The art of making long, linear songs

/in , /by

I’ve always said that long songs are in a way, a genre in themselves. If you think of an artist like Brian Eno with his long meditative songs, or Villalobos with his spaced-out explorations, they all have a way in to people’s hearts who understand the sort of exercise involved in long songs. Since I’m a big fan of long-lasting songs and can’t never get enough of them, I thought I’d write about how I view creating them, and then share a few tips about how to make efficient but meaningful longer tracks.

Why make long songs?

There are as many reasons for making longer tracks as there are people who make them, but I think the main two reasons are:

Immersion: Longer tracks immerse you in a mood and moment, and will sink you into a world that overcomes you.

DJ tools: Some artists who DJ love long tracks because they can layer them to create new ideas. Having a long track lets you focus on carving the two (or more) tracks playing, in order to have content to play with.

Long, linear music in-itself isn’t meant to be listened to with your full attention, but more as something you let take your body over.

Eno’s Reflection is a masterpiece of ambient music.

Brian Eno explained long songs quite well, saying “[they] shouldn’t be enough to have your full attention nor be boring enough to be forgotten.” In generative music, this means you can include musical ideas, but they shouldn’t be overpowering either.

For North Americans, long songs and extended sets are often misunderstood as bars and clubs close early, and immediate satisfaction is what DJs tend to go for. Sets should be exciting and deliver a response within 5-6 minutes, and therefore music that lets things go on for a while isn’t always fitting the needs of these types of DJs. In Europe for instance, clubs are often open until 6:00am or later, which means the crowd is very patient and understands that tension building is part of the pleasure of listening to a DJ play. Long sets are favoured by many Romanian DJs, who prefer using long, linear music as a way to focus on a mood, rather than an immediate reaction or excitement. The thrill is to see where things will lead to, more so than enjoying “a drop”.

The reason I mention a drop is because resisting the temptation to make one in longer tracks is important, but also because you have to trust the DJ who will use your longer track. Plus, if you intend to make something long, it’s nearly impossible to have exciting things happening for 20-minutes. This is also why long tracks are often hard to swallow for the average listener, as they often seem too “noodly” and pointless, since it can sometimes feel like there’s a lack of direction or a goal in the song.

The main goal of long tracks in sets is to play a supportive role. In a movie, a good secondary character is essential in making the main character seem stronger. Overdoing it or taking up too much space isn’t helpful, and likewise an overly pale or weak supporter is equally useless. Some actors become very solid in secondary roles and are just as in demand as the main characters (yet, that is often overlooked by the general public).

This is why long tracks don’t necessarily need to be interesting, but perhaps, more technical while carrying a strong motif—but the theme should be clear, useful, catchy, and timeless. I’ve played live many times in my life—I’ve always approached gigs with improvisation as my focus. I don’t believe in totally planned sets, as I may have to deal with certain sounds not coming out as planned. In the past, at many shows I’ve ended up carving a groove that fit exactly what the crowd needed, and stretched it over 10 minutes. People wouldn’t get bored because it was what was needed at that time.

One philosophy of long tracks is to provide the DJ with material strong enough to fit into his or her set. You create, then you trust it will be used properly.

Approaching long tracks this way is different than making a track for let’s say, vinyl, which is usually between 5-to-10-minutes long. Using shorter tracks as a model, we can revise the architecture of those tracks and translate them to longer works. Below are some approaches I find to be useful in creating long songs.

One main idea, supported by two secondary ideas.

This approach is the key to having something solid while keeping it simple. What usually ages well is music that is simple, compared to more complicated works. If you know my music, this might seem like a contradiction to my own work as mine is complex, but that’s another topic. I’m talking about music I personally still love, 20 years later.

For example: One main idea could be a melody, supported by a vocal and a trippy and catchy percussion sequence.

Divide the song into 3 sections.

Intro, core, and outro are usually enough to make a song structure. The intro and outro should be easy for a DJ to mix, for bonus points.

Have one new element per section to motivate the listener to keep listening.

This can be an effect, a sound that evolves, a change of tone, a raise of tension, etc. If the listener feels there’s no reason to continue listening, he/she might stop altogether.

Insert an Easter egg.

The idea that you can have one element in a song that happens just once is a bit surprising—it might not be heard on the first listen but makes the listener want to start the song all over to hear it again. The Easter egg is not part of sub-ideas and is not part of the element per section I described above; it’s something on its own.

The first minute dictates the language and pattern of the track that will then repeat.

If you use a pause every four bars, keep that logic until the end (unless you want to be a trickster and play with anticipation).

Structural organization based on part of 32 beats is welcome.

When it comes to long tracks, the logic is slightly similar on certain points as it is to shorter tracks. There’s no written laws but certain tricks make a difference.

Sections are ideally over 4-5 minutes.

Keep in mind that this is a bit of a long shot, but if you structure your music by periods of 4-5 minutes, you’ll create the impression that your song evolves and moves, and that it actually has something worth paying attention to.

The first five minutes dictate the logic of how your song will progress.

In a shorter track, your initial outline of the track might be based on a 1-minute idea, but in a longer track it could be a 5-minute idea. Long tracks benefit from solid structural organization as they are made to be layered.

Try to keep in mind that long sections are pretty much like a 32-beat section.

You can create an A/B pattern where two sections alternate.

Don’t have more than two main ideas and a maximum of four sub-ideas.

Over-crowding your song will be counter-productive if your goal is to make a track that’s meant to have a supportive role.

Experiment. Break rules. Throw an oddball in there.

Long tracks are meant to create space for experimenting, something an artist might not do in a shorter track. For instance, I like progressions over 3 minutes long; sounds that creep in so slowly that you have no idea where they came from or for how long they’ve been playing. One trick I learned from Villalobos is to have a very oddball breakdown, or complete change-over right in the middle of the song. He can do a complete break at 11 minutes for a good 2 minutes where you have no idea what’s happening. He does this mainly because that very moment will be layered over something else he’s playing, and he’ll always find a way to make it work.

Don’t worry about repeating an idea over and over.

Long tracks can be repetitive; they’re not made to be listened to as-is anyway, for the most part.

Years ago I created three songs that were over 20 minutes long—it was an experiment from which I learned a lot. To my great surprise, it was used by many DJs in Berlin back then. Some people would drop the long tracks to be able to go pee in the middle of a marathon set, while others used them to layer and create something special. Now that you’ve read about my own approach to creating long songs, you can listen to how I used the ideas I’ve just described in the track below:

SEE ALSO : Creating a music sketch

How to balance a mix

/in , , /by

In general, I find that there are certain common elements found in mixes I’m sent, and I’d like to share my thoughts on how to balance a mix. If you google “mixdown tips”, you’ll see that mixdowns have been covered in a lot of detail online, but most articles on the topic are geared towards rock music. Since I am dealing with electronic music and DAWs like Ableton, I thought adding my own perspective to help correct and polish different types of mixdowns might be beneficial.

Let’s run through a basic mixing exercise together. To do this, you’ll need an FFT—like SPAN by Voxengo—to analyze the overall frequencies in your mix. The more time you spend checking a frequency analyzer as you work on your mix, the more likely your mix will come out balanced and have fewer mistakes.

Why does a balanced mix matter?

Balanced mixes are important because you don’t really know how clubs’ PAs are EQed until you play on them. If a club has too much low end in its system, then a bass-heavy mix will sound incredibly messy. Yes, a DJ can tweak the mix , but it will never sound the same as if he/she started with a track with a nicely balanced mix.

When people send me music to be mastered, they often forget to double check the frequency analysis of their mix, and sometimes it’s just not balanced.

A balanced mix (or flat, if you prefer) usually has a full range of frequencies more or less hitting 0dB on an FFT reader. You can go -/+3dB around it, but keeping it around 0 is the best. For electronic music, it’s pretty normal to have the low end sticking out by about +3dB though.

Now, the classic mixdown curves I see most are fairly common—they have something appealing about them, but also create downsides with risks.

“But I check masters, and they’re often not flat,” you say.

Well yes, that can happen, but the mastering engineer’s job is also to remove unwanted resonances before boosting. It’s always better to have something balanced that won’t need a lot of cutting before the engineer can make the critical decision(s) of boosting a range of frequencies.

That said, let’s examine some common mixdown curves I see that aren’t really balanced, according to how they look in a frequency analyzer.

How to balance a mix according to different types of mix curves

The Smiley Curve

Look at that smiley, similar to a shark I believe.

This shape is well-known, and sometimes you’ll see EQ presets with this name—it means the lows and highs are boosted, hence the curve looking a bit like a smile.

The good: First impressions with this curve is that it’s instantly gratifying. Exciting feel, bright and shiny highs, and low end power—pretty much what humans love in music; foundation and excitement.

The bad: A lack of mid-range frequencies can mean that on a large system it feels hollow, confusing, lacks body, presence, and emphasizes hi hats and kicks over everything else, making the main theme of the song hard to discern. Harsh, boosted highs are also quite tiring on the ear and produce listening fatigue.

The fix: If you look at the FFT and your mix is smiley, there are a few ways to fix it. The first, is to manually readjust the elements who have the hot frequencies and turn them down. Highs are mostly likely high-frequency percussion, such as hats, but could be transients or the very upper part of synths and atmospheric elements. If you can spot which sound(s) have that range exaggerated, filter it with a low pass curve of 6dB/octave. Another way to fix this curve is to put a 3 band EQ on the master and lower the lows and highs, then boost the master for the loudness lost. The mids will magically appear and might feel overwhelming at first, but that’s simply because the human ear is sensitive to mids—more mids mean more presence and power, plus clarity on most systems.

The bright mix

  • Bright mixes destroy my ears

A bright mix is dominated by an accentuation of the highs. Many of my clients frequently mix this way because it’s exciting and electric, but bright mixes also very harsh on certain systems and as previously mentioned, they’re very tiring on the ears.

The good: Excitement, air and powerful transients.

The bad: Bright mixes will sound rough at high volume level and I swear that in 50% of the time it will be played in a club, the DJ will have to turn down the high-EQ. If the system isn’t great quality, bright mixes can also create distortion.

The fix: Use a shelving EQ and turn down those highs. Look at your curve and see where the steep part starts (sometimes at 5khz, sometimes at 8khz), then just lower it down by 3-5dB until the FFT becomes a bit more flat.

Note: If you feel like you really need it bright, try to keep it under +3dB.

The bass-heavy mix

Bassy mixes are ski slopes.

Bass-heavy mixes are very common in electronic music because of the lows needed to make people dance. It sometimes becomes a huge issue for me where clients really want their kicks to punch through, but a kick will sound powerful if it exists on a full-range frequency scale (also in the mids, and high mids).

The good: Bass-heavy mixes will be powerful and can blow away the crowd.

The bad: After a few minutes of pounding lows, if you can hear anything else, it feels very dull. Bassy mixes will sound muddy, messy, blurry, and insignificant. For instance, on a Sonos (like the one I own), all you’d hear would be a thump, thump, thump…annoying, not nice sounding.

The fix: Just like the bright mix, add a shelving EQ but work with the lows. I’d encourage you to revise your kick-design process if they sound too bass-heavy, and also get to familiarize yourself with how your favourite home sound system is calibrated.

The peaky mix

Look at this peaky curves! So sexy… not…

A “peaky” mix is my own term—it’s when I look at a mix and the curve has these big frequencies sticking out, while everything else is low (hence “peaks”).

The good: If done well, emphasizing certain peaks can be a good way to create dynamics in a song in terms of volume differences between your sounds. In some cases, it can create a sense of depth, but in doing so you demand a very active listening experience from the listener to be able to achieve this effect. This technique common in jazz, for instance.

The bad: Done wrong, a peaky mix just feels like there’s no power to it and the song will feel thin and some sounds will feel resonant.

The fix: Revise your mix entirely. Pull down the gain on the peaking sounds, then turn up the gain on the master to create something more even. Fixing peaks demands patience and practice.

The Gruyere mix

A rare specimen that is a mix between Gruyere and peaky, wearing red glasses.

A Gruyere mix is one with hole(s)—on a big sound system, they can feel partly empty, or just wrong. Basically, the feeling of holes in a mix is a sign that it could tweaked to cover the missing areas.

The good: Truth be told, you can always live with a mix with holes. You won’t really face any serious issues, but your sound might feel flat.

The bad: Let’s say you could cover more mids with your percussion to cover a hole—then perhaps your percussion would feel more powerful. If your pads are lacking body at around 200hz, they will lack power. These holes are simply pointing out that some sounds could use a bit of tweaking.

The fix: Revise your mix. Try to see if you can boost weak parts of certain sounds. On the master, use a high quality EQ and gently boost the holes up, as that can make a difference.

The thin mix

A thin mix is one that, on the spectrum, looks good, but somehow doesn’t seem to drive at all.

The good: It’s gentle. Maybe you like it that way on purpose?

The bad: No power, no loudness, dull.

The fix: Add a compressor in parallel mode (50% wet) on the Master bus to give the mix a bit of thickness.

The punch-less mix

Punch-less means a mix just doesn’t punch, slap, or kick as it should.

The good: Non-punching mixes could be good if your music on the ambient side of things.

The bad: For dance music, you need at least some elements with punch, like the kick and/or clap.

The fix: Use transient shapers and/or compression with a slow attack and high ratio to turn your lifeless elements into something with attitude.

All these fixes need practice before you come out with a nicely balanced mix—I hope this has been useful advice on how to balance a mix!

SEE ALSO : The benefits and risks of using a reference track when mixing

Mixing projects with many tracks or sounds

/in , , , /by

If you are familiar with my music, you know I love things complex and busy. Many people in our online community share songs they are currently working on that have a lot of content in them, so I thought it would be practical for me to share what I’ve learned about mixing too many tracks at once.

The pros and cons of using a large number of different sounds in a song

Pros

  • The song becomes exciting to listen to.
  • For listeners, there’s always something new to discover on each listen—this is good for replay value.
  • A song can develop complex call-and-response story-lines. After multiple listens, a listener might notice that certain sounds are “talking” to one another.
  • A song becomes very colorful—covering many frequencies of the spectrum in a single track can feel like a rainbow to the ears.
  • Movement—using multiple sounds can be a cool way to create the impression that many things are moving at once.
  • Stereo effects—if you like action and panning, playing with the panning of many sounds can be fun.

Cons

  • The song can feel overwhelming. Work by someone who is not familiar with producing with many sounds can feel irritating and hard to connect with if the brain of the listener doesn’t know what to focus on.
  • Complex tracks are harder to DJ. If there’s a lot going on in a track, it can be hard for a DJ to find other appropriate songs to mix it with.
  • Complex songs can feel confusing. If a sound isn’t well mixed, it can be confusing on certain sound systems.
  • Phasing issues—if you’re not careful, some sounds can technically disappear in mono, and on some sound systems, this effect can be weird.
  • The timelessness of the piece suffers—if you’re overdoing it, it might be difficult for people to get emotionally attached to the track and it will not age well.
  • Losing the hook in the mix—it’s super important to have your hook be very clearly discernible in a jungle of sounds.

Despite these cons, it can be quite fun to use a lot of sounds in your work; most of the risks come from technical challenges in mixing too many tracks or sounds at once.

Sometimes people crowd a track with tons of different sounds because they’ve spent too much time on it and they’re afraid people will get bored.

Mixing multiple sounds requires the producer to approach the mixing process in a few different phases. Let’s say you’re happy with the arrangements in the track—you can then move on to the next step(s).

Should you mix while working on your arrangements simultaneously?

Yes and no. When I’m arranging, I make sure the levels are OK but I won’t deploy an armada of plugins to polish the mix yet because it drains CPU and also because some unfinished arrangement details might completely change the mix itself; I would have to re-polish afterwards.

One of the first things I do when I get to mixing is to question if all of the sounds I’ve included in the project are essential to the narrative of the song or not. You can start by listening to the song and perhaps cross-checking with a reference.

How does one know if a sound is essential? Try removing it. Sometimes, having fewer sounds in a mix can be beneficial to other sounds so they can be heard properly. If you are in love with certain sounds, you can save them for the next track you’re working on if you don’t think they work in your current mix.

Establishing a hook

What’s your hook? Is it the bass? Or is it a 2-bar melodic sequence? Are the rest of your sounds either decorative, percussive, or supporting your hook? What’s the purpose of those additional sounds? People will remember the hook when listening to your song—the other sounds can be described as “decorative”. While some producers are really against using too many decorative sounds in a song, there are no rules to making the music you like and I encourage you to say to anyone telling you “you’re doing it wrong” to just mind their own business. If you like lots of sounds like I do, that’s all that matters, really.

In the late 90s, there was a huge interest in minimalist techno. One of the approaches that artists like Hawtin were obsessed with back then was trying to use as few sounds as possible in a track and still getting their message across. [Hawtin] would come up with an idea and surround it with only the bare-minimum; his idea was that a track was a part of a bigger picture that included assembling it with other tracks.

Mixing with groups

Mixing with groups can be done in many different ways, but to use groups effectively it’s essential that you have a good understanding of the nature of each sound in your project. For instance, I usually have a big group named “Percussion” which will have its own sub-groups. The sub-groups can be different themes on that main group:

  • Same “family”. All “metal” samples could be grouped together, wooded ones, synth, tonal, atonal, etc. Having a group for each family of sounds is excellent for EQing similar resonances these sounds might all have.
  • Same length. All short samples could be grouped together, all long ones, etc. This is useful if you want to use compression and control the groove.
  • By stereo position. All sounds in mono could be grouped together, sides on another. All high, forefront, or far-back sounds could be assigned to different groups. Grouping by position is useful for controlling a portion of the stereo field’s positioning and volume all at once.
  • Other sub-group types. You can come up with your own sub-groups based on what seems the best for your particular track. The idea of a group and sub-group is to control something common to all its members.

Leveling many sounds

Attaining proper volumes for each sound is critical for a mix with a lot going on. If you’re using Ableton, I suggest you switch to the session view to be able to see the meter of each channel. Just by eye, try to start by making sure that they’re all roughly even. After they’re even, lower some 20% lower, others 50%, and some very, very low. Which sounds you lower will depend on what sounds you want to be “decorative” and what sounds you think are a part of your main hook. One of the most common mistakes I hear in complex mixes with many tracks is that the producer is concerned that all of the sounds won’t be heard, so they’re all turned up too loud. The thing is, if you use a lot of sounds, it’s better to have some that are way lower in the mix, and just like in percussion—we call them ghost notes.

Creating unity in a busy mix

How can you make sure all your sounds feel like they’re a part of the same song? Sometimes when you use a lot of tracks and sounds, some might sound lost or it might feel as if two different songs are playing at once.

Grouping

Unity is something that groups can really help with. If your mix doesn’t feel like one song, the first fix you can try is to apply reverb to each of your groups. You can either use a AUX/Send bus, or apply different reverb per-group. I usually keep it at a low 10% wet only, but you can exaggerate too. Similarly, if you EQ a group, you modify the signal of each sound, and this usually helps blend all the sounds from the group together. I put an EQ on a group by default and then will do at least one cut where there’s a general resonance. Compression works magic on groups too—especially a vari-mu type of compression with a pretty aggressive setting; this will feel like adding butter to the whole thing.

Gating

There are multiple ways to use gating, but I like the simple gate from Ableton that has an envelope and an incoming side-chain. If you gate an entire group to one of the main percussion elements of your song—such as the regular clap for instance—it can provide a lot of room to other sounds and have them not be in conflict.

Side-chaining

Like I said, compression is great to bring all the sounds together and a bit of subtle side-chain is also really practical. I like to side-chain some decorative percussion to the main hats, so I make sure they peak through. The best option here is to use Trackspacer as side-chain because it will only use frequency of the incoming signal instead of the amplitude. So for instance, if you use it to side-chain hi-hats from a clap, only the conflicting frequencies of the clap will be removed from the hats.

Modulation

One of the riskiest things a producer can do when mixing many tracks or sounds is the use of stereo modulation such as auto-pan, chorus, phasing, or flanger. These effects make sounds move, and if multiple sounds are moving at once, then you’re going to face phasing issues. I always use these modulation effects on specific sounds in each song, but the sounds that are modulated are treated as “main” sounds. This means you have to give them a lot of room in the mix otherwise they’ll get lost.

Finalizing the mix

Finishing a busy mix is where most people get confused and many fail. The main percussion and other main elements of your song should be mixed first as-is. Then, all elements that are decorative should be mixed in, as a second layer like a “cloud” that completes it all—you’re bringing the main sounds and decorative sounds together. Usually, in the end—thanks to Live 10’s multiple groups feature—I end up having only two faders to mix with. You’ll need to compress them both with a gain reduction of about -3dB to create the impression they merge well together.

But before you get to your final mix, it’s important to get all your sounds right, group them, and control them all first. The final blending of these two major layers at the e nd will be pretty easy if you can get your levels together.

SEE ALSO : Creating organic sounding music with mixing

How to maintain consistency in the quality of your productions

/in , , , /by

The most consistent musicians have reached a comfortable flow and they finish tracks that they’re satisfied with fairly quickly. But how do they ensure that each of their tracks are maintaining the same level of quality as their first well-received works, as they complete more and more of them?

Making a lot of songs/tracks and actually finishing them is, to me, one of the most essential purposes of making music. Stalling on a particular idea or song builds up doubts, and eventually you’ll grow to hate it. If you finish up a track quickly—as opposed to more slowly—you capture an idea you liked at a precise moment in time and make the most out of it, then move on to the next idea.

FACT: you will always learn something new when you finish a song that you can apply to the next one.

The faster you become at completing tracks, the more you become articulate in your self-expression; if you dig a really good idea, you’ll know what to do pretty quickly to make the best out of it.

Many well-known and consistent artists make multiple songs (yes, songs!) in one day. Marc Houle, Ricardo Villalobos, and Prince to name a few, have expressed that they like to sit, jam, record, edit a bit, and then move on. Ricardo’s long songs are actually long sessions that haven’t been edited. “It’s more important to simply record something each time you hit the studio rather than make a perfect song“, I’ve heard him say.

How do you maintain consistency in your work when you’re creating a ton of tracks?

My personal mentality that I like to have is to not get too attached to the music I make, nor about its potential or future. With this mentality in mind, you can embrace imperfection, have more relaxed sessions, and have more fun. But yes, there are also some technical points you can keep in mind to avoid letting your work slowly degrade in terms of quality while trying to maintain a regular quantity of completing tracks:

  • Stay away from trends or gimmicks. Trends can be hard to spot when they’re first evolving, but usually there are signs. When many people use the same samples over and over, which can often define a style, you know that’s a road probably too often taken—in going there yourself, you might get lost in the sea of similar sounding songs. To me, production trends are about some samples, effects, and arrangements that become a norm. I’ll always remember a long time ago when I was into hard techno, I was at the record store listening to a pile of 30 records and every record had the exact same structure to the point where you could predict when the kick muted, the hats came in, and so on. Sounding like existing trends is not a good way to stand out as a memorable, original musician; timeless music is often “odd” when it’s first released, but something catchy about it makes it work.
  • Use scales. You don’t always have to be using an established scale when writing, but it will help your music age a bit better. Off-scale or highly dissonant music not only sounds a bit weird or off-putting to the average listener, but by working with established tonal scales people can reference your music decades later. When I think of high-quality music, the musicality in terms of scales is always top notch. If it’s purely experimental and still high-quality, it’s usually based on a concept that makes it relevant.
  • Cross validate with references. I can never stress this enough—your references, loaded in a playlist alongside your music, should feel right.
  • Have a friend as quality filter. A reliable friend is one that will tell you when things aren’t working. I personally like to have 5 people to send my music to in order to get reliable feedback. Sometimes I feel more excited sending them my music than submitting it to a label. You should have 5 responsive people that want to listen to your stuff; proper feedback is a great feeling when done right.
  • Keep your renderings/bounces at -6dB, 24bits. This is in case you want to release them in the future, but also because music with headroom is universally more well-received. Back when the trend was to have very loud mixes, your music was irrecoverable later on if you lost the original mix. Loudness has also aged terribly since this trend went out-of-style.
  • Use quality samples and quality tools. What makes a great mix is the use of great samples. Working with a harsh sample means you have to use more effort to make it sound better, but the end results could still bad, or even worse.
  • Simplicity ages best. Humans tend to remember simpler ideas. Complex intentions and complicated, draining music isn’t always the best in the long-run. I’m not saying “don’t do it” if you’re into it, but maybe to tone things down a bit if you’re interested in the longevity of your work. I’m in love with this quote by Da Vinci: “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
  • Make sure your mixing is high-quality, and use quality effects. If you can make sure your song is properly mixed, it will certainly age much more gracefully. Otherwise, you might regret some decisions you made in your mix as it ages. Cheap effects and presets don’t age very well because others might also use them heavily. Further down the road, your originality might feel lacking as a result, and plus nothing ages worse than a gimmicky sounding effect (ex. think of cheesy effects used on audio in the 80s.)

The effects of your work habits on maintaining consistent quality in your work

There are things you can do to make sure all your tracks end up with a level of quality you are happy with and will continue to be happy with as they age. I believe that working on multiple tracks at once is a great way to maintain perspective on your quality levels. Personally, I also like to export half-completed tracks and listen to them later, or import them into the next track I’m working on to give myself better perspective(s). Sometimes, I encourage clients to bring in all the tracks they’ve made in the last few months so we can toggle between them easily and make comparisons—this task might reveal a lot to you regarding the patterns and trends you use the most.

Using Modular Can Change the Way You View Music Production

/in , , /by

Are “sound design” and “sequencing” mutually exclusive concepts? Do you always do one before you do the other? What about composition—how does that fit in? Are all of these concepts fixed, or do they bend and flex and bleed into one another?

The answers to these questions might depend on the specific workflows, techniques, and equipment you use.

Take, for example, an arpeggiator in a synth patch. There are two layers of sequencing to produce an arpeggio: the first layer is a sustained chord, the second layer is the arpeggiator. Make the arpeggiator run extremely fast, in terms of audio rate, and we no longer have an audible sequence made up of a number of discrete notes, but a complex waveform with a single fundamental. Just like that, sequencing has become sound design.

These two practices—sequencing and sound design—are more ambiguous than they seem.

Perhaps we only see them as distinct from each other because of the workflows that we’re funneled towards by the technologies we use. Most of the machines and software we use to make electronic music reflect the designer’s expectations about how we work: sound design is what we are doing when we fill up the banks of patch slots on our synths; sequencing is what we do when we fill up the banks of pattern slots on our sequencers.

The ubiquity of MIDI also promotes the view of sequencing as an activity that has no connection to sound design. Because MIDI cannot be heard directly, and only deals with pitch, note length, and velocity, we tend to think that that’s all sequencing is. But in a CV and Gate environment, sequencers can do more than sequence notes—they can sequence any number of events, from filter cutoff adjustments to clock speed or the parameters of other sequencers.

Modular can change the way you see organized sound

Spend some time exploring a modular synthesizer and these sharply distinct concepts quickly start to break down and blur together.

Most people don’t appreciate how fundamentally, conceptually different CV and gate is to MIDI. MIDI is a language, which has been designed to according to certain preconceptions (the tempered scale being the most obvious one). CV and gate, on the other hand, are the same stuff that audio is made of…voltage, acting directly upon circuits with no layer of interpretation in between. Thus, a square wave is not only an LFO when slowed down, or a tone when sped up, but it is also a gate.

What that square wave is depends entirely on how you are using it.

You can say the same thing about most modules. They are what you use them for.

Maths from MakeNoise. It’s a modulator. No, it’s a sound source. No, it’s a modulator.

To go back to our original example: a sequencer can be clocked at a rate that produces a distinct note, and that clock’s speed can itself be modulated by an LFO, so the voice that the sequencer is triggering goes from a discrete note sequence, to a complex waveform tone, and back again. The sound itself goes from sequence to sound effect and back to sequence…

Do you find this way of looking at music-making productive and enjoyable, or do you prefer to stick to your well-trodden workflows? Does abandoning the sound design – sequencing – composition paradigm sound like a refreshing, freeing change to you? Or does it sound like a recipe for never finishing another track ever?

SEE ALSO : “How do I get started with modular?”