Why is there less bass in Darkpsy than Fullon and Progressive?

On 2007-10-20 20:30, Inner Demon wrote:
I'm surprised however that noone has mentioned - in the context of 'production quality' - the fact that music is bound to sound less well produced as the tempo goes up.

The less time a note is being played the less it will develop a full tone... really not very strange is it?

Of course you can't have a booming kick drum in a fast track if you want ANY room for some bass notes too.

it is in fact harder to make a fast track sound well produced than a slow one.

It seems to me that you just shove your dislike of the style itself on the producers and that's exposing your ignorance, not your expertise, I'm afraid.

what's so exciting about listening to utterly predictable prefectly quantized music with every sweep and swoop in the 'right' place?
Personally I want to be grabbed by the ***** and shaken around, please surprise me!

On 2007-10-21 01:07, UnderTow wrote:

A 16th note at 150 BPM is 100 milliseconds.

That is enough for a full 10Hz wave cycle. How low do you want your fundamental exactly?

On 2007-10-21 01:59, Spindrift wrote:

Try it yourself and play only one cycle of a 70Hz sine, then play a second of the same sine.
Are you trying to say that you get the same impression of bass when you do that?

Also I think that "conga fury" can hardly be compared with your most darkpsy since it's not a regular 4/4 beat.

I usually feel that there is not enough time to stretch out in the moves when the music is above 145 bpm, but even if conga fury is 160 there is enough time both to make full length moves and have full length sounds.

It would be interesting to hear some examples from the camp that think that "Oh come on. Most "darkpsy" IS badly produced."

I have been going through a lot of music recently when filling up my DJ laptop with new material, and I really can't see where you get that notion. There is plenty of really well produced darkpsy right now and I can't think of many tracks at all with really bad production so it would be interesting to hear what I have missed.

On 2007-10-21 02:29, UnderTow wrote:

This is a red herring because you don't play just one cycle and fill up the rest of a second with silence. You play a bit less than a 16th note and then a very short silence (if at all) and then the NEXT bass or kick note hits. In other words, the time line is just as filled as with slower music if not more so! There is usually less silence!

It certainly is 4/4. Anyway, my point is that faster music doesn't inherently sound worse than slower music. That is just bullshit. It is actually easier to hide errors in faster music.

I'm not too interested in an endless back and forth argument because we all know that the next step will just be about taste. If I point to a track that in my opinion is badly produced, someone else will probably tell me that they love the way that track sounds...

I'm always looking for faster, harder, darker music. If it is well produced that is. Maybe you can give examples of good sounding dark tracks.

Oh come on. Most "darkpsy" IS badly produced.

You even say yourself it sounds less well produced. You can't both argue that it sounds badly produced because it is faster and that it doesn't sound less well produced. (Well you can as you just did but it makes you look like a fool

That has nothing to do with production quality. If you like "darkpsy" above clean cut full-on that's OK. But hey, you are again giving excuses to justify the bad production.

Stop yelling at people pointing out the blatantly obvious even if it is a criticism of your favourite musical genre. (Well not even the music, just the production quality).

On 2007-10-21 17:06, Inner Demon wrote:

Oh you come on. I've also bought a lot of darkpsy over the last couple of years and I don't see where you get that notion either. Burden of evidence is on you my friend!

I did a real sloppy job of formulating myself there but even so you're putting words in my mouth.

Less good relative to what exactly? Understand this - I think that most darkpsy is perfectly well produced. I also think that a lot of full-on is WAY over-produced. And that makes my ears want to go for a nap.

There is no contradiction. If most full-on had represented just about acceptable production standards, then yes - you would've had a point.

I am convinced that if it was possible to squeeze out that over-produced super tightness at 150bpm+ tempos then someone would've. But there is a distinct lack of that around.

Is that because all darkpsy producers suck and don't have the skills?

1) As if there weren't any valid ones.

2) If you think production and style are unrelated, think again.

Production quality is not measured along some universal scale.

Personally I think production should be in sync with the style of the tune. How many times hasn't a 'dirty' production given a rock tune more edge than a clean cut one would have?

Besides (again), please point out all this 'bad' production, where is it?

As NikC points out, 'bass' is not 'tone' but if we are to talk about bass then yes...there will be as much bass, sure, but it is how we percieve it that's important. In my experience its considerably easier to achieve depth and richness to the bass sound at slower tempos. At 150+ bpm the sensation of a rich tone will not develop before the filter snaps.

Sure there is theoretically time for a full 10hz wave cycle but try it and you'll see what I mean - it gives off a different impression, I wish I knew why but its just the way it is.

Stop yelling yourself, and if you had read all of Atma's posts you'd have noticed that his tone wasn't all that respectful.

Finally, some tips on 'good sounding darkpsy': Penta, Ghreg On Earth, Samadhi, Kindzadza.

Enjoy

On 2007-10-21 18:28, UnderTow wrote:
I've been listening to some stuff and what it lacks most for me is riffs. (Except maybe Ghreg on Earth).

I don't mean melodic riffs as such. Is there anything with more coherence? More riffs?

UnderTow