Did you get a new computer yet? Wasn't that you with the dismantled laptop?

___________________
cryophonik.com | facebook | soundcloud

Sonar Platinum | Ableton Live 9 | Logic Pro X | Access Virus TI2 Keyboard | Kurzweil PC3X | Nord Lead 4R | NI Maschine

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik Did you get a new computer yet? Wasn't that you with the dismantled laptop?

Yep, that was me. I'm using a spare right now, which is not exactly ideal, but it'll have to do for now.

Probably obvious, but frequency-wise, all your instruments will need to take up more space if there are fewer of them.

If you're starting off with EQ/filter settings and sounds you've used in busier mixes, the mix will sound emptier.

As other people have touched on, the main sound/s will also need to evolve more/ be more interesting for the ears by themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Kthought Damn boy you're on to something... Having a well defined peak idea first is crucial imho. If you decided to take the time to blow out an arrangement of soft, sloppy loops then its time wasted, trust me. there comes a point where you have something in the sequencer (or session view AL) where you can turn it up, close your eyes, and feel it. That's when you start arranging. I read that on this very forum when i was a kid. Although trance music is known to be complex in sonic content, i don't think it should be any more complex than the main idea. Write the idea stems, then extrapolate the story of that idea, and use the daw to interpolate it creatively. >TAA where we go to meetings and talk about how we've learned to shorten delay feedback and use moderate reverb tails only.

That's exactly what I'm trying to convey. There's no point building some complex track, adding layers, FX, engineering, mastering etc etc etc if when you to the main meat of the tune it's just crap.

So why not build that perfect part then work up to it and from it? Makes total sense, but most people seem to like to paint the background before actually trying to paint the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN ...... So why not build that perfect part then work up to it and from it? ........

+100

Darek

___________________
I like that freedom with no boundaries, no restrictions, no rules setup by somebody else – it's only me and my music.

SoundCloud

Traxsource

Beatport

Facebook

DariusX Page

honestly I would suggest deciding up front that you are only going to include so many items before you start your track as a challenge to yourself.

try something like this.

no more than 4 percussion sounds...

no more than 2 melodic lines...

no more than 2 bassline pieces...

no more than 3 sound fx...


how could you not make a simple song out of that? and it would force you to make each piece as catchy as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller honestly I would suggest deciding up front that you are only going to include so many items before you start your track as a challenge to yourself. try something like this. no more than 4 percussion sounds... no more than 2 melodic lines... no more than 2 bassline pieces... no more than 3 sound fx... how could you not make a simple song out of that? and it would force you to make each piece as catchy as possible.

Yeah. It's a bit late for that this time, but this is definitely something I want to try later.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN There's actually some good advice in this thread. Richie's advice is spot on and one of the more fun ways to make a track. We get too wrapped up in to looking at linear evolutions of a track on a linear sequencer - you end up making everything in blocks and before you know it, you're concentrating on filling layers, rather than workflow or better said, letting the work flow. Tip #1 Get some 8 bar loops going, add a bunch of layers, do it quick, like you're sketching, until you have a part that drives and would be the peak of your track. Now, route all your tracks to a sub master (even if you have them in sub groups already). Record enable that sub master. now play the peak time part and start breaking down the track from there by muting sections one or two or groups at a time. Fuck with their automation to wind them down. Within a few attempts (and don't be afraid to back up if you make a mistake and continue from where you left off) you should have something that sound like a good end half of a track. Now move all those regions, to say the 3 minute mark (or whatever makes sense in terms of bars given your BPM vs time). Copy the "peak" region to bar 1. Mute everything, enable record on your sub master, and start solo'ing tracks in sequence while recording it. Built to that peak part. Now, edit and arrange your track a little further (but be careful not to kill the spontaneity you might have captured by "over producing" it). The beauty with doing it this may is that you're working backwards from a set point at which you've already judged happy with; There's no possibility of endlessly adding tracks during the composing part then realizing the track you built from the 4 beat bar is now 122 channels of layers all fighting for attention. Why does this apply to wanting to make it more minimal in terms of elements? You make the "peak" part as minimal or as busy as you want, but it can't get MORE busy. Tip #2 Listen to the masters of full, but minimal (in terms of layers) tracks. Pryda. I know I've mentioned this a bunch of times before but if you were to deconstruct his tracks in to individual elements, they sound like they just won't work discretely, but together it's a thing of genius. All his tracks consist of simple elements, automated incredibly well that just gel. Try focusing on simple arrangements from simple elements that don't need 1000 embellishments to work. Dave Clark Red 3 (1995) is literally 5 elements but that has destroyed more dancefloors than anyone cares to remember. Rui Da Silva - Touch Me or Fire. Simple, well layered tracks that rely on simple notes and perfect automation. See Pryda for more details.

This is actually revolutionary advice for me and I will try it. Work back from the peak!

___________________
https://soundcloud.com/butlerrichard

The more you keep busy working, the easier and simpler it actually is. That's what I found from personal experience. Most of the stuff I released I actually made fairly quickly without too much thought, during a period of time where I was constantly working (producing) every night.

That's really how all art is, I believe, to echo my former acting teacher's words: It's at once the most difficult and the most simple thing in the world. But it's only simple when you're constantly doing it. You are thus able to trust your instincts more without giving it too much thought and analysis, and since you're constantly working, you naturally are able to produce better results (generally). This is how artists evolve.

I do also believe - from my personal experience - what my former English Literature professor once said: when you create art, you kill life. So constantly doing art (creating) can also be bad for your mental health, I believe - I speak especially for myself and a few artists I've known.

Thank you everyone for the advice. Really good stuff about just trying to work with a few quality elements. I find for me I have the best results following that advice

quote:

Originally posted by djnitride Really good stuff about just trying to work with a few quality elements. I find for me I have the best results following that advice

I agree, and same here. I started with software and had trouble finishing projects - probably also due to virtually limitless options - but once I switched to hardware, it became rather simple. I worked with what I had and always managed to finish projects, whether it took a day or a week.