Jump to content

Creating music vs. fiddling around


Lemmiwinks

Recommended Posts

I've never got the hang of music making but some recent work I've done with graphics got me thinking: how many electronic music producers actually CREATE something and how many just get a good result after fiddling around with their gear?

 

Let me explain: I had to do some graphics for a website. I don't see myself as having any particular creative talent. So I just took some pics I had stored on my hard disk and started to fiddle around with Photoshop. After tweaking some filters and adding some text on top, the result was pretty nice. In about 2 hours I managed to get a pretty darn good pic that looked so "professional". I was happy about the result but then I thought that if I didn't have Photoshop with all the filters and all, I'd probably never have reached something coherent.

 

So that made me think: with all the music that's coming out these days with random sounds, how many of those artists actually had a vision of how the track was supposed to sound BEFORE getting in the studio and how many just played around with random sounds and FX until getting something "good"?

 

It really makes me wonder... Well, any artists around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wondered the same question myself after also doing some photoshop work..

 

so...

 

lets wait for the answers =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wondered the same question myself after also doing some photoshop work..

 

so...

 

lets wait for the answers =)

205287[/snapback]

Well, before I go into the studio I dont know anything about what I am going to produce. I know how I like my sound to sound, but I dont have any particular lead or bassline in mind before I start. Sometimes it happens that you have a lead in your head that you just cant get out of there, then you need to do that lead just to satisfy yourself.

 

As for effects, well, that just happens, you stumple upon something that sounds great and then you tweak around with that as you go. But you always learn how to tweak and apply those effects, so you know how to do it again if you had to.

 

I think every artist works diffrently, but this is how I work. I work randomly. I think its the best way to work like that, because you get new results every time. But I mean, I KNOW all my effects and what they are capable of. I sometime sit there and want THAT specific thing to happen, and I have to work HARD to get to that sound.

 

I know of many artists that work like me as well.

 

To say, 'play with random sounds and FX until getting something "good"' isnt right. Because like I said, you know your equipment, and what it does. You then play with that.

 

Did I make sense?! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no offence Nemo but IMO that's a wrong aproach to creating meaningful music. For me, a true artist should have a vision of what he's going to create BEFORE even touching his gear. The gear should just be an "instrument", an extension of his creativity (just like a car is the extension of the fast reflexes of a good racing driver). For example, I don't know it for a fact, but I think that a classical musical composer has a pretty good idea of how his work should sound before he hears a single note being played. THAT is true creativity IMO because then the artist can really put something that was in his brain (and which possibly got from another plane/ dimension?) into music. When you just fiddle and tweak knobs in your studio, even if the end result sounds good, it's just something random, it doesn't "transcend" anything...

 

Don't mean to criticize your work in particular Nemo, it's just that your reply kindof confirmed the initial hunch I was having. I mean, particularly with progressive I really get the feeling that the artist is just fiddling with random FX the same way I was fiddling with Photoshop a few weeks ago...

 

But I don't mean to start a flame war, who knows, maybe what are to my ears the best and most "creative" tracks were done in that way also :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be music technology vs human creativity not creating music vs fiddling around.

 

but I think that a classical musical composer has a pretty good idea of how his work should sound before he hears a single note being played

Yeah but creating someone on PC automatically means listening to what you make and have the change to experiment.Classical musical composer is writing notes on paper.But i think you need to have huge knowledge of music architecture to think about something f.e. a melody or just a sound and then create it just the way you thought about it.And yeah i think thats the MAIN problem of psychtrance nowdays,that people downloaded Reason or FL studio and bought some cheap gear and started to experiment with twisted noises.Just listen to some Hallucinogen or Logic Bomb tracks.The difference is chaotic,those guys knew exactly what they did.

 

Anyway im not a music expert so i think i said enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no offence Nemo but IMO that's a wrong aproach to creating meaningful music. For me, a true artist should have a vision of what he's going to create BEFORE even touching his gear. The gear should just be an "instrument", an extension of his creativity (just like a car is the extension of the fast reflexes of a good racing driver). For example, I don't know it for a fact, but I think that a classical musical composer has a pretty good idea of how his work should sound before he hears a single note being played. THAT is true creativity IMO because then the artist can really put something that was in his brain (and which possibly got from another plane/ dimension?) into music. When you just fiddle and tweak knobs in your studio, even if the end result sounds good, it's just something random, it doesn't "transcend" anything...

 

Don't mean to criticize your work in particular Nemo, it's just that your reply kindof confirmed the initial hunch I was having. I mean, particularly with progressive I really get the feeling that the artist is just fiddling with random FX the same way I was fiddling with Photoshop a few weeks ago...

 

But I don't mean to start a flame war, who knows, maybe what are to my ears the best and most "creative" tracks were done in that way also :)

205298[/snapback]

Lemmi, I think that you missunderstood what I was trying to explain a little bit. When you fiddle around with photoshop, I suppose you are not really knowing what you are doing right? (No offence, but you made it sound like that).

 

I know exactly what I am doing when I am in the studio. I know my gear in and out and from the left to the right. I know my plugins very well, and I know what setting does what.

 

When I am in the studio I dont "fiddle" I go into the studio with an empty brain and start with a bassline and a bassdrum. From there it then evolves into other soundscapes. I know how to play the chords, and I know what notes I have to press.

 

I think this is the way that every musician is working. But with psychedelic music it is all about experimenting with diffrent combinations of effects and sounds. Trying to make something that sounds fresh, new and interessting.

 

For instance, I play the guitarr and bass as well, and when I compose something new I start to play some notes/chords, and then it evolves from there. I think that maybe Pink Floyd does it the same way. They have a piano chord (you have to invent it, you dont just know how its going to sound) or a guitarr riff, and then it goes from there.

 

Same goes here, I play a chord, or some notes to the bassline, then I add effects to that.

 

It would be awkward for me to sit down and write down all the scores on paper, to then put them into notes in Cubase or similar.

 

Of course I go into the studio with a vision of what I want to create, I have the most of the rhythms in my head (I always think about rhythm the most).

 

When I create something in photoshop, I can see infront of me what I want to create, and then I do it. I also have great knowledge about my photoshop plugins, but the knowledge has come from "fiddling" with them and see what they do in diffrent scenarios.

 

I dont take this as a flame, not at all. I see this as an oportunity for you people that dont make music to get some insight in what we musicians actually do.

 

Sometimes it DOES happen that you intended to do something but in the end it sounded better because you did something else, because you were experimenting. What is wrong with that?

 

Did you get a better picture now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thers nothing wrong if you dont have the big picture of a track in your head before you start doing it .. just listen some jazz.. its all improvised.. the track doesnt exist before it starts

205303[/snapback]

And thats what I call soul in music :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sound creating part is quite similar to photoshop. Anyone can get cool sounds and short melodies out of a synth. Creating structure is another matter. Fitting all those cool sounds you made together to form a coherent track is a lot more difficult. Lemmi I seem to remember you trying to make music a while back, but gave up. Why was that, if it is that easy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"o offence Nemo but IMO that's a wrong aproach to creating meaningful music. For me, a true artist should have a vision of what he's going to create BEFORE even touching his gear. The gear should just be an "instrument","

 

Thats absurd, what about rock bands that come up with a killer song after 2 weeks of "jamming" ?

To me, screwing around with the computer without a defined idea of what your looking for is no different than someone jamming on a guitar, bass and drums.

Most musicians arent quite on the level of bach and mozart that can just transcribe entire pieces that they are hearing in their mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"o offence Nemo but IMO that's a wrong aproach to creating meaningful music. For me, a true artist should have a vision of what he's going to create BEFORE even touching his gear. The gear should just be an "instrument","

 

Thats absurd, what about rock bands that come up with a killer song after 2 weeks of "jamming" ?

To me, screwing around with the computer without a defined idea of what your looking for is no different than someone jamming on a guitar, bass and drums.

Most musicians arent quite on the level of bach and mozart  that can just transcribe entire pieces that they are hearing in their mind.

205312[/snapback]

Shit, Jammin was the word I was looking for before :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats absurd, what about rock bands that come up with a killer song after 2 weeks of "jamming" ?

To me, screwing around with the computer without a defined idea of what your looking for is no different than someone jamming on a guitar, bass and drums.

205312[/snapback]

What are you trying to say?playing the quitar and coming up with a "killer song" requires knowledge of music structure.And since rock music isnt that rich in sounds,yes they DO know how that killer song should sound before they start making it.They just have to find the right melodies and yes they already know how that melody should sound.Its just quitar,bass and drums.Everything is limited.

 

In electronic music you can have 300 different kicks,200 basses and 3000 sounds.

And you have to combine all this so that everything sounds as one.Anyway thats all just theory,imagine there are people that listen to skazi and they think they are listening to great music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what difference it makes how it's done per se, it's the result that matters. Of course, the reason why so much of "music" today sounds random probably is the fact that it is random, and thus crap. But if someone gets good results without having an idea behind it then I don't really care, I guess it's just less likely to get good results like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

magine there are people that listen to skazi and they think they are listening to great music.

205328[/snapback]

Imagine there are people who think that there is such a thing as The Great Music. Music is about taste. Of course people like to make up all sorts of explanations for their taste and so make it more absolute ("The artists had to work very hard on this"... "This track has so many layers"... "Really great synth farts!!! KILLAH!!"), but they have nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how much time or talent went into it. Do you like the final track or not? People who think that Skazi is great are just as right as someone who thinks he's shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And since rock music isnt that rich in sounds,yes they DO know how that killer song should sound before they start making it."

 

jamming is improvisation, making something up as you go along.

no different than someone sitting down in front of a sequencer, making a bunch of loops/sounds/noise, keeping some, tossing some, making the good stuff into a song.

same exact thing. If you think all rock bands pre compose everything in their head your insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK OK.

Making rock music is the same with making electronic music and there is no such thing as great music.

Imagine there are people who think that there is such a thing as The Great Music

ok classical music was not THE great music.

If you think all rock bands pre compose everything in their head your insane

yeah im insane and you are absolutely crazy.try to remember that you said

about rock bands that come up with a killer song

ok if there is a rock band that comes up with a killer song and do NOT know shit about it before starting,tell who they are.

People who think that Skazi is great are just as right as someone who thinks he's shit.

Do you REALLY believe that?!Cause i'd say that people who think that skazi is great dont even know what kind of music he performs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, a true artist should have a vision of what he's going to create BEFORE even touching his gear. The gear should just be an "instrument", an extension of his creativity (just like a car is the extension of the fast reflexes of a good racing driver). For example, I don't know it for a fact, but I think that a classical musical composer has a pretty good idea of how his work should sound before he hears a single note being played. THAT is true creativity IMO because then the artist can really put something that was in his brain (and which possibly got from another plane/ dimension?) into music. When you just fiddle and tweak knobs in your studio, even if the end result sounds good, it's just something random, it doesn't "transcend" anything...

Interresting, let me tell you how i (and probably many other producers) work. I've been working on a song for some days now.

 

I started with the bass, i had made a nice bass sound the day before that i wanted to try out. I didn't jam arround with it much since it uses layers from two dfferent synths which i cant play at the same time without programming it all in to my sequencer (becauce thats how my midi setup is). I made a bass pattern that i thought would fit the sound. I used the notes E and G and a small amount of swing for the groove. Then i listened to it and realised that it would sound better if i threw in a F# betwen E and G and while i was at it i also managed to clam an A in there before the whole thing loops.

 

It sounded good so i added some drums. Then i fiddled arround with the quantisation of the hihat and percussion. I could have just used the exact same swing as on the bass but i wanted to try some other quantisations and i found a slightly different swing that sounded better to me.

 

Since everything sounded nice and warm so far i decided to add some colder metallic sound from another synth, i thougt that it would make a nice contrast. I knew pretty much how i wanted it to sound and after some jamming it sounded pretty good.

 

Now i felt it was time to make some kind of melody, after listening to what i had made so far i had a simple melody in my mind. How did it get there?

 

Well most people that like minimal music i think will have experienced the phenomena that while listening to a track, even though it doesn't have any melodies you can sort of hear a melody in your head. Or maby it's just me correct me if im wrong here.

 

I programmed the melody and it sounded good so now i had the key elements of the track finnished. So i started arranging it and moving things aroud to make a rough layout of how the track would progress. The idea was that it would begin with the bass and drums and add stuff as it goes along to make you adjust to the grove and stuff and at the same time build up for the melody.

 

And thats pretty much how far i have gotten with this track, i have added some more sounds, mostly rythm stuff and such things. And now im working on a sound that im not really shure how it's gonna sound, i know the purpouse of it but i don't really know how to acomplish it. It's supposed to come when the melody part has kicked in and it's going to be on the first beat of every four beats, it's going to kind of draw you deeper and deeper into the music if you know what i mean. The sound that is in my had is a female woice saying something like: come closer... closer... Im not sure if it will be that or some totally different sound but i will find one thet works for me.

 

Then im going mix it and all that, i will put it up on sonicblend when it's finnished so you can hear the result.

 

Thats how i work, sometimes i have different starting points like a melody or something and sometimes i have lots of stuff in there but i can't remember that i ever had an entire song in my head. While im making a song i get more and more ideas and after a while i have kind of a story in my head, you know? Like the progression of the song and where it's going to take you but not exactly how it's going to sound.

 

It's not like im just fiddling arround, i come up with the stuff while working on it, i listen to different parts of my work and ideas pop into my head. That's how creativity works for me, i get inspired by stuff but i don't know exactly how it's going to turn out before it's finnished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you trying to say?playing the quitar and coming up with a "killer song" requires knowledge of music structure.And since rock music isnt that rich in sounds,yes they DO know how that killer song should sound before they start making it.They just have to find the right melodies and yes they already know how that melody should sound.Its just quitar,bass and drums.Everything is limited.

 

In electronic music you can have 300 different kicks,200 basses and 3000 sounds.

And you have to combine all this so that everything sounds as one.Anyway thats all just theory,imagine there are people that listen to skazi and they think they are listening to great music.

205328[/snapback]

Do you make music?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK OK.

Making rock music is the same with making electronic music and there is no such thing as great music.

 

ok classical music was not THE great music.

 

yeah im insane and you are absolutely crazy.try to remember that you said

ok if there is a rock band that comes up with a killer song and do NOT know shit about it before starting,tell who they are.

 

Do you REALLY believe that?!Cause i'd say that people who think that skazi is great dont even know what kind of music he performs.

205336[/snapback]

Who said anyone doesnt know jack shit? I dont think you even read my post before you posted your reply... I know SHIT about the gear that I own, and I play the bass and guitarr. I know the notes, and I know the chords. I know my effects and I know my vstefx/i's. I spend a lot of time teaching myself about new techniqes etc etc.

 

If I have a vision of an entire song or not before I go into the studio, is totally irrellevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interresting, let me tell you how i (and probably many other producers) work. I've been working on a song for some days now.

 

I started with the bass, i had made a nice bass sound the day before that i wanted to try out. I didn't jam arround with it much since it uses layers from two dfferent synths which i cant play at the same time without programming it all in to my sequencer (becauce thats how my midi setup is). I made a bass pattern that i thought would fit the sound. I used the notes E and G and a small amount of swing for the groove. Then i listened to it and realised that it would sound better if i threw in a F# betwen E and G and while i was at it i also managed to clam an A in there before the whole thing loops.

 

It sounded good so i added some drums. Then i fiddled arround with the quantisation of the hihat and percussion. I could have just used the exact same swing as on the bass but i wanted to try some other quantisations and i found a slightly different swing that sounded better to me.

 

Since everything sounded nice and warm so far i decided to add some colder metallic sound from another synth, i thougt that it would make a nice contrast. I knew pretty much how i wanted it to sound and after some jamming it sounded pretty good.

 

Now i felt it was time to make some kind of melody, after listening to what i had made so far i had a simple melody in my mind. How did it get there?

 

Well most people that like minimal music i think will have experienced the phenomena that while listening to a track, even though it doesn't have any melodies you can sort of hear a melody in your head. Or maby it's just me correct me if im wrong here.

 

I programmed the melody and it sounded good so now i had the key elements of the track finnished. So i started arranging it and moving things aroud to make a rough layout of how the track would progress. The idea was that it would begin with the bass and drums and add stuff as it goes along to make you adjust to the grove and stuff and at the same time build up for the melody.

 

And thats pretty much how far i have gotten with this track, i have added some more sounds, mostly rythm stuff and such things. And now im working on a sound that im not really shure how it's gonna sound, i know the purpouse of it but i don't really know how to acomplish it. It's supposed to come when the melody part has kicked in and it's going to be on the first beat of every four beats, it's going to kind of draw you deeper and deeper into the music if you know what i mean. The sound that is in my had is a female woice saying something like: come closer... closer... Im not sure if it will be that or some totally different sound but i will find one thet works for me.

 

Then im going mix it and all that, i will put it up on sonicblend when it's finnished so you can hear the result.

 

Thats how i work, sometimes i have different starting points like a melody or something and sometimes i have lots of stuff in there but i can't remember that i ever had an entire song in my head. While im making a song i get more and more ideas and after a while i have kind of a story in my head, you know? Like the progression of the song and where it's going to take you but not exactly how it's going to sound.

 

It's not like im just fiddling arround, i come up with the stuff while working on it, i listen to different parts of my work and ideas pop into my head. That's how creativity works for me, i get inspired by stuff but i don't know exactly how it's going to turn out before it's finnished.

205343[/snapback]

Very well put, and I think that 99% of the artists work like that. Atleast in electronica. I know that Dr Alex Paterson works like this (Though, mostly someone does it for him). I know that the prodigy work like this. I know that Glenn Wilson works like this. I know that Portishead or Orbital are working like this.

 

(Future music is a great resource to know all these things ;)). And if it wassnt for randomization, we wouldnt have great music from artists like Hardfloor, SolarQuest, AcidJunkies, Oliver Lieb, Resitance D, Aphex Twin, Boards of Canada.... hey, I can go on forever!

 

I Have never been in a studio where it works diffrently. I have worked with many artists, been in many studios, and they all work the same. It differs a little bit from artist to artist, but the principles are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemmi I seem to remember you trying to make music a while back, but gave up. Why was that, if it is that easy?

well it's not that is was easy or not, it was a question of knowing my gear +having the $ to invest in good gear. Here is my history with music making: I dloaded a demo version of Reaktor (back in those days, Reaktor was advertised everywhere as "the next best thing" and it was said that it could perfectly replicate any "hardware synth"... I later realized that it was a bunch of BS but that's another story ;-) ). So indeed, much like my experience with Photoshop, I took some software pre-set "hardware synth" immitations I've already heard loads about (101, Juno, 303,...) and started fiddling around. In about half a day I came up with some interesting detroit minimal techno and an interesting electro sample. But to go further than a 15 second-loop I needed Logic Audio or Cubase or somthing which I didn't have. In the end I just dropped my project all together, simply because I didn't have enough time and money to spend on gear. Indeed, it's hard to learn your plug-ins and know exactly what they do but IMO one could do that in about a year or 2. Now, the part which I found hard: even if by random fiddling I managed to make some interesting loops (I'm not pretending to be some sort of genius here, far from it), the hard part was having something in my mind and managing to get it to sound exactly that way when playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it's not that is was easy or not, it was a question of knowing my gear +having the $ to invest in good gear. Here is my history with music making: I dloaded a demo version of Reaktor (back in those days, Reaktor was advertised everywhere as "the next best thing" and it was said that it could perfectly replicate any "hardware synth"... I later realized that it was a bunch of BS but that's another story ;-) ). So indeed, much like my experience with Photoshop, I took some software pre-set "hardware synth" immitations I've already heard loads about (101, Juno, 303,...) and started fiddling around. In about half a day I came up with some interesting detroit minimal techno and an interesting electro sample. But to go further than a 15 second-loop I needed Logic Audio or Cubase or somthing which I didn't have. In the end I just dropped my project all together, simply because I didn't have enough time and money to spend on gear. Indeed, it's hard to learn your plug-ins and know exactly what they do but IMO one could do that in about a year or 2. Now, the part which I found hard: even if by random fiddling I managed to make some interesting loops (I'm not pretending to be some sort of genius here, far from it), the hard part was having something in my mind and managing to get it to sound exactly that way when playing.

205377[/snapback]

Once that bassline and bassdrum is made for me, I can hear the lead and rest of the beats in my head. hehe :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...