|
Recreating famous tracks exactly and passing them off as the original to friends. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| owien |
i think you are looking at one side of music producthion here.
the brain when asked to do something will almost certinly comeback to either things we have seen or heard before.
when it comes to making a track i often use imprinted formats only i then go about finding ways off doing something different by putting my own mark on it.
every time a new track is made i start with a blank page.
it seems tho you have a point to make either to your friends or yourself.
and in my mind you may as well use the time to get in touch with your own musical skill. :p |
|
|
| Stef |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pleasant
Call it the you're-not-famous effect. This is just an experiment of seeing how good you are without any bias whatsoever. |
Happens to be daily, its amazing what a name can do. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
Its rather pointless to sit there waste your time recreating a track to show off to friends, who exactly does that?
But...
If you are a novice (new) to production, you should be trying to recreate well made music for practice reasons (though I think this is what every major Producer has done at one point.) I always tell my cousin who is still in the novice experiene range, try to recreate x track, so he can improve skills by having a high bar to reach that he might want to surpass someday, and a general direction, because he lacks it at the moment. Until, he can go from producer and eventually see himself as an artist, who makes music from his own mind and experiences, and whatever he wants to convey in musical form.
And eventually once you've developed your craft, you will have enough belief in yourself to not want to copy anyone else. If something sounds similar in ways to another track even though you didnt even try, or havent heard that track, or it simply was not the inspiration behind your track, it would likely be because you and the other producer share some similar vision or minds, which is rather flattering if they are great producer.
One of the reasons I was never a fan of mid 2000s minimal movement (though I do love the minimalism in things), I thought the music was far too easy to recreate, and didnt want to make music that I could easily make, or other producers could easily recreate with little effort. Same with today's percussive tech house that has a big interest by DJs at the moment. Having a percussiion background, I could make those tracks all day if I wanted. But that music does not inspire me enough, and offer little challenge compositionally or musically. Nor does the music touch on the wide spectrum of feeling, emotion, or imagery that other forms of music achieve more accurately. Things an actual artist first producer second might be interested in. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kysora
Trying to copy someone's style exactly just as an experiment of whether or not you could pull it off seems like a bastardization of the point of making music in the first place. |
So learning how to play a Mozart or Bach piece is a bastardization of the point of music? Isn't that why people learn classical piano songs? To "see if they can pull it off"?
There is a weird double standard where learning music theory and playing peoples melodies is accepted, but as soon as you try to recreate a patch or capture a certain dynamic in the mixdown you're just trying to copy that person. The reality is no one just comes up with this stuff out of thin air it's all built upon the foundation laid by previous peoples work, that's what's not recognized in our world of "intellectual property" and the desire to hoard ideas.
And I bet you most producers couldn't even recreate majority of their tracks if they wanted to anyway. I know I couldn't, not exactly. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pleasant
My mind is racing with thoughts about this. All this time, I've tried to recreate tracks, but when isolated with your own work (after so much analysis of the original, you feel as if you own it too), you can easily become accustomed to imperfections in the mix.
Have any of you ever attempted this? Do you think you'll attempt it now just to see if you can fool your friends with a facsimile so close in quality that they don't notice? Do you think you could even go the extra mile and attempt to make something that sounds even better than the original?
Perhaps this could be done online. It wouldn't even have to be the full track.
Another idea is taking a reference track that one of us has made, supplying the original samples, and seeing how can come up with something exactly like the reference track or superior. Now that I've detailed this, I feel as if there has to be some kind of past discussion on this idea.
/Slightly Off-topic
At the very least, synthesizer patches? I've always wondered if people create synth patches straight from their head, or if they plan it out or use math. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole thing, I want to make any sound I want from my mind, but I don't know what the pros (or at least the power users) are doing or what epiphany I need to experience in order to "get it" and be able to seriously master my synthesizers. Math? Experience? Preset twiddling (I already do this)? |
preset twiddling? you need to delete every one of your presets and start building your own banks for every synth you have. if you dont know how a preset was made, revert it down to a basic saw tooth wave and rebuild it back up again. do this until you figure out what every knob does and know how to make every sound you like from an initialized patch, not by memory, but by understanding how it works. |
|
|
| Pleasant |
Yeah, I know... thanks for making that point. I didn't get the harsh disapproval.
This was all intended to be for learning the foundations of a good, solid track and improving your mixing skill in your own compositions. Once again, I now realize that this was far more difficult than I thought. Impossible.
Now, I think people are so angry at derivative works in the major leagues that they don't even want to see beginners learn by looking at established styles. A kind of conditioning to prevent any more rip-off, poor quality music if anyone here ever releases something decent in a few months or years. |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Reason and few bits of behringer outboard.
(I'm not joking - that's what one of the earlier albums was made on start to finish).
|
im guessing ur talking about the Always outnumbered album, which btw is their worst one. it was written in Reason thats true, but almost all the synths where replaced with hardware synths later on. Music for the Jilted Generation, there u got some complicated hardware . |
|
|
| Fledz |
I think there's some merit to it, because it can help you to develop your production skills, rather than your compositional skills.
It would be extremely tough but I'm sure you'd come out of it with some more knowledge that you may not have had before. |
|
|
| Lucidity |
That was awesome! thanks, think I learned a bit there too, I usually don't sample other tracks like that but, that was sweet! |
|
|
| david.michael |
What a cool demonstration :) |
|
|
|
|
