|
how important is side chain compression? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| studiobob |
now dont get me wrong, i do also believe that melodies/song structure and composition is also important, but to believe that a well written song thats been very badly produced is going to sell really well is just being naive. any big label just wont touch it.
maybe 10/15 years ago when labels were more willing to take chances with unsigned acts but thats not the case anymore...
JMJ - i love his music but if the production quality wasnt there then chances are i would never have discovered it...
end of the day you need a combination of song writing and production skills to write sucessfull tunes. i just beleive that production is the more important of the 2. but then i'm an engineer first and a songwriter/producer 2nd! |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
So I guess both the hook / melody and then the sonic presentation are all important.
However, nowadays a good melody will not be a sucess without a good production, whereas a good or great production with an 'ok' melody can still be a hit - just switch the radio on and you will hear plenty of examples. |
Yes - who in here is arguing that production quality isn't important? The sign in my studio says "then incredible production" not "then okay or average production". Where have I said that production quality isn't very important? I'm totally with you guys on that point.
I don't really listen to radio, but as far as I'm aware it's not purely for "hits", last time I checked. Plenty of tunes go through every year, only a few are still played years later. Potentially great production will get an average song onto radio for a while, but it won't become a classic, or a hit song, without a strong hook or original melody.
I totally believe that many people with music theory degrees aren't signed to labels, the same way I believe that many people who have music engineering degrees aren't signed to labels. I don't know the statistics on both - if anyone knows, please share this info!
Look, if one of you can provide some examples of hit songs which are still being played years after they were written, which don't have a strong melody/ hook, and which became long-lived hits due to their production values, that would be great for your argument. I can provide examples of songs which sound dated and are still played on radio/ TV/ whatever, just because they're great songs (I mean, there are still songs from the 50s, 60s, 70s etc being played, and they could be improved upon if they were remixed today).
I'd just like to know some examples of songs where the production values truly mattered MORE than the song.
Once again, just to make it clear: production quality is extremely, extremely important. Extremely. I can't stress it enough. But it's not as important as having a good song in the first place. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
I'd just like to know some examples of songs where the production values truly mattered MORE than the song.
|
Jakos 1978 dont stop (till u get enough). That is a repetetive song with a hook built around a core of outstanding production. Donna Summers I feel love 1977.
ABBA hits - sure great melodies-BUT AWFULL WHEN DONE BY STEPS AND OTHERS - IN OTHER WORDS PRODUCTION WAS THE 'KEY' NOT MELODY. Had steps released tradegy as an original, the way they made it sound it would never have been a hit.
I'd say the majority of RnB and HIP HOP now is muxch more about production. Often production by proxy, outcomes in what one might losely term a 'hook'. I'm terrible at examples as I forget the name of tunes.
BTW - all those old hits of the 60s, 70s and 80s do nothing for me at all. Stuff like Roy Orbison does zero for me, never has. From birth I only like stuff with a tight production - I know that may sound crazy. I actualy find 99% of older hits depressing. I hate everything by the Beatles and Elvis. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
PS - I'm not argueing, honest!!
Jusr robust honest debate is all:whip:
We don't all think the same, that's ok though:tongue2 |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Concentrating on technical skill over musical skill is a great thing to do if you want your music to be forgotten ten years later once your "cutting edge production techniques" sound dated and cliched. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
BTW - all those old hits of the 60s, 70s and 80s do nothing for me at all. Stuff like Roy Orbison does zero for me, never has. From birth I only like stuff with a tight production - I know that may sound crazy. I actualy find 99% of older hits depressing. I hate everything by the Beatles and Elvis. |
The Beatles did have "tight production." George Martin was absolutely one of the most skilled, amazing producers of his day. And that is precisely the point. What counts as "tight production" one year will in ten years be dated at best; if you're less lucky, your "cutting edge techniques" will have become cliches that make people laugh. Good luck making your music last with perfect sidechaining, reverse reverb gimmicks, or whatever else becomes the next fad in trance. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
Theres a big difference between fads and good production. Fads are things like (really obvious) sidechain, reverse reverb, filter sweeps etc., good production involves great levels, good use of EQs, proper use of compression and awesome sound design with interesting feature sounds and well programmed bread and butter sounds.
If you listen to the work of underworld, salt tank, or the old trax records stuff, Jeff mills or ben sims' old stuff etc you'll hear what I mean. They don't sound dated, but the sound quality is still great.
That said, they all had brilliant concepts behind their music, and it just happened to be really well produced as well. So there's no argument that great concepts are incredibly important. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Theres a big difference between fads and good production. |
I agree, although I often see people saying that something sounds "dated" if it does not have the latest fad sound like sidechained bass, chopped vocals, reverse reverb tricks, so I think the two are often confused.
I don't mean to say that good production is unimportant, I am just saying that it is entirely pointless without a good musical foundation. Pearls on a pig and all that. ;-) |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
Jakos 1978 dont stop (till u get enough). That is a repetetive song with a hook built around a core of outstanding production. Donna Summers I feel love 1977.
|
Well, I doubt that you were even alive back then to have the perspective, but I was (I'm old :sadgreen: ), so let me enlighten you. Those songs were both popular because of their hooks, not because of the production. Hell, I can't even recall the instrumentation in those songs, let alone the production quality, but I sure as hell can remember the hook. Not to mention the fact that sound quality was terrible back in those days - most of us were still listening to AM radios and 8-track cartridges were one of the dominant forms of music media. 'nuff said.
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
ABBA hits - sure great melodies-BUT AWFULL WHEN DONE BY STEPS AND OTHERS - IN OTHER WORDS PRODUCTION WAS THE 'KEY' NOT MELODY. Had steps released tradegy as an original, the way they made it sound it would never have been a hit.
|
See my points above. Also, you're leaving out some very key ingredients in pop music that help determine a song or artist's success: performance/delivery and the less tangibles, such as style, attitude, etc. These were important factors for ABBA's, Michael Jackson's, Donna Summers', and most hip-hop artists' success. ABBA, in particular, was popular because they wrote incredibly catchy disco songs (disco was unbelievably HUGE when I was 10), they were considered incredibly hot (by 1970s standards), and they had a fresh European style that we here in America (and many other countries) were not accustomed to hearing - a foreign flare that was quite intoxicating. Disco was all about fashion and style - not production - that's what makes it so cheesy in hindsight. People covering their songs couldn't cover their style or their looks or their originality. And, I'd actually go so far as to say that the production quality wasn't all that great, but they made up for it by having some of the catchiest songs in disco, a fresh look and sound, etc.
Again, nobody is arguing that production quality and techniques aren't important, but your insistence that it is the make-or-break factor for hugely successful bands like ABBA is a bit ridiculous and overstated.
Now, as far as people with music degrees not getting signed, I think you're missing some points, so let me just point out a few things. First, I have a music degree and I have been signed to labels, so you do know of at least one person; however, I don't think that my 4 years of studying classical music and jazz theory 20 years ago has much to do with any EDM or pop songs that I've written in recent years. Also, in my case, I have actually turned down more unsolicited offers from labels than I have signed. Why? It's just not a big deal to me and if the offer isn't very good and/or the label isn't big enough to guarantee that the song will got good distribution, then I'd rather just maintain control of my songs. I have a career and a family and I had a long successful career as a professional musician many years ago, so getting signed to a small label is small potatoes to me. Which brings me to my second point - most music majors arent' going to school to pursue getting their trance tracks signed to small digital labels with a near-zero chance of making a living off it. Many of them (myself included) actually pursue music degrees because they're smart enough to know that the chances of hitting it big are slim to none, so they chose a safer route, hoping to get into teaching, studio work, writing jingles, etc. Lastly, it's a sad fact, but of the many dozens of music majors that I went to school with and played in bands with during my lifetime, I'm pretty sure that none of them actually have a music-related full-time career. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
PS - I'm not argueing, honest!!
Jusr robust honest debate is all:whip:
We don't all think the same, that's ok though:tongue2 |
We don't all have to think the same. And yes, it's obvious that in the trance genre there are hundreds, if not thousands by now, of guys who place massive emphasis on production quality and can deliver amazing sounding mixes. And a minority of them also have fantastic music in there. My ears gravitate towards those who do both, since great production quality seems to be everywhere these days. It just doesn't do much for me any more.
Let's hope for your sake that there are enough people out there who rate production quality over amazing music and catchy hooks! |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| You should sidechain everything, even your kick. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
Jakos 1978 dont stop (till u get enough). That is a repetetive song with a hook built around a core of outstanding production. Donna Summers I feel love 1977.
ABBA hits - sure great melodies-BUT AWFULL WHEN DONE BY STEPS AND OTHERS - IN OTHER WORDS PRODUCTION WAS THE 'KEY' NOT MELODY. Had steps released tradegy as an original, the way they made it sound it would never have been a hit.
I'd say the majority of RnB and HIP HOP now is muxch more about production. Often production by proxy, outcomes in what one might losely term a 'hook'. I'm terrible at examples as I forget the name of tunes.
BTW - all those old hits of the 60s, 70s and 80s do nothing for me at all. Stuff like Roy Orbison does zero for me, never has. From birth I only like stuff with a tight production - I know that may sound crazy. I actualy find 99% of older hits depressing. I hate everything by the Beatles and Elvis. |
Good grief. |
|
|
|
|
