The Means ? Or The Ends ?

[dirty_bass]

Yeah, this is true, you can read and read on the technicality of it, but it really comes down to "Ear learning" as I call it.

[module]

well, it's the "you've either got it or you havn't" thing...
you can't conpensate for crappy ideas with good production.. but if you have a good idea it can shine through a rough production..

indeed.. i like this point very much.. well said.

[holotropik]

frequency distribution, audio quality, billion$ hardware this, bloody fantastic PC that, nice balance of frequencies, nice spectrum analyser....blah, blah,blah.

wot about the content, the idea, the concept, the feeling, the emotion, the drive, the gutz, the balls.

If all you listen for is the audio quality of the track then you will miss the point everytime.....

[dirty_bass]

Well, obviously the content needs to be good.
It doesn`t even need to be mentioned.
A crap tune is a crap tune, period.

However a lot of people who can`t produce for toffee simply use the excuse "yeah, but it`s a good tune".

Sure mate it`s a good tune, but it sounds like shit, sort it out.

That`s like, painting a picture, and the picture being aweful, but the idea is good. Or a good film concept, but employing bad actors, poor editing, and shooting straight to 8mm video with poor lighting.

[holotropik]

Well, obviously the content needs to be good.
It doesn`t even need to be mentioned.
A crap tune is a crap tune, period.

However a lot of people who can`t produce for toffee simply use the excuse "yeah, but it`s a good tune".

Sure mate it`s a good tune, but it sounds like shit, sort it out.

That`s like, painting a picture, and the picture being aweful, but the idea is good. Or a good film concept, but employing bad actors, poor editing, and shooting straight to 8mm video with poor lighting.

I do agree.

On Sunday I cooked a roast, a really nice pork quarter. Served it up by slicing the best cuts with minimal fat and just a bit of crackling....mmm, yummy.

Today, wednesday, I sliced off all the fatty chunky rough bits in all shapes and sizes. Even ripped some of the bits off the bones and stir-fried them in some pad-thai sauce.

Just as yummy coz it had texture and flavours the perfect cut meat didnt have.

Of course the stir-fry had to be set-up just perfect in respect of temp, oil, herbs and even my trusty old stir-fry pan....but it makes a great meal in a different way.

Just thought I would clarify where I was coming from....some of the best stir-fry comes from crusty old woks in dingy old kitchens but prepared in a way as to take advantage of that. In the true zen way.

[crime]

Well, obviously the content needs to be good.
It doesn`t even need to be mentioned.
A crap tune is a crap tune, period.

However a lot of people who can`t produce for toffee simply use the excuse "yeah, but it`s a good tune".

Sure mate it`s a good tune, but it sounds like shit, sort it out.

then it obviously isn't that much of a good tune if you're worrying about the production that much surely..
I mean, I think what I'm really trying to say, you han have stuff that sounds raw, and unpolished, and sounds wicked for it (i.e. early dance mania etc), and if you polished it too much it would lose that rawness...

[Miromiric]

well, it's the "you've either got it or you havn't" thing...
you can't conpensate for crappy ideas with good production.. but if you have a good idea it can shine through a rough production..

i agree.

[crime]

However a lot of people who can`t produce for toffee simply use the excuse "yeah, but it`s a good tune".

just re-read that, sorry, disagree, how can you use that as an excuse, it's down to other people to say whether it's good or not.. that's just people talking up their music which is bullshit anyway...

[Jay Pace]

The best stuff I heard at Sonar was jeff mills hammering the **** out of a 909.

The place was full of glitching, popping audiophile wet dreams.

And the best thing to listen to was a piece of kit made a few decades back, together with some inventive drum programming.

Rawness has its merits, but if you are going to be raw, make sure you have decent ideas.

Raw/badly produced + mediocre idea = rubbish.
Basic idea + sublime production can = monster

[Miromiric]

Raw/badly produced + mediocre idea = rubbish.
Basic idea + sublime production can = monster

Raw/badly produced + mediocre idea = rubbish.
Basic idea + sublime production can = rubbish.

[Jay Pace]

[DJAmok]

can't polish a turd is what i say

good production values are nice to have, but in the end it's the tune that makes people dance. i had some people go absolutely nuts on some shitty productions and sometimes people stand still to a perfectly produced track.

[loopdon]

after a few years (ruffly) and referencing to tunes that 'have made it' it should become second nature to have acceptable mixes at least, imo.

[dirty_bass]

Well, obviously the content needs to be good.
It doesn`t even need to be mentioned.
A crap tune is a crap tune, period.

However a lot of people who can`t produce for toffee simply use the excuse "yeah, but it`s a good tune".

Sure mate it`s a good tune, but it sounds like shit, sort it out.

then it obviously isn't that much of a good tune if you're worrying about the production that much surely..
I mean, I think what I'm really trying to say, you han have stuff that sounds raw, and unpolished, and sounds wicked for it (i.e. early dance mania etc), and if you polished it too much it would lose that rawness...

what does polish have to do with good production.

Raw can still be well produced, and a lot of old "raw" stuff was still done properly.

Sorry

But all this talk is just people trying to justify bad skills and lack of learning.

[DJAmok]

true. but some of the most genius works out there are by unexperienced producers who just pour their soul into what they do. those are the true jewels and they don't need perfect mastering to be good

[Sunil]

A lot of old "raw" stuff wasn't polished or very well mastered - the quality of the finished product in general wasn't as important back then, once it was a good tune. Sure the boss of Trax for instance was a crook, he didn't care if the production matched up or not, he didn't have to, because the stuff was selling anyway. Nowadays different things are expected, especially with the tools that are readily available to anyone that has a computer. In some ways though the average "producer" now has to be an engineer too, which creates an extra learning curve and perhaps acts as something of a distraction from the whole process or making a tune.

Put an old Chicago acid house track against for instance a newer acid track by Jesper Dahlback, and you'll notice the obvious difference - yet they could be both raw in their own way, just one is far more polished and modern sounding than the other, that said I think Dahlback is one of the few who has carried on the acid torch and done it well.

You take early Trax, Dance Mania as Crime mentioned, even 808 State stuff - they sound rough as hell but far more rewarding to listen to. If I play something old that lacks in volume or is a bit rough, I just adjust the eqs or crank it up to fit in smoothly. A few years ago I got records on a label called Robox from Austria - really low recordings, and not too well mastered, but by hell were they records I remembered a lot more than something silky smooth and polished. Likewise, today if I hear something raw or not as pristinely produced I'll still get it if I like the tune - there's still not too many records I hear where the production is rubbish, most stuff is ok.

I think the one thing that differentiates "raw" of yesterday to a lot of tracks of today is the minimum amount of elements used in a track. With muli tracking being more prevalant today, I think it is inevitable that production standards, eq/compression etc. would need to be better.

[Sunil]

Likewise, today if I hear something raw or not as pristinely produced I'll still get it if I like the tune

Should have said "rough sounding" instead of "raw" ;)

[crime]

Sorry

But all this talk is just people trying to justify bad skills and lack of learning.

why would a producer need to "justify their lack of skills" if their very raw track was really popular on the dancefloor? I think the idea you have is flawed.

and I constantly despair at the fact when many people hear my new stuff they complain that "it doesn't sound like my old stuff" i.e. v. rough production...
The best selling record I ever did sounds rough as **** (Ctrl.Alt.Delete on djax), but seems to me that there are a lot of people who like it because it's rough, that record has got me more dj and live gigs than any of my better produced releases has yet, how do you explain that? and I cringe when I hear the production values in one way, but in another I love the raw naivity of that sound.. I mean, DB, are you just justifying your lack of a great idea or rocking riff in a track that made the production irrelevent? (This is just a question not a dig)

[dirty_bass]

Tune comes first, then the natural process is to produce it.
I don`t understand the black and white opinions you are spouting mark.
You can have both.
If I`m making a tune that does nothing for me, I bin it, I never go through the motions of polishing it just for the sake of it.
Admittedly, with techno these days, there is a lot of, grab some loops, bash em together, polish em up, compress it all so it`s real LOUD, press the ****er.

It`s the loudness that a lot of people respond to. Horrible.

[loopdon]

i think 'these days' have been going on for at least 6 years now. i swear that's why tribally stuff was everywhere a few years ago (still is?)

and apparently the old drumcode stuff had loads of the loops from no-kicks akai 1+2 in them. but at that time not everyone had access to them..

i have lots of cds (more than i could ever use) and samples in general but i never really get into the loopage really. an odd hihat loop - that's about it. the stuff is easily accessable (due to dsl n flatrates and p2p) and work ethics haven't become any better. i think the loudness race issue will come to an end in a while anyhow. it can't go much louder than disrtoted and clipped waveforms, can it?

or they can start taking the volume knobs of the radios and stereos because people don't know what they are there for anymore :cheese: