kinda hard to read into what your saying but honestly why bother of recreating "great" tracks for the purpose of "fooling" your friends

be original rather than another producer to jump on a genre bandwagon

covers might be fun but purely recreating originals ummm... waste of time IMO

___________________
Mr Kaizen on Soundcloud

Ooops. The point is not to plagiarize or emulate the style of the producer, the point is to see if you can make a professional sounding mix so good that people don't notice it's not the original track.

Why do this specific experiment with famous tracks? It's clear that people will be biased when they hear your stuff. Call it the you're-not-famous effect. This is just an experiment of seeing how good you are without any bias whatsoever.

if u can reproduce any prodigy track id like to know how.

quote:

Originally posted by Pleasant Why do this specific experiment with famous tracks? It's clear that people will be biased when they hear your stuff. Call it the you're-not-famous effect. This is just an experiment of seeing how good you are without any bias whatsoever.

Then make something original and show it to your friends saying it's from a professional producer.

Trying to copy someone's style exactly just as an experiment of whether or not you could pull it off seems like a bastardization of the point of making music in the first place.

I think you'll find it a lot more difficult than you expect to recreate any really well-produced track.

The thing is, even the original artist probably wouldn't be able to make a perfect (or at least convincing) facsimile within reasonable time, because a real track is filled with all sorts of accidents and coincidences. Even if you're so experienced that you can make every sound and every effect methodically from top to bottom, there's still an inherent randomness to the way our brains work. You get in the zone, you process the same sound 10 times in a row with slightly different parameters to get that perfect clip, and good luck trying to remember later exactly how you did it without the history right in front of you. At the very least, all of the little minor tweaks will cumulatively add up to a noticeable difference.

Even if you wanted to do this (and why would you?), I honestly don't think you could.

Go ahead and try if it's got you that excited though; I'm sure a lot of people here would be interested in knowing how you did it.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I think you'll find it a lot more difficult than you expect to recreate any really well-produced track. The thing is, even the original artist probably wouldn't be able to make a perfect (or at least convincing) facsimile within reasonable time, because a real track is filled with all sorts of accidents and coincidences. Even if you're so experienced that you can make every sound and every effect methodically from top to bottom, there's still an inherent randomness to the way our brains work. You get in the zone, you process the same sound 10 times in a row with slightly different parameters to get that perfect clip, and good luck trying to remember later exactly how you did it without the history right in front of you. At the very least, all of the little minor tweaks will cumulatively add up to a noticeable difference. Even if you wanted to do this (and why would you?), I honestly don't think you could. Go ahead and try if it's got you that excited though; I'm sure a lot of people here would be interested in knowing how you did it.

very, very true. recreating a track almost exactly is impossible. fuck, try creating a track and then try recreating your own work using the same exact steps (without using the old track as a template or a guideline)- guarantee your production will sound at least *slightly* different than the original.

and you know, if you're gonna recreate a famous track just to claim it as your own on your dumb friends, why not just take the actual original famous track and rename it to your liking? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue and you know, if you're gonna recreate a famous track just to claim it as your own on your dumb friends, why not just take the actual original famous track and rename it to your liking? lol

seriously.

___________________

@Soundcloud

:::OUT NOW!:::
Garrido & Skehan ft. Erin - Waiting For You (Nightshift Remix)
Elvin Ong - Motion (Nightshift Remix)
Tidal Forces - Machine Blue (Nightshift Remix)

quote:

Originally posted by meriter Your primary focus should be making good music. That's all. No one gives a shit how you do it. And the people that do are fags.

quote:

Originally posted by palm if u can reproduce any prodigy track id like to know how.

Reason and few bits of behringer outboard.

(I'm not joking - that's what one of the earlier albums was made on start to finish).

AS for recreating it's actually not a bad idea at all - every artform relies on the study of previous works, and it's been shown that it greatly increases you personal ability to create original works.

However, it's near enough useless for any other purpose than an educational exercise and as Digi points out it's nearly impossible to recreate something musical with a high degree of accuracy.

No intention of saying that the track is your own, it was an idea of trying to see if you could mix so well that you could recreate a great track and nobody would notice. DigiNut made a good point though: while a noble (crazy?) goal for learning how to mix, it just isn't possible.

I'm naive and I admit that, I'm not going to argue the point. I had an idea for an exercise that could have benefited people, but it was a pipe dream. Half a learning exercise, half a test on unsuspecting listeners. Only for the purpose of having people judge your mix without any bias (that is, if they sense it's wrong, they will tell you honestly without knowing you made it).

Some of you feel that it's unethical as well, which baffles me because re-interpreting other musical works is standard practice. People routinely suggest attempting to recreate (not as far as an exact clone) your favorite producers tracks for an idea of how to mix and produce. Or making something similar so that you can see

This was merely the audio equivalent of trying to paint a classic painting, much like those videos you'd see on Youtube.

Does anyone even feel like attempting to have some kind of mixing exercise? Any mixing exercise? All kidding aside, I think people critiquing other mixes (anonymously) is a great idea, no matter how it's done. I admit I'm no professional, I just want a way to get my mixing judged (and return the favor) blindly alongside others to see where I'm at.

Is it so hard to make a post like DigiNut when you think something is a bad idea?

Looks like I'm on my own. Completely. It would be so great if we did a thread like I suggested: standard set of samples or loops and people try to mix them well (or creatively) and we judge the mixes without knowing who made which mix.

It would be a great exercise, not a contest. Like those art critique threads you find on various forums for (WIP) and such.