually it's a matter of how well you preform the procedure.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
|
