Printable View
hey man,
the post locked thingy is the signature in my profile (it wasn't working last nite, cheers G-if it was u?)..
i should have read the topic really first, talking about hardware in a 'wheres the quality gone post'. what am i like? :roll:
i rekon that it's damn near impossible to make personal,innovative music with just software these days, everything has been done 1000 times before!
I am full of shit then... Strange that I've put out at least 8 records that didn't have any compression on until it's cut.. if your production is good enough you shouldn't NEED to master it before you go to the cut.. then again, I'm full of shit so what do I know..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dustin Zahn
I must have had my eyes shut and not been paying attention when I was at the 3 cuts I've been to :roll: I obviously don't understand...This is another point, it's generally a good idea to be at the cut, as anything wrong with the mastering they do there can be rectified easily while it's being done.... then again Dustin, what the **** do I know, I'm full of shit.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dustin Zahn
YES!Quote:
Originally Posted by davethedrummer
yes i agree with crime here - if the quality is good enough in the mix then the hefty mastering is not so necessary.
But on the other hand i do know a few people that the mastering process is essential to to attain thier sound.
I remain adament they could achieve such a sound in the mix though, and therefore have far more control over things.
and i know what you are saying about the computerised thingy, but i am sure that you could give paul white a crappy old pc, and any one of us a massive analogue studio, and pauls would sound the best.
I think what really is the problem is unexperienced ears are given too much too soon with all these computers and stuff - before they have really gotten thier sound tight they are punting out muddy sounding records - which is a crying shame :cry:
I personally do use analogue gear and software togethor.. for example there is no way i could afford a hardware verb that sounds as good as the waves, yet the computers filters just dont do it like my mfc42 or my eq killer - not forgetting those mackie gains and sweeps..
I think what you use for monitoring counts for a lot too, I really notice a difference between stuff I've mixed down on headphones or Hi Fi speakers and proper studio monitors... I've mixed stuff down ins software before that has sounded really good on cheap headphones and then listened on a stereo and it's sounded shit.... simelarly, I've comapred stuff I've mixed down on Hi Fi speakers to stuff I've mixed down on my absolute zeros and really noticed the difference...remember it's the final link between the kit and your ears...
Can I just jump back to my point again . Sorry if I caused anyone offence at Ingoma that wasn't my intention , as I said I have bought some of your records so I am not going to do that if I thought they were all shite.
I don't know how you make your records at all , so I was just saying to me it sounded like you had swapped loops because they sounded so similar. So apologies for that, but to come back with the reason for it sounding very similar is because it is a "Tribal" label is a bit bollocks is it not. Just cause it's tribal doens't mean it has to be the same , you don't have to always put the same chugging beat to it , coupled with a faint african vocal or whatever , do you.
I like all the producers on that label especially Mark Williams and Paul Mac ( sheer class ) and have much respect for their work , which is why I think it's a crap excuse , you are obviously talented and know your sound so you MUST notice the similarites.
Are you just pumping out tunes until the Tribal thing has run it's course or do you plan on continuously progressing the tribal sound.
basically what i think is that as it's become easy to do techno sounding tracks on a computer, the 'quality' in general of all techno music has gone down because of an increase in the shit. now ppl can release music that sounds OK after only 6months to 1 yr of producing!!!! it takes many, many years to learn the finer arts of mixing/compression/eq/mastering as far as i'm concerned.
and also access to information about these techniques is much easier to find than back in the day when we only had sound on sound magazine - which has lead to more 'reading' and less 'experimentation'.
i remember someone coming round to our studio who was quite good but relatively new and going 'my god, you're not supposed to eq like that'. and there's the point. information overload has meant less experimentation, more conformation to the rule book of michael jackson music making and less understanding of techno as an entirely. which has meant more shit techno.
as with all good techno, throw away the rule book. the only rules we need to know as producers with techno is to fill out that frequency range and to learn how to make the cut of our record nice and loud. all the rest should be experimentation and creating our own rules.
:wink:
jeez, what is it with all the micheal jackson comments round here...
micheal jackson ****in rules!!!!!!
ok fair point it was only the comment about swapping loops i found a little erksome anyway, like i said thats why i dont like commenting on my own stuff everyone is entitled to an opinion. ok as for the similaritys thing to be honest i think the tribal label thing holds water as a theory i mean for it to be that it has to fit into certain parameter's for it to be a tribal record. im not saying that things cant be pushed further or anything for example of the points you mentioned only marks records have an african vocal and other than tempo i really cant see how they have the same or similair beat. There is going to be some similarity's from the same producer but surely thats part of having your own sound ,i really dont think mark's /paul's / ben's /vince's whatever records on ingoma sound that similair other than the fact that they are tribal style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrymann
as for the churning out tunes comment come on mate your back in the loop swapping territory again.
just my opinion like :wink:
That's the point where I always think "Cool" 8)Quote:
Originally Posted by MARK EG
Invent your own traditions
Decode yourself
chuck that rule book in the bin, if it works it works, if it don't, forget it....
Quote:
ok fair point it was only the comment about swapping loops i found a little erksome anyway, like i said thats why i dont like commenting on my own stuff everyone is entitled to an opinion. ok as for the similaritys thing to be honest i think the tribal label thing holds water as a theory i mean for it to be that it has to fit into certain parameter's for it to be a tribal record. im not saying that things cant be pushed further or anything for example of the points you mentioned only marks records have an african vocal and other than tempo i really cant see how they have the same or similair beat. There is going to be some similarity's from the same producer but surely thats part of having your own sound ,i really dont think mark's /paul's / ben's /vince's whatever records on ingoma sound that similair other than the fact that they are tribal style.
as for the churning out tunes comment come on mate your back in the loop swapping territory again.
Cheers for getting back to me. I know it sounded like I am being a bit aggressive or whatever about the whole thing , it's not a case of that at all , I was just getting your opinions. The only reason I am even bothering to give my opinion is that I pay seven quid for each record and after buying about five of them I got a bit miffed when I came to the next one and actually had to think " have I got this already" and had to ask if it was a new one in or had they just put it back out on the racks again.
If you say they are all different then who am I to say they are not. But when you make them and you notice similarites from your last one , do you not get frustrated yourself.
Do you see Tribal as just being a short term thing, beacuse if the sound and style of the music is so similar it can't last very long. Like the Siesta House explosion of a while ago , it was a fresh sound at the time but they didn't prgress it at all , so it becamse shite very quickly. They also had a massive output which to me always suggests milking a situation for all it's worth because you know it's going to be short lived.
But in the end of the day you are producing Techno so that's always good.Plus I liked the Tribal sound that why I was buying the records , but to me you have to mix it with a different style , use th tribal records almost as background to something a bit harder.
I do like to get right into the discussions about this stuff cause I am passionate about it. I don't mean to piss you off by expressing my opinon and I wasn't having backhanded swipes at you either. I think it's a lot to do with my user name and the fact that you can't detect tones of voice etc on this , if it was a face to face conversation we wouldn't have had any problems.
:wink: :wink: :)
Oh oh oh, Please dont shoot me for doing this! I know all this has nothing to do with "quality" thread but i gotta add to what Angryman said...
[quote="Angrymann"]Yeah wow, good call! Thats realy how I am starting to aproach/think about things now. I can remenber when I first got into techno, it sounded so much differant to now. I havnt a clue who or what it was I was listening to then (sorry I was 16) but I think it was stuff like Beltrams ballpark things with crazy synths and a bit more minimal sounding. It sounded realy futuristic and advanced. Where as now it doesnt sound like that, well not with some of the tribal stuff. I think about this a lot. Now theres a lot of this tribal stuff about. Sampled drums like congas steel drums etc are always going to sound the same, hench people get bored. I still love that kinda sound but i do see it as a tempory thing.Quote:
Do you see Tribal as just being a short term thing, beacuse if the sound and style of the music is so similar it can't last very long. Like the Siesta House explosion of a while ago , it was a fresh sound at the time but they didn't prgress it at all , so it becamse shite very quickly. They also had a massive output which to me always suggests milking a situation for all it's worth because you know it's going to be short lived.
But in the end of the day you are producing Techno so that's always good.Plus I liked the Tribal sound that why I was buying the records , but to me you have to mix it with a different style , use th tribal records almost as background to something a bit harder.
Yeah it does make a background to something else. Ie if its not based on the drums its bassed on something more unique sounding, like a big "**** off" synth sound, where the tribal drums are there just to fill in the holes in the mix and give background rythm. I think if you make a track thats built soley on conga/brush drum samples (whatever) its always going to have that been there done that feeling no matter what you do with it. Its doesnt mean its bad but it would if thats all that everyone did! Conga drums will never evolve. Congas dont apeal to me as much as something like a synthesised drum sound, the sound of door slamming or a hammer hitting a radiator! shit like that. I dont see the point in using those same drum sounds over and over. Prolly conga loops are recycled a lot coz there an easy way of working. I have done it myself using conga loops off the fatboy slim audio beatz dissfusion. There so easy to chop up and change, yeah at first i found it was a working way of producing a tune but not realy satisfying. A realy mental Dj cunt i know showed me this record....
Makaton - Animal worship on a label called roadz conez.
http://www.substrata.com.au/A557D8/s...256CFC0058A506
If you have this, check out the sounds they used. Its real diverse, why?? The sounds they used as drums (also the sequencing is differant). They realy made the effort to find them instead of reaching for the old conga loop folder in the fatboy slim sample cd. Its these kind of artists that are going to move things forwards its differant, its well done and it works well. Its an amazing record imo.
I was saying how it sounded futuristic, I used to think thats what techno was all about (when I wa' a lad). Not now, I think great techno doesnt have to sound that furistic. Its more about feeling, like the sounds are trying to tell you something scary and you understand and connect with it! Combine that with powerfull sounds and you got a tune I like. I hear this a lot in that Makaton record.
Yeah good one! Although kinda irrelavant.
I think theres quality (mix and content) out there now, I was out last night and I thought about this topic when i stood in the middle of the dancefloor. Yeah, theres a lot shit out and about but theres deffiantly quality out there. Things will move on, Techno always does. Give it time and let it evolve. Techno is just too ****ing good to just die off.
yeah more synths in techno please
warm bass noises/ hard synth clanks / mettalic riffs
that sounds way more futuristic to me than a load of ols loops crashing around.
whatever happened to minimal techno anyway????
is there anything ( dancefloor orientated ) around these days????
yes, i second that, of course there is a place for everything (decent), but i do think we need more good quality large sounding synth driven stuff..
we are actually going this way with midi-sync recordings (it is what we allways wanted to do with the label anyway) after this new one it is big phat synth driven monsters all the way.. im REALLY looking forward to it too...
yeah good one
i'm gonna get into a bit of this too
maybe without the computer.
yeah, you boys are the ones to do it - youve certainly got the tools!
Yeah I was at this lil party at someones house this morning and some one was playing some realy minimal but still hard techno. I realy liked it, still had that dancefloor edje. sounded very midi orientated. Its great how you can do all this now without owning a 909. Reason rewired into SX and some decent sounds and your away. Its fun and realy flexable.
Not forgetting some bad ass synths :D