TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- 1999 Trance [Re-creation]
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

what do you notice when you listen to each of these tracks? they all have their own personality. they don't all have super saws or similar breakdowns. all you have to do to make music like this is start with interesting sounds and don't follow other people's "production tips"...


i'll give you a perfect example.

since you were looking for feedback on tracks in that other thread, i took a look at your label site because i was too lazy to download the set haha .

i can hear the time and effort in all of the productions...there are some beautiful sounds in there, but all of the productions have this really polished sheen over them that kind of detracts from them. it takes away their individuality.

also listen to a lot of the key elements of the tracks like percussion, bassline, etc. i really don't hear significant differences from track to track again contributing to a samey feel. check out these old school examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nuvwCzeJ7E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcx1gWOhmM

is there anything similar about these two tracks other than they are both great? not really. They are both very distinctive, the second you hear one most people that are familiar with these years will be able to identify them...

you can tell listening to the samples on olympik records that all of these people have a very similar approach to music, not just style, but the actual production techniques. because we all like to discuss production and talk about making that "ideal kick" or "perfect hi hats" we end up doing the same things where the real beauty in music is the variety.

each track needs to have it's own identity, it's own characteristic sound and you can't do that if you approach mastering or general production the same everytime. every song is a new project and has it's own challenges, you can't apply the same formula time and time again.

i really think that is a downside to forums like this sometimes. people expect to learn some mystical secret like use this compression setting or sidechain your bassline bla bla bla. if we all approach production the same then we all make the same sounding tracks. i believe the seasoned pros don't give out more advice because they realize that there isn't that formula and that it varies. it may be frustrating for people that are trying to learn, but that's the way it is...

i really hope this post is recieved the right way and isn't taken as putting down your work. i really admire people that are out there trying to make their dreams happen. i hope to start a little label of my own someday. i'm just trying to give a nice solid opinion on what i think is hurting that chance at making a really special song. i would give the same advice to anyone that wants to make music.

^ Great post. I love those tracks, too, especially "Netherworld."

quote:

Originally posted by flutlicht junky All aboard who's coming aboard!!! Next stop Crasher when PVD first drops For An Angel

looks like my new midi controller for ableton

Stephen, check your pm

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller what do you notice when you listen to each of these tracks? they all have their own personality. they don't all have super saws or similar breakdowns. all you have to do to make music like this is start with interesting sounds and don't follow other people's "production tips"... i'll give you a perfect example. since you were looking for feedback on tracks in that other thread, i took a look at your label site because i was too lazy to download the set haha . i can hear the time and effort in all of the productions...there are some beautiful sounds in there, but all of the productions have this really polished sheen over them that kind of detracts from them. it takes away their individuality. also listen to a lot of the key elements of the tracks like percussion, bassline, etc. i really don't hear significant differences from track to track again contributing to a samey feel. check out these old school examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nuvwCzeJ7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcx1gWOhmM is there anything similar about these two tracks other than they are both great? not really. They are both very distinctive, the second you hear one most people that are familiar with these years will be able to identify them... you can tell listening to the samples on olympik records that all of these people have a very similar approach to music, not just style, but the actual production techniques. because we all like to discuss production and talk about making that "ideal kick" or "perfect hi hats" we end up doing the same things where the real beauty in music is the variety. each track needs to have it's own identity, it's own characteristic sound and you can't do that if you approach mastering or general production the same everytime. every song is a new project and has it's own challenges, you can't apply the same formula time and time again. i really think that is a downside to forums like this sometimes. people expect to learn some mystical secret like use this compression setting or sidechain your bassline bla bla bla. if we all approach production the same then we all make the same sounding tracks. i believe the seasoned pros don't give out more advice because they realize that there isn't that formula and that it varies. it may be frustrating for people that are trying to learn, but that's the way it is... i really hope this post is recieved the right way and isn't taken as putting down your work. i really admire people that are out there trying to make their dreams happen. i hope to start a little label of my own someday. i'm just trying to give a nice solid opinion on what i think is hurting that chance at making a really special song. i would give the same advice to anyone that wants to make music.

I appreciate the opinion and agree with most of it. I've used the term "formulaic" for years and usually in a negative context when describing the current "State of Trance!" (thanks Armin). I do think you're doing Olympik's music a bit of unjust by painting a broad brush after hearing only MySpace clips. You have to realize that I'm working with what is available to me (and working hard might I add), and considering where dance music is I'm extremely pleased with every single track I have signed. I'm even more pleased when I take a step back and look at what I have (or don't have...*A pile of money and tradition* ) to work with.

Do I wish I could wake up in the mornings and review a ton of tracks that had the 99 sound instead? Yes, but that's just not where music is right now. Maybe if I owned some empire label I could dictate and grab any 99 sounding track I want (yes, they are out there) but I don't and I can't. Again, I'm very pleased with what I have and the label is much further along at this point than I anticipated.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle There are tons of 1999 trance sounding tracks still being made and has been the last ten years, its just that nobody cares much about them. The trance from 1999 was a NEW sound at the time, which everyone remembers and those who listened to it back then will feel a certain nostalgia about the tracks. The sound is dated, and the time of trance classics are over.. hardly any track will ever really get that status anymore, trance 10 years ago was about invention, none of the producers knew exactly what music to make, they just made music they thought was good or whatever, THAT is the big difference between then and now, producers had a totally open mind when making new music, while now producers almost always has a reference sound in their mind that they want make. Which leads to alot of tracks sounding like good or bad copies of each other.. and add the fact that tracks needs to be "club worthy" for a DJ to even touch them, makes it all more trickier to get a certain old school sound out there.

I agree with most of your post here except for the first line and I think that may just be a subjective opinion. Show me some tracks produced in the last 5 years that has the 99 sound to it that also is very, very good. Good enough to be blended into the tracks I posted in the original thread. I'll be shocked if you can find even one. And please don't think supersaw and snare rolls when you think 99 - That's not what it was about. It was all about the blending of soul, electronica, and melody.

You are completely correct about the sound sounding "dated" - But does that really mean anything? Beyond fads, what does a songs date of creation have to do with anything? I can't speak for everybody here, but when listening to other genres that I personally like (Rock, Classical) I don't care or even know when most of it was made. Using classical as an example is unfair because it's really not made beyond film scores, but my favorite bands are the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana, and the singer Bjork. My favorite songs by them were produced long before 1999. (thank god, today's production of "rock" music is laughable) - If what came to your brain after reading my past two sentences is "EDM is different. It doesn't work like that." then that is EXACTLY the mind-set problems this genre is facing right now.

I want to go back to your post again. I agree 200% about producers not setting boundaries or having a rulebook. I'm personally very aware of not falling into this trap, and actually encourage my artists to push the envelop frequently (Ask them, they post on here.)

I think the idea of trying to establish rules and such is what has created this formulaic garbage that has just continued to recycle itself and we're now at a point where even the most faithful of Trance are starting to question it. I've always said, when discussing fads (trying to explain to my co-owners that shit isn't gonna last), that when you wash everything away it's house, trance, and a little dnb. I'm really starting to wonder if its not house, a little trance, and a little dnb. Been preaching this to them for years and watching the downfall of Electro has been pleasing to say the least. Now I'm just waiting for all the Justice spin offs to die

But yea, you're right about the artist approach back then. I'm not sure if I would say they didn't know what they were doing but they for sure did not start a project thinking there is no way I can complete this without side chaining my bass lines. (Yes, I know SC wasn't available then)

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Wiley I've always said, when discussing fads (trying to explain to my co-owners that shit isn't gonna last), that when you wash everything away it's house, trance, and a little dnb.

Techno is here to stay as well. Been around since the '80s.

quote:

Originally posted by SGL Stephen, check your pm

Nothing there....maybe email me? [email protected]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKrKPfJIBK4

If someone made that today, people would call it atrocious. Despite the fact that this song is, in every way, better than any track commercially released in the past 5 years.

And between this track and the latest ASOT or what ever garbage there is, I see an army of amateur music.

I think people changed their outlook on producing trance because they don't like real trance. They don't like repetition or melody. And that is what trance is. If you don't have a melody that loops for 5 minutes with an lfo, without any events, breaks downs or what ever...then you don't have trance.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKrKPfJIBK4

Spicelab is awesome. Love this one, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6xrGVAetrM

That's real trance to me.

I think I'm going to make a classic trance track like this. In 2009 its not the hardest thing in the world. Though I don't have access to hardware, so it will be a bit hard. I'll post it when I am done, might take me all day.

It will have that Spicelab or Dance2Trance feel hopefully.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir I think I'm going to make a classic trance track like this. In 2009 its not the hardest thing in the world. Though I don't have access to hardware, so it will be a bit hard. I'll post it when I am done, might take me all day. It will have that Spicelab or Dance2Trance feel hopefully.

Looking forward to hearing it.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKrKPfJIBK4 If someone made that today, people would call it atrocious. Despite the fact that this song is, in every way, better than any track commercially released in the past 5 years. And between this track and the latest ASOT or what ever garbage there is, I see an army of amateur music. I think people changed their outlook on producing trance because they don't like real trance. They don't like repetition or melody. And that is what trance is. If you don't have a melody that loops for 5 minutes with an lfo, without any events, breaks downs or what ever...then you don't have trance.

Agree with some parts, disgree with others. What I disagree with is subjective though as what trance is, was, and should be varies quite a bit. I don't think you need all the things you listed. That is exactly the problem and mind-set of current "Trance" producers in my opinion. Perhaps you didn't listen to or need to listen again to the songs in the original post so you have a better understanding of this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Looking forward to hearing it.

Working on the Bass, Dunno how "1992" it sounds. But I think its ok so far. I still have work to do on it, its in early morning so I cannot have a blazing subass turned on just yet. Used Z3ta to make it. There is a kick in there, but you can't hear it, the thing you do hear that sounds like a kick, however, is the bass.

Its only a clip because I'm producing the song in the "build the whole song in one loop then reintroduce everything over time" method.

Interesting thread...
When I produce something more old school, people say:

"oh, change that, its sounding very old school! put more effects and add more automation!"










i like produce old school too...

Was searching for something unrelated and was reminded of an old topic from the TC...look familiar?



http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=groove

You are a little late Go to page 3, post 7, and scroll over the word Formulaic in my post.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Working on the Bass, Dunno how "1992" it sounds. But I think its ok so far. I still have work to do on it, its in early morning so I cannot have a blazing subass turned on just yet. Used Z3ta to make it. There is a kick in there, but you can't hear it, the thing you do hear that sounds like a kick, however, is the bass.

Sounds okay but I think it's too wide for an old-school bass.

I've got some of my old tracks out of this period
let me see if i can find some back
main tools of the trade at that time:

Mackie 8-bus 32
Novation drumstation
Norlead 1
JP8080
Korg Z1
Alesis Quadraverb
JUNO 106

and the Pizzacato string was the supersaw of the ninetees

juno 106 lead


ninetees

Stephen, I sent you an email. Let me know if you received it.

The best advise is learning how to play keys if you don't already know and listening to different styles of music than edm made in 2009
This is what makes a track sound unique. Interesting melodies and harmonies. ''thank you very much I haven't heard that one before''
Really though... it is important so consider training and becoming better.


90's trance:

If you got reason and you can find it, this is an excellent step by step tutorial with various tips on making 90's sounding trance you can apply these tips to your program of choice but for some of these reason works best. I could give you more specific advise but I will get in fights and flamewars with all the fruity loopers and ''experts'' here so heres a step by step guide on making 90's trance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOX...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi5t...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mNa...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRlb...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbLU...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvNd...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R0_...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baeR...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqAC...re=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhYw...re=channel_page

For somebody that is starting a label this era is very difficult for a bunch of reasons:
There is no audience of people buying music.
What did you do back then to get noticed?
-Pay high profile producers to remix your stuff.
- Pay to get your stuff on the radio

When the vinyl came out it would sell if you did this.
Nowdays you can drop thousands of dollars to get your label in the map but you are not guaranteed ANY record sales.

At least this guy is smart enough to understand that he has to give people a reason to buy the f*****N music. The charity thing. I don't get why half of your artist don't seem to understand that


Back then you had a record store operated by some guys that owned a label and upstairs there was a studio they were renting out to the public.

Whats there at those buildings now?
Stores selling shoes made in china!

If you are still interested in building a good project studio for your label and don't mind the overhead here is some stuff to consider. Buy a few analog synths. Not the new analog synths those suck. They must be old and they MUST be analog.
Otherwise you end up with emulators emulating emulations and all that is good but if you are spending money you might as well buy the actual components that generate sound not something trying to emulate that and save the company money in production.

They emu and roland romplers sold like hot cakes in the 90's and these days those sounds can be downloaded for as little as $50 each at the emu website and imported into a softsampler with more than 45 seconds of sampling time lol. Hardware samplers in 2009 is retro for the sakes of it imo. Even the people with the old akai racks use the esx-24.

gear to consider in case you are toying with the idea of building a studio:

(My opinion that could be wrong so before all you fruity looping experts flame me I am making this clear:
MY. FUCKING. OPINION. )



Gear For a project studio.
I define project studio as a $10.000 budget studio with gear.


Mackie 1604 mixer the original model not the vlz.
This imo is the best mixer mackie offered.
The mackie 8 bus was a very popular mixer in the 90's no doubt but you will need a lot of analog outboard to get away from the crappy mackie sound. Everybody was using the mackie mixers. There was nothing else affordable and computers were not good for mixing back then. If you turn the gain on those old mackie you can get interesting distortion artifacts and if you crank it up all the way you got happy hardcore kicks

The two mackie mixers that didn't suck were the 1202 ms and the 1604.
In fact daft punk mixed their first album on a wee 1202.

Synths to buy:

Roland tr-909 $900
Roland juno 106. $500
Roland jupiter 6. $1500
Roland sh-101. (you can make this sound like a 303) $750
Moog little phatty (one of the better newer synths) $800

(I could suggest more stuff like the ms-20 the original minimoog the prophet 5 ect but those cost as much as a car)

The digital stuff you can consider:

Virus b $500
Roland jp-8000 $500

fx:
Those go at the send returns of your mixer and become an extension of your synth.
For the send returns of the mackie to create interesting patches:


Lexicon pmc 70 $750
Roland Roland sde 3000 digital delay $300
Electro-Harmonix Big Muff distortion petal $80
h3000 harmonizer $1000



Drawmer 1968 stereo tube compressor. Great for the master bus imo if you can afford one or for warming up sounds to cut to the computer $1000 to $1500
Another stereo compressor that is a lot more affordable is the focusritte compander $750
The bass expantion makes this popular with edm producers.
Arsenal audio stereo eq for $1050
Geat sound for the master bus.

What to interface this stuff with the computer

On a shoestring budget:
A behringer 8 channel converter (those are such good value for money)
and a multiface by rme. Both those cards are based on the old alesis semiconductor converters that were used in the 90's dat recorders. Again stand alone ad/da converters not the cheap codex stuff most companies make their soundcards with these days Budget: $600
Results are good enough to get a pass but nothing to write home about imo

I want good sound:

Get yourself a apoggee ad-8000 for $1000 and hook it up to the multiface.
These were originally sold for $5000 and in my opinion are the best most analog sounding converters ever.

Just a few stuff to consider.
Cheers

To be honest, all you need is Reason. Thre's quite a few producers I've heard of that sold all their $10,000 worth of gear to get a copy of Reason. Not only because Reason is a virtual hardware workstation, that emulates the idea of hardware but also because it gives this warm sound.

Here's a few links of this guy who used Reason to replicate some of the old classics. If he can do it really well, I don't see why any of you can't, taken that you have the skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxdqeCKdBko (Robert Miles - children)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiJb...feature=related (Lord of The Rings Soundtrack)

Some artists that use Reason only:

Groove Invaderz: www.myspace.com/grooveinvaderz

Josel: www.myspace.com/joselgrooves

There's alot more...
If you go to my myspace page...the first track: "Dreamcatcher" was made completely in Reason.

www.myspace.com/sevengreenlights

quote:

Originally posted by SGL To be honest, all you need is Reason. Thre's quite a few producers I've heard of that sold all their $10,000 worth of gear to get a copy of Reason. Not only because Reason is a virtual hardware workstation, that emulates the idea of hardware but also because it gives this warm sound.

I know that the gear doen't make the producer and all that.
In fact I will remind you that starkids Crayons which is one of the best trance tracks of all time RIP Starkid was made in fruity loops.

and reason is a good program for what it does and the price point this is why I linked the tutorial but wether or not is it the same sonically with the gear I listed is lets say... debatable

This guy seems to be serious about running a label and giving people a chance to be heard maybe he is looking into something a bit more fat than what reason has to offer in terms of sonics as the money starts rolling in and since he likes the 90's sound and everything...

quote:

Originally posted by SGL Stephen, I sent you an email. Let me know if you received it.

Got it...check your email and get your reading glasses on along with an internet book marker of some sort.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.