I understand what's being referred to here are standard trance templates, rather than a person's own workflow templates.

Yes, standard trance templates can truly stifle creativity, but I hope no newcomers to production take the "templates are bad" thing the wrong way.

If it makes sense to you to route all your lead elements into the same group to be processed as a group, if you always seem to require an eq on a certain element to filter out low frequencies, if you always seem to have a kick, a bass and a lead element in a track, then it's good practice to set up a template document (or several, if you're working in different styles) to save you the hassle of setting everything up each time. You know your track's going to have a kick drum, may as well set up a track to drop a kick drum onto/ into.

In terms of formulaic trance structures, absolutely there are many formulaic songs out there (whee, another massive super-hyper-megasaw breakdown with a standard chord progression! I'm in paradise!). In the end it still depends on each individual person and each individual track, what they decide to do with it. A lot of tracks with big breakdowns are still quite successful, so it's not a dealbreaker for labels, even if it is for some listeners.

Definitely something to think about though.

quote:

Originally posted by derail I understand what's being referred to here are standard trance templates, rather than a person's own workflow templates. Yes, standard trance templates can truly stifle creativity, but I hope no newcomers to production take the "templates are bad" thing the wrong way.

Well said. Workflow templates for yourself are not what I was referring to... just the standard "every tune needs this, this, and this" to be trance. And, there's nothing even wrong with learning the templates of others to get started - then making it your own and being creative with it. Everyone needs the fundamentals, but templates defining a genre are way too extreme. Change is good, well, good changes is anyway.

There are very good debates around here.

I never thought I'd learn this much in these forums

In trance i dont think that breakdowns are really a bad thing. I think they are just added in there a lot of the time to make song trance. People call any trance without a breakdown prog trance it seems. Sometimes breakdowns are really great if they are short or keep some percussions going. In a couple songs i have made instead of going to a complete breakdown i put a low pass filter on the kick or i kept some of the percussion going. People need to make breakdowns and still keep the people who will be dancing to your tune in mind.

Nothing compares to how bad vocals are in trance, i have never heard a good vocal trance song. Actually never heard good vocals in house either. Actually vocals were not made to dance to imo.

___________________
HARD TEKNO

quote:

Originally posted by DjAyTeKnOtRoNiC Nothing compares to how bad vocals are in trance, i have never heard a good vocal trance song. Actually never heard good vocals in house either. Actually vocals were not made to dance to imo.

Ironic... Today I got a MySpace friend request from Breana Skiles, a singer I was unfamiliar with, and saw this blog entry:

quote:

"I just got back from WMC ’08, I am inspired, looking for great music and I am ready to work. The basics of dance music are getting the crowd to move and feel what the composer. I heard more live vocals this year at the conference than I have in years, that was inspiring...but I’m looking for more. Vocalists move the dance floor too, not just instrumentals and dubs. Vocals relate and touch the crowd getting them to move. I want that, I want to make you move and feel the passion that I feel and hopefully more! What do you think about live vocals on the dance floor?"

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...logID=373157937

Damn, I must be bored...

Hey... This is turning to long fight about against/pro trance breakdons/formulas.
But I think the post starter was asking about work flow? How to get a track finished?
Maybe we should get back to that subject?



I think that sometimes ready-made formulas can help!
At least I think it's more easy to build up my song using some older song/track that I like.
Since I am buillding complete track/song FIRST time here... So I have some help/advice how to create finished track.

And later, when I have the work-flow under control I can start using my own "formula" for creating complete songs...

quote:

So just think about the fact the you guna need to make about a 7 - 8 1/2 minute track, lets say. Its guna need an intro to mix into, probably a 1st drop where its guna kick in , then a main part and one great big drop, then a cresendo sort of bit, and a bit to mix out of. Get your basic ideas for the track, bassline, beat, rythym melodie etc and lay it out roughly into basic track and work on the whole thing, adding more elements, dropping stuff in and out to make it flow.

quote:

I leave my effects ie crashes, sweeps, delay bus's that sort of thing untill towards the end. Otherwise the project can start to get a bit complex too early and can be easy to loose track of what your doing.

Back to my 1st reply i gave which was just a rough idea of an efficient way to go about laying out a track. Before the Artniks decided to dispute it. The original post was mentioning that the dude couldn't even finish a song yet. Telling sumone whos trying to learn that its not good to try and copy other peoples styles and technique is just unhelpfull.

___________________
My Myspace <<<

LεcтяOSpεктяαLDαzE Myspace

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This is exactly what is wrong with today's trance. Come up with a hook or two, then "copy paste, filter fade in / out." That's all that trance production is to some people, and that is pitiful.

No offense. But that is trance. How is that wrong?

The problem with trance is that sounds are beeing reused. Not the sturcture

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Octanesyco Greetings. My name is Casey. You can call me Moose. -Moose

My workflow, in very basic terms (I may have left a few things out):

1) choose a composition I'd like to turn into a full track (I compose separately, using just basic sounds which don't make it into the final track. I like having a heap of strong ideas to choose from, rather than coming up with one, going through the process of immediately turning it into a full track, without having the necessary space to fully reflect on the merits of the composition)

2) decide on the main instrumentation/sounds and put the main loop together. At this point, maybe 2 or 3 hours in, the main loop sounds finished/ mastered. If it's not working, time to leave that song for another day when I have a clearer idea of what I want to do. No sense throwing more time at something that's not well thought out.

3) get away from the computer and plan the journey - whether this be standard trance structure or something totally different. It's just pure conceptualizing, having fun with what I'd like to hear in the finished result. After this, I'll have a clear idea of the structure of the song from start to finish - it may be 6 minutes long, 9 minutes long - whatever I feel the melody can support and what feels right at that point in time.

4) get the main sounds recorded and locked into place - all the automation on the synths and so on.

5) get the drum programming/ sequencing in place, in broad terms.

6) add some support elements - the main sounds are in place, now I'm looking for background type musical elements that will add depth to what's already there, without getting in the way.

7) add effects/ transitions, maybe make small modifications to the drum programming if appropriate.

8) record the reverb tracks (I'm using hardware, if anyone's wondering why I'm doing this...if using software reverb, this step isn't necessary).

9) leave for a day to listen with fresh ears. If it's all good, it's done!

Generally a mix takes around 10 hours, though it can take longer if I want to get a whole bunch more creative. Though usually when I'm putting together a mix, that's not the time to be trying out new production techniques. I have separate sessions for working out new techniques, workflow improvements and such, so that my mix/ production sessions will flow even more smoothly.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ultimately it sounds like you're basing your entire analysis of music on the way you're best able to produce it. I'm seriously gobsmacked by how little you seem to know about these genres while claiming to produce both of them.

I was analyzing the need for a breakdown, and why they are there. and nothing else, how does that make me know any less about anything than you or anyone else?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Try listening to a Snap or Paul Oakenfold or Sasha mix circa 1994-1996. These were brilliant sets that had the dancefloors going absolutely nuts (you know, with people actually dancing?) and the breakdowns are few and far between, even though the basic melodies were more or less the same as today's trance.

No they werent, the whole production is different, these tracks was made with 909 Drum machines, analog synthesizers with people knowing what they were doing with pure inspiration and alot of passion. No loudness war, no VEC, no VST just plain and simple good repetetive hypnotic trance made with passion. The leadlines was far thinner and more repetetive.

Trance isnt everything, even a standard Progressive House, DnB, Break record has a break for 30-60 seconds during the track, if you say differently maybe u should actually listen to the stuff instead of taking history lessons.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So you've posted two examples of tracks that "needed" long breakdowns and buildups.

Did you even listen to the samples at all ? its ONE sample of a track needing a LONG breakdown and ONE needing a SHORT breakdown.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 'Course that doesn't prove that they needed them, just that they have them. And even if that did mean something - wonderful, I can list hundreds of tracks that do that, but it still doesn't prove anything about composition in general. How about some tracks that don't use long breakdowns: Daft Punk - Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger Armand Van Helden - You Can't Change Me Basement Jaxx - Red Alert Fatboy Slim - The Rockafeller Skank Sandy Rivera - The Light Adam F - Music In My Mind John B - American Girls X-Cabs - Neuro Evolver - Evolver Paul van Dyk - Forbidden Fruit (long ass intro, but no breakdown!) Paul van Dyk - Words (for Love) And yes, most of these have some break, but taking the kick out for 15 seconds is a perfectly valid way of minimizing the repetitiveness of a track, and is not at all the same as a 1-minute-long build/break/drop sequence. It's simply a break, nothing more, and it certainly isn't introducing any new material.

They dont have breakdowns because they dont need em, thats fine. It still doesnt mean that if you take todays trance melody formula and remove the whole breakdown the track would work. You have to change the whole idea, and in there lies the problem. And which is my point all along.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm not going to waste any further time on this discussion. I honestly think that this entire argument is based on deep-seated ignorance and self-delusion.

___________________


http://soundcloud.com/subtara

Last edited by Subtle on May-12-2008 at 07:29

quote:

Originally posted by derail My workflow, in very basic terms (I may have left a few things out): 1) choose a composition I'd like to turn into a full track (I compose separately, using just basic sounds which don't make it into the final track. I like having a heap of strong ideas to choose from, rather than coming up with one, going through the process of immediately turning it into a full track, without having the necessary space to fully reflect on the merits of the composition) 2) decide on the main instrumentation/sounds and put the main loop together. At this point, maybe 2 or 3 hours in, the main loop sounds finished/ mastered. If it's not working, time to leave that song for another day when I have a clearer idea of what I want to do. No sense throwing more time at something that's not well thought out. 3) get away from the computer and plan the journey - whether this be standard trance structure or something totally different. It's just pure conceptualizing, having fun with what I'd like to hear in the finished result. After this, I'll have a clear idea of the structure of the song from start to finish - it may be 6 minutes long, 9 minutes long - whatever I feel the melody can support and what feels right at that point in time. 4) get the main sounds recorded and locked into place - all the automation on the synths and so on. 5) get the drum programming/ sequencing in place, in broad terms. 6) add some support elements - the main sounds are in place, now I'm looking for background type musical elements that will add depth to what's already there, without getting in the way. 7) add effects/ transitions, maybe make small modifications to the drum programming if appropriate. 8) record the reverb tracks (I'm using hardware, if anyone's wondering why I'm doing this...if using software reverb, this step isn't necessary). 9) leave for a day to listen with fresh ears. If it's all good, it's done! Generally a mix takes around 10 hours, though it can take longer if I want to get a whole bunch more creative. Though usually when I'm putting together a mix, that's not the time to be trying out new production techniques. I have separate sessions for working out new techniques, workflow improvements and such, so that my mix/ production sessions will flow even more smoothly.

Good post!
And on the original topic


Why doesn't those guys who are fighting about trance structure, start their own thread?
And let this thread be about work flow/finishing your track?