next »

[PostPre]

I feel I have addressed this question enough.
Creativity is a hungry beast that needs to be fed with both imagination and learning, or it will wither. Ask anyone. Read any interview. There is nothing like "knowing too much" when it comes to creating if you know how to handle it.

A thousand times this. Learn every technicality you can. If you had a true creative spirit to start with, it will only be strengthened by knowledge.

[1982]

A thousand times this. Learn every technicality you can. If you had a true creative spirit to start with, it will only be strengthened by knowledge.

But there lies a problem. There is not enough time for one persons life to learn everything that can possibly be learnt. In worst case scenario, you end up only learning more and gathering more information and in the end you still don't have anything meaningful art that you've made. Music in particular is quite interesting because within the media you can do a lot with very little. That's why it is great medium for expressing creativity without getting lost in technicalities.

Again I like to compare this medium to painting/drawing and writing (assuming one can write to start with). Entry level is very low and you can put your creativity in play instantly. Sure there are a lot theories and technicalities that can be learnt within all of those mediums, but oddly enough, they are not actually required.

I am confused. If the end result is the only thing that matters to you, there would be no need for discussion. We'd just post songs and tell each other if we like them or not. What can we talk about if we don't talk about how we got to the end result, especially considering this thread is called "General Music Composition Discussion"?

Well this thread was not about showcasing music and other people giving opinions about it, this was more into methods of making music. That's why I joined the discussion about methods, and in this discussion possible musical end results are not important. So in a way, I do not compare the piece and the methods of making the piece. Its fully possible that any person in this thread have been potentially made music that I feel is perfect. Even if that person might have methods of working which are completely opposite of what I've emphasized. But originally I was addressing to probabilities of that happening, which again come from my prejudices of this topic, which they then come from personal experiences. But it is highly possible that my personal experiences are skewed to begin with.

Still I won't stop discussing about things whenever I feel to.

See, this is the thing. While me and other people have posted things relevant to your inquiry - admitting you do have a point that emotionality is important too - you haven't contributed much to the topics you demand to discuss.
You say it's easy to talk about technicalities, and yes, it is much easier to talk about these than about emotional content. What are your plans to discuss creativity more? Any questions that would spark a discussion you like, without ending up with mere questions of taste again?

Yeah well that's difficult. Maybe later somehow.

No, because that would lack any reference. Why your implication, "Musicians that bother about technicalities make worse music than people like me who don't bother about them" is insulting... well, do I really need to explain that? I put much energy and work into learning as well as creating and expect exactly the same amount of respect for my craft as any other creative person.
I would not be insulted if you said you don't like my music. I am insulted, however, if you say I didn't create it the right way, especially considering I have studied and performed this craft many years, even making a living doing so.

Well people should always be prepared of other opinions challenging their way of doing and thinking. But I am sorry, I could never give you respect (as an artist!) due of how much work, effort, skills, time and money or what ever you've put on your art. I can only respect you through your works of art. And this same applies into every art I've ever witnessed in my life.

Of course I am not trying to imply that you or people working similar are doing everything wrong. If I think it is wrong, it doesn't mean that majority thinks it's wrong. That should be quite obvious. And even I am not that harsh about it, I am not thinking it is wrong, but I am thinking that some other approach could lead into discovering new and thus quite possibly into better music (at least withing my taste). Then again I should discuss about "discovering" if only I could put my finger on to it.

[pgil]

A thousand times this. Learn every technicality you can. If you had a true creative spirit to start with, it will only be strengthened by knowledge.

But there lies a problem. There is not enough time for one persons life to learn everything that can possibly be learnt. In worst case scenario, you end up only learning more and gathering more information and in the end you still don't have anything meaningful art that you've made.

But since when does learning take time away from creating?  Every time I've learned a new technique, I've done so by using it to create new work. What is the harm in learning something new if you're using that knowledge?   

Nobody's talking about learning every piece of musical theory that's ever been written.  Where did that come from?

I'm happy that I'm able to make music without a lot of technical knowledge, and without being particularly competent on any instrument.  But I run into situations every day where I feel limited by what I know. And that drives me to learn more.  And I bet you that better musicians than myself (and there are plenty in this thread) would say the same thing. 

edit: sorry I didn't write a huge fucking wall of text. I'm not very good at this.

[PostPre]

A thousand times this. Learn every technicality you can. If you had a true creative spirit to start with, it will only be strengthened by knowledge.

But there lies a problem. There is not enough time for one persons life to learn everything that can possibly be learnt. In worst case scenario, you end up only learning more and gathering more information and in the end you still don't have anything meaningful art that you've made. Music in particular is quite interesting because within the media you can do a lot with very little. That's why it is great medium for expressing creativity without getting lost in technicalities.

Again I like to compare this medium to painting/drawing and writing (assuming one can write to start with). Entry level is very low and you can put your creativity in play instantly. Sure there are a lot theories and technicalities that can be learnt within all of those mediums, but oddly enough, they are not actually required.

Are we talking about the same thing? You can easily learn music theory in a few years, not nearly your entire life. And when you learn music theory, you gain an infinitely more intimate relationship with music and what you can create with it, as well as a mutually understandable way to discuss it.

What I'm saying is, if you learned music theory, you'd be able to talk to us about music, rather than contribute nothing with these shitty philosophy 101 arguments. Furthermore, as someone who's grown up in a family of musicians, I don't think you've ever seen a living example of what your talking about and are just spouting conjecture.

[JudahRoydes]

Again I like to compare this medium to painting/drawing and writing (assuming one can write to start with). Entry level is very low and you can put your creativity in play instantly. Sure there are a lot theories and technicalities that can be learnt within all of those mediums, but oddly enough, they are not actually required.

  I believe a clue to a great deal of the controversy and confusion in this discussion can be found in the quote above. Music differs from these other art forms in nearly every way, From conception to the neurological and psychological conditions within which it is created. In fact the very brain creating the music is quite different as Dr. Oliver Sacks writes in his book Musicophilia, "Anatomists would be hard put to identify the brain of a visual artist, a writer, or a mathematician - but they could recognize the brain of a professional musician without a moment's hesitation." Q.E.D.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/27/9240.full

   Using these other art forms as a a baseline to gain insight into the creative and structural procedures intrinsic to music is flawed from the start as it rest upon erroneous suppositions. As a result the questions being asked are the wrong questions. They are wrong questions in the same sense as asking where is the universe. And now....on to discussing general music composition, which by the definition of composition necessitates a discussion of the technical aspects of music.   

 
   

[1982]

 I believe a clue to a great deal of the controversy and confusion in this discussion can be found in the quote above. Music differs from these other art forms in nearly every way, From conception to the neurological and psychological conditions within which it is created. In fact the very brain creating the music is quite different as Dr. Oliver Sacks writes in his book Musicophilia, "Anatomists would be hard put to identify the brain of a visual artist, a writer, or a mathematician - but they could recognize the brain of a professional musician without a moment's hesitation." Q.E.D.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/27/9240.full

That still doesn't make it any less true that entry level to music is low similar to painting and writing. Professionalism has nothing to do with low level entry.

  Using these other art forms as a a baseline to gain insight into the creative and structural procedures intrinsic to music is flawed from the start as it rest upon erroneous suppositions.

 

I don't see how.

Are we talking about the same thing? You can easily learn music theory in a few years, not nearly your entire life. And when you learn music theory, you gain an infinitely more intimate relationship with music and what you can create with it, as well as a mutually understandable way to discuss it.

Well there is more than just theory. There is learning the instruments you want to use. Learning recording technology if you want to record something. And learning mixing/mastering and other producing related technologies if you want to release something. Sure, music theory of those all can be easily the smallest part. While those other technicalities do not have much to do with actual composing, I doubt that none of you are in position to be able to just compose and let someone else do the rest. I guess the idea of composing is to eventually release something what people can listen?

What I'm saying is, if you learned music theory, you'd be able to talk to us about music, rather than contribute nothing with these shitty philosophy 101 arguments. Furthermore, as someone who's grown up in a family of musicians, I don't think you've ever seen a living example of what your talking about and are just spouting conjecture.

I am not talking to you about music, theory. Actually I am not even talking about music, we haven't analyzed single song in this discussion after I came along. Making music is not music. Music is. I was only talking about some methods of making music. If you want to talk about music, give me a song for analyze.

[medieval]

 

[MoritzPGKatz]

Yes. I give up too. I would only repeat myself.

You have obviously set your mind, we are all a bunch of robots beeping our technical nullities without being able to create anything of emotional content. Because there is either learning or doing. And everyone knows mixing isn't part of the creative process, especially in video game music.

[/sarcasm]

I'm out.

Let's talk about something else. Like how to use compressors to get a beat really pumping, or what the heck a Neapolitan sixth chord really is.

[tipp]

1982

you are such a grump 

[easynam]

lets talk about the finer points of making techno

[Sam English]

All about the upbeats, baby.

[1982]

1982

you are such a grump 

 

[PostPre]

I'm going to be mixing a lot of vocals soon. Anyone have some general guidelines/EQ sweet spots?

[Sam English]

I'm going to be mixing a lot of vocals soon. Anyone have some general guidelines/EQ sweet spots?

A gentle boost (3dB-6dB) at 5.4k for male vocals or 5.7k for female vocals will help them to cut through. If you own the Waves Aphex Vintage Aural Exciter, it works wonders on vocals as well. Don't forget a desser and some nicely done compression and you've got yourself a dandy vocal track.

[MoritzPGKatz]

I'm going to be mixing a lot of vocals soon. Anyone have some general guidelines/EQ sweet spots?

What genre is the music? What mic was used?

[Audiosprite]

Waves Vocal Rider. 

[PostPre]

I'm going to be mixing a lot of vocals soon. Anyone have some general guidelines/EQ sweet spots?

What genre is the music? What mic was used?

A Shure SMB7 through an avalon VT 737, hip-hop.

Thanks for the tips, everyone! And I'll look into that Vocal Rider...

[MoritzPGKatz]

Boosting presence is generally a good idea with hip hop vocals - but the SMB7 is already quite the present microphone and 3-6 dB might be much too much.
You'll probably want to place a low cut at about 120 Hz. Most voices don't lose anything as their fundamental frequency is above this.
Around 7 kHz there's sibilance, so you might want to cut that a little if de-essing doesn't work well with the rapper's voice.
Generally, do boosts with a low Q (wide) and cuts with a high Q (narrow) - and don't try to get something out of the recording that isn't there - if your EQ looks like a rollercoaster ride you're probably doing something wrong and the vocals will sound very unnatural.

An alternative or supplement to compression, especially in "aggressive" rap music, is saturating or distorting the voice, which will also compress it. Works especially well with dynamic mic's like the SMB7 because they've generally got more punch. When you do compress, be careful not to use a too-low Attack time as this will greatly decrease intelligibility.

Of course it's hard to give more advice without hearing the mixes. It's like

once half-jokingly said, "Every song and every mix is a new battle."

Cheers,
Moritz

[J. R. Hill]

If all else fails...  Autotune.

JOKING, JOKING.   

[Audiosprite]

Another great general vox mixing technique is to use the vox track to duck its own reverb. Send the vox channel to a verb send (rather than using verb in the chain and mixing wet/dry), then add a ducker or a compressor with side-chain functionality to the send. Then side-chain the dry vox to the verb ducker/comp. This will let you get the verb tail during pauses without muddying up the mix while the singer is singing.