Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
I may go on to ramble a bit here, but I've a got a few more general thoughts and comments now that I've read a bit more about your thought processes while producing.
Thirst of: On experimentalism.
To me, experimental music is music that is out of the box. It doesn't want to fit a certain template. What this means is that every single element has to be thought out, including the length, the progression, the sound palette and all sorts of basal things which are usually automatically dictated by the genre a piece of music is trying to fit in.
To get all those things right requires a lot of creativity and musical instinct, as you're competing with concepts that have been continually developed and improved on for decades.
What I think you have to keep in mind, is that you're not only working to your own standards. Which are often limited in a way to what you think you can achieve. So you might get a good feeling because you've reached or even exceeded your own expectations, but others are not weighed down as much and as such may get a very different impression.
For this it is important that you rationalize, try and switch places with a potential listener. Think about what they're going to hear, having not been through the whole design process.
A few things you could have noticed that way:
-The percussion
Although you've tried to make it your own thing. To me, and probably a lot of others, it sounds a lot like regular break beats. When you go that route you know people are going to associate it with an a massive array of epic beat structures we've heard from that style of music in the past. Compared to which this is going to sound poor.
It's just how our brains work, we make connections. If you're not up to making it sound more like or at least as good as the classics, it might just be better to avoid this hurdle and look elsewhere.
-The melodic content
This is an obvious stinker especially if you're presenting it as trance. The current arrangement is largely an ambient one. Like I've mentioned before, people want something to leap out and grab their attention. When your music is muddy it means people can't hear anything distinctive, it's all drab. You do have elements that come through, but it's not enough. They need to be louder, more visceral. Obviously it doesn't have to be a grotesque supersaw apreggio, it can be anything, but just think about this. If you're track, like most trance tracks, is already lacking in the rhythmic department. You're going to have to make up for it.
-The structure
Dance music has to be mixed by DJ's and because of that it will always have to be long and have distinctive structured build ups-and-downs. When you're making experimental or listening music it's usually better to adjust the length of you're tracks to it's actual content more directly. That's the key success of many genre-less electronica pieces. Unless you're making low key therapeutical ambient music, which looking at the beat structure is not what your trying to achieve here, you never really want to have things drone on for too long in the wrong places. Which is what this does, it is simply too long for what it is.
Now I can see the appeal to making longer tracks as there is more opportunity to slowly draw people in, but you have to take into account peoples attention spans. Obviously this a very delicate process, a balance. But if you want a long build you're going to have to do a lot more in the intensity department, at least in my opinion; But do keep in mind I find a lot of dance music to be lacking in this department, so a lot of people probably won't find this to be too big an issue.
Finally, as a producer, it is important to be daring and open minded. There are always more ways that lead to Rome. If, like in this case you are unsure about something. Like the percussion in this case, and you are not able to make it work even after putting extended periods of work into it, just ditch it. From mixing music I've mostly learnt that getting things right is more often then not down to complete fluke, you can't always think everything out because you just get stuck in a particular thought process. Also, more clichéd and in general: Don't take anything for granted. Often the actual content of a track is less important then the verve and conviction it as made with. Pick something and go for it, make it clear what you're trying to achieve.
I think you have plenty of interesting ideas, which shows through in your work. But there always seems to be something holding it back. A sort of insecurity, like you're unsure how things are supposed to go and whether or not they fit a conventional paradigm. Just think of nothing else except your song and how it sounds to you.
This might be related to your age, I don't know. But you can't let that hold you back obviously, just lay down on nuance and theory a bit and go crazy. I will thank you for it.
Meh, peeps is always too concerned with categorising and pigeon holing stuff. If it doesn't fit what they know then they can't like it.
This isn't trance, but then, who cares?
As for being able to mix it, you have a stable BPM, therefore it can be mixed, DJs were mixing long before people started making tracks with this sole purpose.
If I was to pick up on anything, I would say that the track sounds very central and you could probably benefit from being a bit creative with sound placement but that's personal taste.
I might roll a little off the bottom end of the snare, but then I am thinking in terms of standard EDM.
I like it and have loaded it into my GTA user track list, works nicely when driving like a lunatic and blasting fools. Meant in a good way.
It's still sounds more like a breaks track in my ears, but that might be in part because that is what I know you for.
People also need to understand, if they don't like something, they are not obligated to sit and listen to the whole thing.
I like it when people do what they want, not what they think other people might want.
I'd ask where the hell you've been but I'm so happy to see you around these parts that questions don't do it justice. I just hope all is well! Thank you for the feedback on this and I'm glad you're enjoying it.
I'll agree that feedback can be brutally subjective but, when it's well considered feedback, I want to try and entertain it in the best possible way.
Bierheld, you've touched on some points I want to elaborate on, a bit.
Above are two songs that I've previously employed the samples I used in this one. I'd originally intended to stop using them afterwards but I found myself browsing through the collection of sounds I've collected while I was working on another song and heard a phrase I hadn't thought of before, just clicking on the file-name with the preview feature turned on. The same samples in the two songs, above, were actually loaded into three different ReDrums (Reason's pattern-based sample player) and, especially in the second song, meant to fit more within the back-ground of the music bed.
Although all three are very different, I think that your criticism could be applied to those above. I'm pointing to them because they're the genesis of the method used to produce this track. In so much as I'm experimenting with the method, the intent (at least in this specific instance) isn't to be so experimental with the music. I'm not, for instance, setting out to do some radical restructuring of meter nor would I deign to consider this "method" I'm toying around with to be novel, in any way.
The two tracks, above, however are indicative of "experimental" music since, essentially, they were formed out of an album, the gross of which could be described as "experimental". Superstition was produced, start to finish, without really knowing where I'd end up. It's an improvisational experiment, in that I built each part in relation to ones that proceeded it, and then progressed those to a point where new parts come in that relate to the evolution of the old parts. In as much as I let it take me in whatever direction I had the skill to follow, it's far from a controlled experiment.
Instead of forming rigid hypotheses, expecting outcomes that were more manageable (or for that matter, rigidly managing forms, the goal of which was contrived for experimental listening) in the way that your AOTSE set exemplifies, my approach was more of a very crude, lets see what happens when we put this thing, here. Where as the songs in your set could be thought of as esoteric but still exquisite concept cars, with clean lines drawn around a functional form, Superstition is trying to find out what happens when you drill ports for fuel injection into the intake manifold on a re-bored '79 Chevy 229 mounted in the body of an '84 Trans Am in order to tow a Dodge truck with over-sized tires. Not much, the least of which having to do with the Ford flex-plate improperly aligning to the Mazda torque-converter.
Percussion:
I used to (maybe as few as three years ago) think myself accomplished with regard to this but this isn't the first criticism I've had to weather. This is chiefly the reason that, the next time I get around to producing a song, I'm planning on doing one organized with a focus on percussive elements rather than a developing melody. The fact is that I keep implementing it from a utilitarian point of view. I use sounds that fit the part rather than designing something, not to fit in, but to make my percussion appropriately distinctive. I rarely venture out beyond the basic kick, snare, and hi-hats (with or without a ride) and when I do, I'll often slather it with an effect like delay rather than try and design something that has impact without it.
I've been trying to get it to flow more coherently with the rest of the instrument phrasing but I think I need to make the percussion tracks the last ones to bounce so I can control their dynamics to reflect what the other tracks are doing, after those have been developed. My percussion gets to a point, with intensity, that is surpassed by the other tracks or that just doesn't reflect the evolution that I want. I think that seems to play a part in the droning aspect you're talking about.
One last belabored point on this issue: I do try to keep it a little more sparse than a lot of tracks I've heard, recently, to make room for the other elements to have a less cluttered space in. What I've noticed is that this strategy tends to take out the drive from a lot of my tracks - something that I tried to maintain with this one. I'm making mention of this simply because it's an aspect that I want to be able to maintain/work towards while also building more involving rhythm sections.
Melodic Content:
This track, I'll grant, doesn't have the melodic content that either most Trance or my other tracks do. In those terms, I'm unsure if I could defend that aspect as a conscious decision to be melodically vague. In categorizing this as Trance, I must be making a wider association between common elements than is permissible but then I'm not really that married to calling it Trance.
Structure:
I think I understand what you're getting at. I will say that I am making music that I enjoy listening to - even when the end result is that, as a few days, weeks, or months go by, I wind up hearing the faults people may or may not have pointed out. I'm trying to go for a sound that I'm having trouble hearing in a lot of the music that I've been listening to, lately. It's not that your evaluation is impertinent because I'm doing something so novel and avaunt-guard that it's taking your ears time to adjust. It's more like I'm so caught up in the novelty (what I think it is that I've accomplished) that I lose track of what it takes to get it up to snuff.
You even hint at this aspect with your remark about getting hyper-focussed to the exclusion of a larger totality. I generally get the sound I'm looking for, in some way, but then work at maintaining that while forsaking other aspects. I wish I could explain this better and if you need clarification, I'll try to elaborate on it in a subsequent post - this one's getting long.
You mentioned one other thing about how some things just will not work, no matter how long you hammer at it. I wish there were a cutting room floor in the digital domain I could show you. Complete, technically accomplished keyboarding or intricate rhythm sequences that just could not fit the context of the track I was working on; that were usually (but not always) replaced with something much simpler and more effective. At best, I'm saying I completely agree with you. At worst, I'm saying it could have been much, much worse.
Psychology:
You mentioned something my girlfriend did, as well - a sort of insecurity that either (or both) inhibits the outcome or how it is received. I could speculate that this is, in fact, the case and that I've got some psychological dint which compels me to produce music that can always, on some level, be found wanting. Throughout several threads that I've started in this section, can be seen a rather persistent pattern of drama. WhatsTheStory's participation in this one is emblematic of that pattern. For a variety of reasons, I'm not very keen on the drama, anymore.
I don't think it's because I've accomplished anything controversial. I'm hesitant to blame the hostility solely on my past abrasiveness, as well. What I am more certain of is that I'm unsatisfied with mixed reviews and that's probably indicative of an insecurity I can do without. If I'm holding back something (or overdoing something else) because of that, well... it's just speculation, at this point.
Last edited by EddieZilker on Sep-17-2012 at 01:23
Sep-17-2012 01:17
Beatflux
Rising Star in training
Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Planet Alf
quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis44
This isn't trance, but then, who cares?
It's pretty obvious actually...if he's going for trance he's going to be scratching his head thinking, "Why aren't people going ape shit to my music and getting blinded by unicorn shaped laser beam shapes?"
___________________
quote:
Originally posted by dj_alfi
change your avatar for fucks sake.
Sep-17-2012 04:34
EddieZilker
This is the dance.
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Marijuana Sex Camp
quote:
Originally posted by Beatflux
It's pretty obvious actually...if he's going for trance he's going to be scratching his head thinking, "Why aren't people going ape shit to my music and getting blinded by unicorn shaped laser beam shapes?"
Don't feel like you wasted your time. I'm not ignoring your feedback but I am done with this song and going back through all of the routes I took to get it to the point it's at currently, to get it to sound more closely with Breakfast, would take (at least) twice as long as starting from scratch. It's definitely worth considering, however, when I'm working on my next song.
really sorry for the late response to this. i didn't reference the breakfast track for anything other than sound design comparison / use of FX
might i ask, why do you consider this song 'done'? i understand having to put an end to a project, at least in terms of writing and arrangement. but in my opinion it's useful to keep a finished project you're doing nothing on deck to open up in the future and give the final polish in mix/sound design/little tweaks that your ears mightve failed to pick up earlier. just my 2 cents
This one actually feels like has a more refined and powerful percussion and quite beautiful melody, although the baseline is unnecessarily abrasive, with such delicate melodics I think it's better to have it harmonise a bit more. But otherwise this does show you cán make some really good percussion, it just doesn't seem to have transferred over very well. maybe it's just the heavier base drum that makes all the difference. Although, regardless, It is still very static but from what I understand it's pulled from a larger context. Which may provide an explanation.
Thinking about it, this entire track has a sense of calmness and warmth to it. Whereas That Will Never Be feels a lot more fractured and erratic, and as such may need a more crisp percussion. You seem to have recognized this and adjusted it to be a lot lighter, but it still doesn't feel entirely compatible.
This is probably the best I've heard from you, I really love the melodic content here but again I don't understand why it's so subdued. You have an excellent array of dreamy sounds out there, I think you should really find some more room for those and have them leap out. You may not think it is necessary, but meanwhile your percussion just drones on endlessly in the foreground without ever providing the entertainment those melodies could've provided. I really think you need to pick what's more important to you and prioritize.
quote:
Above are two songs that I've previously employed the samples I used in this one. I'd originally intended to stop using them afterwards but I found myself browsing through the collection of sounds I've collected while I was working on another song and heard a phrase I hadn't thought of before, just clicking on the file-name with the preview feature turned on. The same samples in the two songs, above, were actually loaded into three different ReDrums (Reason's pattern-based sample player) and, especially in the second song, meant to fit more within the back-ground of the music bed.
Although all three are very different, I think that your criticism could be applied to those above. I'm pointing to them because they're the genesis of the method used to produce this track. In so much as I'm experimenting with the method, the intent (at least in this specific instance) isn't to be so experimental with the music. I'm not, for instance, setting out to do some radical restructuring of meter nor would I deign to consider this "method" I'm toying around with to be novel, in any way.
The two tracks, above, however are indicative of "experimental" music since, essentially, they were formed out of an album, the gross of which could be described as "experimental". Superstition was produced, start to finish, without really knowing where I'd end up. It's an improvisational experiment, in that I built each part in relation to ones that proceeded it, and then progressed those to a point where new parts come in that relate to the evolution of the old parts. In as much as I let it take me in whatever direction I had the skill to follow, it's far from a controlled experiment.
Instead of forming rigid hypotheses, expecting outcomes that were more manageable (or for that matter, rigidly managing forms, the goal of which was contrived for experimental listening) in the way that your AOTSE set exemplifies, my approach was more of a very crude, lets see what happens when we put this thing, here. Where as the songs in your set could be thought of as esoteric but still exquisite concept cars, with clean lines drawn around a functional form, Superstition is trying to find out what happens when you drill ports for fuel injection into the intake manifold on a re-bored '79 Chevy 229 mounted in the body of an '84 Trans Am in order to tow a Dodge truck with over-sized tires. Not much, the least of which having to do with the Ford flex-plate improperly aligning to the Mazda torque-converter.
I have to say, having heard these other two tracks I feel a lot more imbued with your production philosophy, and it has helped me understand a bit more why you chose to do the things you do. Basically, what I think you tried to explain with all those bewildering metaphors is that rather then making an experimental track from scratch, you were just building upon a concept you've established with your earlier work.
This does shed some new light upon this track, but I do think you should be wary of getting too comfortable producing for a niche that doesn't really exist yet. Remember the embers breaks fiasco?
I think a lot of experimental producers are more aware of how people react to new things, and try and facilitate them either by mixing up existing paradigms or by just going all out crazy and trying to impress listeners with more earthly and simple to understand elements. If a message isn't received the first time you can always try shouting it into someone's ears instead. Music is primarily visceral after all. A successful piece shouldn't require an understanding of the underlying fundamentals, but as we move around in communities with niche interests it's easy to lose track of that, as it is a factor most genre based music doesn't have to deal with. Keep in mind that many techno and trance works sound boring to new listeners. It has become mind music more then anything, playing with a set expectation all prospected listeners have.
This is what I think sets apart true musicianship. And also shows why it's so rare. Although I think anyone can do it as long as they're willing to put in the effort.
Regarding your analysis of the AOTSE set, you're quite a ways off in guessing how it was made. Which ironically is exactly what I had hoped for. Everything about it was an experiment, I didn't think or plan anything out. And like you I had no idea were I was going for most of the creating process.
All I ever do when mixing is try random things together, one song with the other, the one's baseline with the other's melody, textured with another song's background synths. It was one big search to find chemistry in places it is least expected, but at the same time trying to have a manageable and easily digestible outcome. It was a balance, and it took me almost a year to find it with endless amounts of scrapped sections forming a painful reminder of what it takes to get there. What I wanted to achieve is something that sounds like a regular set, even if it really wasn't composed that way. A natural sounding flow while attempting the maximise the intensity of every minute's worth of content.
Obviously it was much easier for me to do because I don't have to come up with every single element from scratch, merely having to collect them. But it still think the process isn't much different in the larger context. Experimentation shouldn't be a goal in itself, personally I want to use it because you can get some crazy results in the process, things you could never have conceived just by planning things out beforehand, but in the end I still want it to sound natural and effortless. Like it was all planned when really it wasn't.
For this you need to keep at it, never be satisfied with less and most importantly don't try and reason your way out of something that doesn't quite work, because you can convince yourself if you try hard enough but you won't convince others.
Now, onto the specifics:
quote:
Percussion:
I used to (maybe as few as three years ago) think myself accomplished with regard to this but this isn't the first criticism I've had to weather. This is chiefly the reason that, the next time I get around to producing a song, I'm planning on doing one organized with a focus on percussive elements rather than a developing melody. The fact is that I keep implementing it from a utilitarian point of view. I use sounds that fit the part rather than designing something, not to fit in, but to make my percussion appropriately distinctive. I rarely venture out beyond the basic kick, snare, and hi-hats (with or without a ride) and when I do, I'll often slather it with an effect like delay rather than try and design something that has impact without it.
I've been trying to get it to flow more coherently with the rest of the instrument phrasing but I think I need to make the percussion tracks the last ones to bounce so I can control their dynamics to reflect what the other tracks are doing, after those have been developed. My percussion gets to a point, with intensity, that is surpassed by the other tracks or that just doesn't reflect the evolution that I want. I think that seems to play a part in the droning aspect you're talking about.
One last belabored point on this issue: I do try to keep it a little more sparse than a lot of tracks I've heard, recently, to make room for the other elements to have a less cluttered space in. What I've noticed is that this strategy tends to take out the drive from a lot of my tracks - something that I tried to maintain with this one. I'm making mention of this simply because it's an aspect that I want to be able to maintain/work towards while also building more involving rhythm sections.
Whatever you do, remember that how you got there isn't important to the listener. I do think you are a competent percussion programmer in terms of ideas, but you don't work it out as much as you should. It's also important not to pigeonhole, there is only so much you can do with it. Especially if you're going to insist on using the same acoustic sounding drum kit. It's not a strange thing to go utilitarian with your drums in that regard, but don't put them in the foreground as much if you do. How many EM tracks do you now that have truly interesting percussion anyway? It is almost by nature a backing instrument. Although it can be much more if you go full on tribal, but then it might inevitably conflict with your melodics. For your tracks it may just be better to go more minimalistic. Although obviously I'm just guessing. Maybe you can make it work. Just do what you feel is right and hopefully it will work out at some point.
quote:
Melodic Content:
This track, I'll grant, doesn't have the melodic content that either most Trance or my other tracks do. In those terms, I'm unsure if I could defend that aspect as a conscious decision to be melodically vague. In categorizing this as Trance, I must be making a wider association between common elements than is permissible but then I'm not really that married to calling it Trance.
Then don't is the obvious answer. It will keep a lot of bullheaded numbskulls out complaining that "it isn't trance". You can mention it's "Trancey" or at least inspired by trance. But don't try and get people on the wrong foot. playing with expectations is always dangerous.
quote:
Structure:
I think I understand what you're getting at. I will say that I am making music that I enjoy listening to - even when the end result is that, as a few days, weeks, or months go by, I wind up hearing the faults people may or may not have pointed out. I'm trying to go for a sound that I'm having trouble hearing in a lot of the music that I've been listening to, lately. It's not that your evaluation is impertinent because I'm doing something so novel and avaunt-guard that it's taking your ears time to adjust. It's more like I'm so caught up in the novelty (what I think it is that I've accomplished) that I lose track of what it takes to get it up to snuff.
You even hint at this aspect with your remark about getting hyper-focussed to the exclusion of a larger totality. I generally get the sound I'm looking for, in some way, but then work at maintaining that while forsaking other aspects. I wish I could explain this better and if you need clarification, I'll try to elaborate on it in a subsequent post - this one's getting long.
You mentioned one other thing about how some things just will not work, no matter how long you hammer at it. I wish there were a cutting room floor in the digital domain I could show you. Complete, technically accomplished keyboarding or intricate rhythm sequences that just could not fit the context of the track I was working on; that were usually (but not always) replaced with something much simpler and more effective. At best, I'm saying I completely agree with you. At worst, I'm saying it could have been much, much worse.
Yeah it's all very shrouded material to discuss, with little in the way of coherent wrongs and rights. But still important in trying to understand the overall process. Maybe I've gone too far myself in trying the break up and micro-analyse the individual components. Not everything has to be perfect.
But I've had so many occasions when mixing were it really seemed I was on to something, but there was just something that wasn't quite right. I would then find that eventually I would try something completely different that worked out better then anything I could have expected, and the component that was ditched could be used somewhere better as well. You never know, and the effort isn't always wasted.
quote:
Psychology:
You mentioned something my girlfriend did, as well - a sort of insecurity that either (or both) inhibits the outcome or how it is received. I could speculate that this is, in fact, the case and that I've got some psychological dint which compels me to produce music that can always, on some level, be found wanting. Throughout several threads that I've started in this section, can be seen a rather persistent pattern of drama. WhatsTheStory's participation in this one is emblematic of that pattern. For a variety of reasons, I'm not very keen on the drama, anymore.
I don't think it's because I've accomplished anything controversial. I'm hesitant to blame the hostility solely on my past abrasiveness, as well. What I am more certain of is that I'm unsatisfied with mixed reviews and that's probably indicative of an insecurity I can do without. If I'm holding back something (or overdoing something else) because of that, well... it's just speculation, at this point.
You seem very emotional in your responses, which is something to treasure these days in the insurmountable cynic wankfest that is current day internet boards. Just understand that delivering constructive and helpful criticism is incredibly hard without subconsciously trying to steer someone's work in a certain direction. For me it's no different, you just gotta take the things you can agree with and ignore the rest.
Some people just aren't very civil about it, you can retaliate but most of the time it's just not a battle worth fighting. We can all see the douchebaggery and no one will hold it against you. I don't know anything about your past abrasive responses but I can hardly imagine them being anything like that.
Just try and take the form out of the equation, we're working in text only here. Just respond to the actual arguments.
What I was trying to get at is in the music itself. To make an experiment work you need to understand the workings of eccentricity;
If you wear a normal suit with a very strange hat people are going to think it looks wrong. But if every single part of your wardrobe is radical, they'll think you're a fashion designer.
This is what I think your music needs to feel like as well. Because it's so subdued and clouded it doesn't really feel like your doing something new but more like something went terribly wrong in the production process. This is basically what I think tends to happen in your work, and it might well be remedied by making certain elements more loud and pronounced.
I actually enjoyed this. I was reading through the comments and found myself grooving nicely to your track!
Nailing deep progressive music is a challenging task as it requires an absurd amount of attention to detail. One of the reasons I produce a lot generic unicorn stuff most likely
Ill avoid critiquing any details as its all subjective but thanks for shareing!
Sep-18-2012 18:18
EddieZilker
This is the dance.
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Marijuana Sex Camp
My schedule doesn't permit much time for internets. I intend to get to a more detailed reply (along with reviews of other people's work), later on this week but wanted to thank everyone for their input. It's appreciated.
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Ninjas never tell....
This thread is pretty cool, first off, I enjoyed the track and secondly, I love picking the brains of people I think that are interesting. So reading Eddie's posts and his insights make me think of new ways to approach music!
and secondly, I love picking the brains of people I think that are interesting. So reading Eddie's posts and his insights make me think of new ways to approach music!
