|
How was "old" progressive house produced? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
I love this older prog as well. Here is another 1997 prog monster:
Bedrock - "Set In Stone"
I would like to know what they used as well. The general answer, of course, is going to be along the lines of "more hardware, less software." I don't know a whole lot of specifics, but I did read a Bedrock interview from 2002 where they mentioned:
"Analogue synths in the Bedrock studio include a Roland JX8P with the PG800 programmer, Juno 60 and Juno 106."
I think some of the less expensive analog polysynths were fairly common in '90s studios and remember reading that Underworld also used Junos a good bit. I have also heard that ROMplerish equipment like the KORG Wavestation and the Roland D and JD series digital synths were common. Obviously for effects hardware reverbs and stuff were a lot more common as the software version simply was not very high quality yet, at least in the mid '90s.
Hopefully that helps a bit. :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Sphereal
I like newer progressive house as well, but I think the "old style" usually had a better groove and melody. There was also something about the "old style" that was a bit more melodic and "darker" in my ears. The song arrangement could also be more "surprising" and not standardized back then. |
I feel the same way, and obviously this shows you realize it isn't all about the equipment, it is also about the talent and energy that these older producers had. Equipment might get you the same sounds, but only talent, patience, and work will get you the great melodies and arrangements that really made those tracks what they are. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sphereal
I didn´t really say it fascinate me. I just asked some questions about production techniques in a "production forum", i tough i could get some answers, sorry if i did this STUPID mistake. |
Well you've posted a smorgasbord of completely different tracks - they're not even all really the same genre let alone the same style or technique - and asked a question whose answer couldn't possibly be of any real benefit to a producer. I'm not too surprised that you got the answer you did; the question smells like a thinly-disguised "what's the best synth to use for (x)" question.
But maybe I'm misinterpreting. Are you a producer, looking to try to recreate these uh, sounds, or is this just historical curiosity to the effect of wondering what a typical studio looked like in the late '90s? If it's the latter, then I can understand, but you also need to understand that every producer and every studio was different back then, just like today, maybe even more so because the "holy grail" synths like the Virus and JP either weren't around or weren't that popular yet. Any of those tracks might have been done with any of several hundred different pieces of equipment. |
|
|
| Sphereal |
Thanks for the info MrJiveBoJingles!
That Bedrock interview was good reading, i must seek out for more information like that.
And regarding:
| quote: | | I feel the same way, and obviously this shows you realize it isn't all about the equipment, it is also about the talent and energy that these older producers had. Equipment might get you the same sounds, but only talent, patience, and work will get you the great melodies and arrangements that really made those tracks what they are. |
I agree with you on everything you say. The reason why i would like to know what equipment "they had" is just because im a nostalgic person + that it gives me some history background on my favorite genre, hopefully nothing is wrong about that.
Thanks again for your input, and that Bedrock track brought out some good old memories!
- Christ |
|
|
| Sphereal |
Thanks for your input as well.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Well you've posted a smorgasbord of completely different tracks - they're not even all really the same genre let alone the same style or technique - and asked a question whose answer couldn't possibly be of any real benefit to a producer. I'm not too surprised that you got the answer you did; the question smells like a thinly-disguised "what's the best synth to use for (x)" question. |
Hmm, i really think those tracks can be categorized under "old prog house music", but i might be wrong because different style tends to blend so i wont argue about that.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
But maybe I'm misinterpreting. Are you a producer, looking to try to recreate these uh, sounds, or is this just historical curiosity to the effect of wondering what a typical studio looked like in the late '90s? If it's the latter, then I can understand, but you also need to understand that every producer and every studio was different back then, just like today, maybe even more so because the "holy grail" synths like the Virus and JP either weren't around or weren't that popular yet. Any of those tracks might have been done with any of several hundred different pieces of equipment. |
Im a really bad hobby producer, but i don´t wanna replicate anything (dont think i could either if that was the point). Im just curious about what stuff was used.
- Chris |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
roland tr909.....
That was commonly used back then. Solid for production. |
|
|
| Subtle |
Its impossible to answer this question, but the all of the tracks where produced with the equipment that was available at that time, with the sequencers available at the time.. and also alot more sampling was done back then as opposed to now.
This means all analog, digital synths, effect units etc you could get your hands on back then could have been used. That is equipment ranging back several decades in time to the first synthesizer ever.
Some tracks might have recognisable sounds, but apart from that its not possible to tell unless you contact every producer and ask them yourself. |
|
|
| Eric J |
Below is an interview with Sasha's production crew. These guys helped out Sasha create Involver. These are also a lot of the same guys that were instrumental in creating that 90's progressive house sound.
Anyway, there is a part of this interview where Charlie May and Duncan Forbes talk about trying to do everything with software and then deciding to go back to "the way we used to do it". For them, this meant digging out old analogue gear and sampling the out of it, running stuff through guitar pedals, just basically f**king up as much as possible. They talk about just hitting record and tweaking, then going back and picking out the "magic" moments. They talk about literally going through hours of audio looking for stuff.
I imagine this was pretty much par for the course back then. When I first started producing back in the mid 90's, all I had was a JV-1080, Proteus 2000 and a Virus B. Softsynths were basically a joke back then, so most of my first tracks were made by using this outboard hardware. MIDI it all up and play everything live. Multimbrality was pretty important back then, because each unit had to perform multiple parts.
http://www.solid-state-logic.com/users/all/sasha.asp |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Those are from 2000s, not the '90s. ;) |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Those are from 2000s, not the '90s. ;) |
Thats what i was going to say....
Chilling Moments is still one of my all time favorite tracks. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Listening to the tracks linked in this thread again...
Pretty much all of today's "prog" is such a pale, weak successor to this stuff. Makes me sad even to compare them.
:sadgreen: |
|
|
|
|
