|
Using The Same Elements In A Track
|
View this Thread in Original format
| djkoifloor |
Was just listening to a new 4-track EP from an artist I like and I realized that EVERY single song on the EP he used the EXACT same kick, hi-hat, clap, snare, bass etc. It was basically just the same song with very slight variations yet enough so that the tracks did sound different.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it feels unimaginative, lazy, and untalented. On the other hand, if you were to just jump right in to your pre-set and know what kick, clap etc you were going to use then it would save an immense amount of timeas opposed to trying to create a new one for every track.
When starting a new track, I do have a pre-set element saved so that I can just jump right in and begin...saves alot of time. However, I still use a new bass, clap etc on virtually track. Once, I knocked out two tracks in a row very quickly because I used many of the same elements, yet it pained me to hear how similar they sounded.
What are your opinions on this? Is it a cheap way to make music? And how many artists out there do you think are doing this?? |
|
|
| stewart.m |
| i have used the same as before in my work i dont really see it as a issue my main goal is to get the track made as quick as possable and move on. |
|
|
| wayfinder |
| Guitar, bass, drum set, always the same singer. Pretty much every band does it like that. |
|
|
| MSZ |
| If you can make a totally different sounding track with the same patches and samples, kudos. |
|
|
| Teezdalien |
| quote: | Originally posted by wayfinder
Guitar, bass, drum set, always the same singer. Pretty much every band does it like that. |
This. If the elements used compliment each other, why not use them again? Using the same timbres in different tracks doesn't equate to the same track. You don't see drummers changing drum kits for every song they play, or changing vocalists.... other instruments perhaps. Obviously the increased workflow is the real benefit.
That said I really don't work this way, as I think I'd get pretty uninspired real fast. This is the main reason I moved from playing real instruments to virtual instruments. I like to make use of different timbres that I haven't used before when I make a new track. |
|
|
| clay |
| i hate when edm producers dont manage to put together a new sound. some sounds can off course be reused but over and over again is too much. its all about progression and development. while rock music is about melody and lyrics so no problem using the same instruments. |
|
|
| derail |
A lot of artists do it, they develop "their sound". With some artists, you can really hear how they've refined their sound over many years, and they're able to now pump out consistently excellent mixes. (whether the songs are worth listening to is another question).
As for you, do whatever you're comfortable with! |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| EP, sure, but if they are releasing singles, kinda lame. |
|
|
| Kysora |
| quote: | Originally posted by wayfinder
Guitar, bass, drum set, always the same singer. Pretty much every band does it like that. |
Kind of a bad comparison. Guitar tones are modified heavily with all sorts of effects -- compression, delay, reverb, flangers, phasers, chorus, distortion, volume/pitch modulation, etc.. not to mention the individual's style, the components in the guitar, amplifiers, recording equipment, and all sorts of other physical variables that aren't present in synthesis
A guitar's raw tone is comparable to a waveform, you can manipulate it just as much as a raw square wave can be modulated into a unique sound.
Using the same effects, the same instruments, the same style, that's not something you can get away with just because you're a rock band. What's the general consensus about Nickelback? They're not exactly praised for their experimentation or unique sound. Now think of how many bands you like and/or know of because of their originality -- apparently that's something to aspire to
So where do you draw the line? I say, reuse sounds all you want, as long as it's an artistic decision rather than a way to justify laziness. Push your boundaries, but don't turn everything into a blind experiment. Using the same few instruments in a track doesn't seem worse than utilizing similar mixing techniques for percussion, leads, bass, etc. between different tracks, which I'm sure we all do. |
|
|
| vercetti |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kysora
What's the general consensus about Nickelback? They're not exactly praised for their experimentation or unique sound.
|
REM is not exactly praised for their experimentation or unique sound either. And Radiohead *IMHO* were much much better on the first 2 albums, terribly unoriginal, just absolutely ing awesome old fashioned tunage.
Originality is overrated. Whatever works. |
|
|
| wayfinder |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kysora
Kind of a bad comparison. Guitar tones are modified heavily with all sorts of effects -- compression, delay, reverb, flangers, phasers, chorus, distortion, volume/pitch modulation, etc.. not to mention the individual's style, |
all of these apply to synth patches as well
| quote: | | the components in the guitar, amplifiers, recording equipment, and all sorts of other physical variables that aren't present in synthesis |
i'll give you that, for VSTs.
| quote: | | A guitar's raw tone is comparable to a waveform, you can manipulate it just as much as a raw square wave can be modulated into a unique sound. |
the same goes for any presets in a synth, though.
| quote: | | Using the same effects, the same instruments, the same style, that's not something you can get away with just because you're a rock band. What's the general consensus about Nickelback? They're not exactly praised for their experimentation or unique sound. Now think of how many bands you like and/or know of because of their originality -- apparently that's something to aspire to |
oh you can definitely get away with that, in fact that's what makes their signature sound! rock albums live from having a dozen songs with the exact same sounds, it's a feature!
stripped back or "authentic" (i.e. raw, not overproduced) 3/4-piece bands sound very samey precisely because the differences in tones are so small between types of guitar/bass. Drum sets are a bit different, there's a lot of variety between bands there, but once you set up a kit that works, you really don't wanna have to go through that again, especially not for every new track
| quote: | | So where do you draw the line? I say, reuse sounds all you want, as long as it's an artistic decision rather than a way to justify laziness. Push your boundaries, but don't turn everything into a blind experiment. Using the same few instruments in a track doesn't seem worse than utilizing similar mixing techniques for percussion, leads, bass, etc. between different tracks, which I'm sure we all do. |
I don't know how that happened, but you disputed my comparison and then came to the same conclusion as me ;) |
|
|
| sicc |
I have a handfull of kicks claps and cymbals that I constantly use and just tweak in diff ways. I see nothing wrong with it as long as the tracks each have their own character, flavor and output. In all honesty, some of the best tracks I have produced use matierial i recycled from older tracks, just evolving them.
On the other hand, I do not like hearing the EXACT same chord progressions, or the EXACT, un altered synths on one album, unless the album is of a lucid, story like concept.
It's a double edged sword, goes both ways very quickly. Its not cheap, quick and easy if you put your heart and consciousness into each track, with your utmost attention. pure creation. |
|
|
|
|
