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?”

Bundle module options

/by

a:11:{s:8:”location”;a:1:{i:0;a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:5:”param”;s:13:”page_template”;s:8:”operator”;s:2:”==”;s:5:”value”;s:18:”template-order.php”;}}}s:8:”position”;s:6:”normal”;s:5:”style”;s:7:”default”;s:15:”label_placement”;s:3:”top”;s:21:”instruction_placement”;s:5:”label”;s:14:”hide_on_screen”;s:0:””;s:11:”description”;s:0:””;s:12:”show_in_rest”;b:0;s:8:”modified”;i:1564678084;s:5:”local”;s:4:”json”;s:22:”acfml_field_group_mode”;s:8:”advanced”;}

Are Music Schools Worth The Investment?

/in , , , /by

Whether or not music schools are worth the money might spur a heated debate—schools worldwide might not like what I’m about to say, but I think that this topic needs to be addressed. What’s outlined in this post is based on my personal experience(s); I invite anyone who want to discuss this topic further, to contact me if necessary.

Music schools: an overview

Many people over the last few years have been asking me about my opinion regarding enrolling in music production schools. There are many production and engineering schools in the world, and a lot of them ask for a lot of money to attend. In Montreal, we have Musitechnic (where I have previously taught mastering and production) and Recording Arts. Most major cities around the world have at least one engineering school and if not, people can still study electro-acoustics at Universities. University takes at least 3 years to get a degree; most private schools will condense the material over 1 year. During that time, the physics of sound will be studied, mixing, music production in DAWs, recording, and sometimes mastering. While each of these subject usually take years to really master, the introduction to each can be very useful as you’ll learn the terms and logic of how these tasks work and what they are for.

If the teachers are good at explaining their topic(s) and have a solid background, there’s nothing quite like being in the presence of someone with a great deal of experience, not only for the valuable information they provide, but also, the interpersonal context. Having a good teacher will pay off if you ask questions and are curious. While I don’t teach at Musitechnic anymore, some of my past students are still in contact with me and ask me questions—I even hired some for internships. I’ve often been told by many students that they remembered more from hearing about their teacher’s experience(s) than the class content or material.

One issue with audio teachers I hear about a lot is that many times, teachers might be stuck in a specific era or on a precise genre, which might be difficult for a student to relate to; there might be a culture clash or a generation gap between themselves and the teacher.

For instance, if a school has teachers who are from the rock scene, many people who are interested in electronic music or hip hop will have a really hard time connecting with them. Similarly, sometimes the teachers who make electronic music can even be from a totally different sphere as well, and mentalities and approaches can clash.

The advantages of attending a school or program

There are, however, many beneficial outcomes from attending a music school:

  • you’ll get a solid foundation of the understanding of audio engineering, and get validation from experts.
  • you’ll end up getting a certificate that is recognized in the industry.
  • you’ll have access to resources, equipment and experienced teachers that you might not otherwise find.

The main issue I have with some music schools is how they sell “the dream”, in most cases. The reality of the music industry is really harsh. For instance, a school might tell students that when they graduate, they can open a studio or work for one. While after graduating you might have some skills and experience that you didn’t have before, nothing guarantees that people will come to you to have their music mixed. That said, getting your first client(s) will eventually bring in other clients and opportunities.

“What’s the best way to get a full time job in the music industry or to become an engineer?” I’m often asked, and I’m very careful about how I answer this question. I described my thoughts on finding full-time work in the music industry in a previous post, but I’ll share some points about this topic again here and how it relates to music schools:

  • Whatever anyone tells you or teaches you, even if you applied what they say to the finest level of detail, it’s likely that things still won’t work out the way you envision them. I know this sounds pessimistic, but the reality is that no path will provide the same results for anyone else in the music/audio world.
  • The industry is constantly changing and schools aren’t always following fast enough. If you want to make things work, you need to make sure that you can teach yourself new skills, and fast—being self-sufficient is critical to “make it” out there.
  • Doing things and learning alone is as difficult as going to school, but will be less expensive. The thing a school will provide is a foundation of knowledge that is—without question—valuable. For instance, the physics of sound won’t change in the future (unless one day we have some revolutionary finding that contradict the current model; this is not going to come in anytime soon).
  • Clients don’t always care where you’re from or what your background is, as long as they get results they like. Your reputation and portfolio might speak more for itself than saying you went to “School of X”. Where schools or your background can be a deal-breaker though, is if you apply to specific industries, such as video game companies, and maybe you already have some experience with the software they use—companies will see that as a bonus. But I know sound designers for some of those companies who’ve told me that your portfolio of work matters more. For instance, one friend told me that they really like when a candidate takes a video and then completely re-makes the audio and sound design for it; this is more important than even understanding specific software which can always be learned at a later time.
  • The most important thing is to make music, daily, and to record ideas, on a regular basis. Finishing songs that are quality (see my previous post about getting signed to labels) and having them exposed through releases with labels, by posting them on Youtube channels, self-releasing on Bandcamp, or filling up your profile on Soundcloud can all be critical to reaching potential clients. One of the main reasons I am able to work as an audio engineer and have my own clients is mostly due to the reputation as a musician I built a while ago. I often get emails of people who say they love my music and that was one of the main reasons they want their music to be worked by me specifically. Not many schools really teach the process of developing aesthetics (i.e. “your sound”) or the releasing process. While some do, both of those topics also change quickly, and you need to adapt. I’ve been feeling like every 6 months something changes significantly, but knowing some basics of how to release music certainly helps.

Would I tell someone not to attend a music school?

Certainly not. Some people do well in a school environment, and similarly, some people don’t do well at all on their own. So knowing where you fit most is certainly valuable in your own decision-making about schools. Perhaps a bit of both worlds would be beneficial.

Will a school get you a job in the audio world?

Absolutely not—this is a myth that I feel we need to address. It’s not okay to tell this to students or to market schools this way; it would be as absurd as saying that everyone who graduates from acting schools will find roles in movies and make a living from acting.

What are the alternatives to music schools?

If you don’t think music school is for you—because you don’t have the budget for it, or you’re concerned about the job market after, or even because you’re not someone who can handle class—there are still other options for you:

  • Take online classes. This is a no-brainer because there are a huge number of online classes, courses, and schools online, and you can even look for an international school. You can also work on classes during a time that fits into your schedule. This means you can invest some of your time off from work into it. Slate Digital has some nice online classes, as well as ADSR.
  • Become a YouTube fiend. YouTube has a lot of great content if you’re good at finding what you need. You can create a personal playlist of videos that address either a technique or a topic that is useful. There are also videos where you see people actually working, and they’re usually insightful.
  • Get a mentor. People like myself or others in the industry are usually happy to take students under their wing. While you can find most information online, one advantage of having a mentor is to speed up the search for precise information. How can you learn a precise technique for a problem if you don’t even know what it is? Well, someone with experience can teach you the vocabulary, teach you how to spot a specific sound, and teach you how to find information about it. “How do they make that sound?“, I sometimes hear, as some stuff feels magical to students until I explain that it’s a specific plugin. In my coaching group, we even have a pinned topic where we talk about certain sounds and how they’re made.

I hope this helps you make your own judgments about music schools!

SEE ALSO : On Going DAWless

Building a great groove

/in , , , /by

Have you ever been on a dance-floor and heard a track that connects with you in a very physical way? Physical connection creates a sort of energy that is infectious and makes you want to dance until your feet give up. This feeling is all about the groove in a track; creating a groove makes the combination of elements and arrangement feel just right to keep you dancing. What follows in this post is my personal take on groove, and the steps I’ve learned that I think work best to create a great groove.

Taking into account that everyone has a particular taste, a groove that can give me this irrevocable urge to dance may not do the same for you, and on the other hand, you may relate to other tracks in the same way which don’t do anything for me. To better understand groove, I recommend that you take a step back and subject yourself to some critical listening.

Critical listening includes listening to some reference tracks with your eyes closed and making mental notes of what seems to work best. How do the elements in the track relate to one another? What kinds of sounds are used? Is the groove driving or swing-y? Listening this way will give you great ideas with regards to what works and what feels forced for you personally. I cannot stress this point enough. Have you ever made a track which you felt was “good” but didn’t create a sense of physical movement or urge to dance? Review the groove and change it, and you’ll hear an improvement.

Based on my own personal taste, I feel that when it comes to groove, less is more in terms of what works best. Subtlety coupled with taking extra care in the sound design/sample-selection stage will help your ideas flow smoothly. Understand which sounds you want to be the “protagonists” from the get-go, and you will be able to fill the space much more naturally. 

Workflow for creating a groove

  1. Build a simple pattern. After designing some sounds you feel are nice, take them and start constructing the foundation of your groove. While most of the time drums and percussion are associated with the groove, they are not the only parts which have to work in order to have a nice flow. Pheek’s Guide to Percussion has some great tips on call and response—a concept you must focus on quite a bit to build a solid groove.
  2. Once you have your pattern, add some variations to it. A variation could be muting the kick every eighth bar, or having a hat come in and out sporadically, or even changing the note of a synth stab you are using for the groove. You’ll notice that your groove already feels more complete once you add some variations. Micro-variations help to keep the listener interested as the pattern evolves a bit within itself.
  3. Swing is your best friend! It doesn’t matter if you’re working inside the box or with hardware—take your pattern and apply some swing to it, whether it be via Ableton groove pool or just micro-timing changes (moving things just a tad off grid), this will make this pattern feel less robotic which is what we are going for. This last point is very important for a nice groove, but some kinds of music don’t apply this technique as aggressively because they are just hard hitting and energy driven, but many others rely on these small details and time changes to give a human touch to the pattern. 
  4. Add some effects to your sounds. Instead of programming each MIDI note or step, add some delays—both triplets and eighth notes work well—with some very short feedback and dry/wet. Here’s where you can go crazy experimenting—you will notice that when you use these delays and reverbs your sound begins to morph and ghost notes appear in the background, which make things feel fuller and glued together.
  5. To continue morphing it, apply some modulations and LFOs to control different aspects of a sound; from panning to volume, modulation allows a pattern to evolve on a macro-scale and creates movement, which is crucial in creating a great groove. 

Don’t forget that it’s important that all your elements work well together. If you feel something is out of place, take a couple of minutes to review it—experiment and you’ll create “happy mistakes” which end up being great. I like to use the word coherence to describe how things work together in a track. If a track has a coherent groove in which the drums, bass-line, synths, and other parts work well together, then it will be infectious. Many people use the coherence approach, and you can go crazy with it. Again, listen to some references and use them as a starting point while asking yourself the important questions:

How much swing does the pattern have?

How does the bass-line relate to the percussion and main drums?

Are synths being used rhythmically or as background sounds?

Don’t be afraid to revise a groove, but also learn when to compromise—after a session take a break and come back to it with fresh ears. If your groove is solid, you will feel it. If not, you’ll have an easier time fixing it when your perspective is fresh.

SEE ALSO : Honing your production skills before releasing music

Sending demos to record labels as an “unsigned” artist—an online experiment

/in , /by

Being a “signed” artist is a big topic; it’s both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. People’s perceptions of being “signed” to a label is mainly the issue, in my opinion. In a past article, I stated that you could go label-less and still do fine in music. But what if you want to be signed and want to collaborate with others and constantly face obstacles? For the sake of this article—which took me a while to write—I went undercover using an alias: I made some music outside of my usual music signature and then contacted a bunch of labels to see how things go when you have a very low profile on Soundcloud and are sending demos to record labels online.

The idea of going undercover was primarily to see how labels reacted to an unknown artist with quality music, but also to decipher how to make things easier.

But before I share the story of what happened, let’s talk plain strategy and I’ll share a few facts with you that I had in mind before embarking on this experiment.

What a label will look for in new potential artists

1. Labels want music that fits the label’s sound/ethos, and an artist that fits their image, so it can be presented and sold properly. Listen to the latest releases of the label on Bandcamp/Soundcloud to see if your music fits. Note: many people will contact a label based on music they released years back, and that’s usually a big mistake.

2. Usually labels will want someone from within their network. If you’re not friends of friends, the odds you fit into “the circle” is less likely, so it’s important to do a bit of name-dropping or to get to know people that the label knows.

3. Having depth in your collection of tracks is critical. If the label likes 2 of the 4 songs you have, they might ask for more. Having a bunch more is very useful, plus it shows that you write on a regular basis. In other words, it shows you’re serious.

4. It’s a huge win if you tour, play gigs, or have important releases up your sleeve. This can be an issue for many. There are way too many producers and performers compared with the number of opportunities to release and play out. So it’s a catch-22; you’re more likely to release because you already release music, and you’re more likely to play out because you already play gigs. If you don’t, then you’ll get less traction. One doesn’t guarantee the other, but either definitely helps your profile. Your network of contacts is a very important factor for finding success with your music, so whatever you do, building a contact network is equally as important as making quality music.

Getting back to my unsigned alias experiment, I decided to take on a role of someone who is completely outside of the system, is new to production (but is knowledgeable), and never plays out or releases anything. I created an alias—which I won’t reveal here as I want this experiment to be ongoing—and I said I was from Scandinavia, where the scene for micro-house is not super strong. My communication skills were okay, but I didn’t know anyone in any of the label networks I contacted.

So how did it go?

This experiment went terribly.

I contacted thirteen labels with four tracks. I validated my work with a friend who said the tracks were good, playable, and release-worthy beforehand. As a label owner myself, I’m very picky about how someone should approach me, so I wrote a professional email for each label. I contacted each label on Soundcloud and through email if possible. Ideally, I knew the best way of getting a label’s attention would be to go through an artist on the label, but I didn’t want to blow my identity. Here’s the message I sent:

Hello! My name is [XXXXX] and I’m a young producer from Scandinavia. I got familiar with your label through discovering releases that I believe are similar to the music I’m making. I checked your latest releases on Beatport to see what you’re up to recently and I think you could probably enjoy these 4 tracks I’d like to present you. Let me know what you think.

The four tracks I sent out were in private mode on Soundcloud, and I made sure that people didn’t listen to them before sending them out. My account on Soundcloud had no followers, and the profile picture was pretty enigmatic as well.

Out of all of the thirteen labels I contacted, only four took the time to listen to some of the tracks, not all. Only one label replied to my initial message with a “thank you.” Honestly, if I was the guy I pretended to be, I would be pretty discouraged. I’d say that even myself as a veteran musician, when I try contacting labels sometimes it’s still, very, very hard. I even followed up with the non-responsive labels with my Pheek alias and even then, still no replies.

From this experiment, I concluded that no matter how talented, polite, and organized you are, it’s very unlikely for things to work out well for you if you submit your demos online like a cold-call. The most successful deals will happen because you’re part of a network that probably has in-person contact. In past posts, I have been insistent on the importance of working on what you can control: the quality of your music, originality of your ideas, working with people you can count on…etc.

What labels look for in the online profiles of artists

If you still want to submit your demo online despite the difficulty in getting it heard—let alone signed—here are some tips about what labels are looking for:

  • An online presence: presence on the most important websites such as Instagram, Soundcloud, Resident Advisor, Mixcloud.
  • Material published on a Soundcloud profile with comments from listeners. No one wants to see 5k plays or less and no likes or feedback. As a label owner, I also don’t like to see a profile with no music posted publicly. As an artist, it’s important to have some kind of portfolio. It can be published material, but if you’ve never had a release, posting music you’re working on is a sign that you’re serious about what you do.
  • Self-published material is always a plus. I like to see people who don’t wait for things to happen to them, but are proactive and have the energy to make things move, even if not much is going on afterwards. Seeing someone who has a non-empty Bandcamp profile shows some seriousness and experience with how to create a release.
  • An artist with tons of quality music that is unsigned. There’s nothing more exciting than to discover an artist that is emerging that has tons of quality tracks waiting for getting signed. I can’t emphasize enough on this to new artists I work with with mix and mastering. Keep making music—tons of it. Make sure your work is quality so that the day you find a label who wants to work with you, you’ll be more than ready to present them the best quality album you have. Additionally, when a label knows that you’re working with a mentor, an engineer (myself or someone else), it shows your dedication and passion, which is also something labels really want to see in you. One of the hardest parts of finding a label is presenting yourself to the world and to DJs, so anything that can leverage your release(s) is something that can make a big difference in the end.

If you’re unsigned and you’ve had feedback from people you trust saying your music is quality, stay focused on making music and dedicate some time to trying to find people who want to work on it with you. Part of me believes that anyone talented will always find a place to release. Usually my clients hate when I say that, but I’ve had people come back to me years later who’ve finally found some level of success. I think some of the best places to meet people that you can rely on are festivals, record stores, and other in-person events where you can spot artists. You can reach out to DJs right away, but perhaps it’s more effective to reach out to a network or a group of people. What if you’re socially awkward? Typical issue for us nerds. I’ve worked with people in this position and the ones who “made it” were the ones that were picky about the contacts they made. I’d encourage you to join our community on Facebook, too—we’re friendly 😉

SEE ALSO : How To Reinvent Your Sound

On Going DAWless

/in /by

Dawlessness (a word I have just coined) seems to be something that people are quite passionate about at the moment, both for and against. There are popular synth YouTube channels devoted to it (see Dawless Jammin’ with Jade Wii) and some people wear their DAWlessness as a badge of pride (see Look Mum No Computer). In case anyone is not familiar with the whole DAWless thing, it’s just what it sounds like—making electronic music without the use of a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation). This usually means a number of sequencers playing synths and drum machines, all synced over MIDI, perhaps supplemented with some live keys and/or vocals. The real puritans then record the whole thing to cassette. Don’t ask how they upload it to YouTube…

Advocates of this way of working offer a number of reasons for rejecting what is the most powerful music tool available today. They say the computer is a distraction – that you shouldn’t make music on a machine that also gives you access to Facebook, Instagram, streaming news, cat videos, etc. They talk about the sense of immediacy and feeling like you are playing an instrument rather than doing your tax returns. Some people cite the benefits of imposed creative limitations.

On the other side there has been a certain amount of mockery and meme-ing that asserts that DAWless jams are tuneless, formless, one-groove affairs with no journey. Why on earth would anyone willingly give up the boundless possibilities that a modern, fully-fledged DAW offers, they ask? Investing a lot of money to set creative limitations seems a little perverse, does it not?

I’m not here to argue one way or the other. Both approaches are perfectly valid. The explosion of external, mostly analog hardware over the last 10-15 years has made a DAWless approach accessible—and not just for the preserve of synth collectors with vast studios of vintage gear. Thanks to Roland, Korg, Akai, Arturia and others, you can now buy a mixer, drum machine, synth, and standalone external sequencer—a complete DAWless jamming setup in other words—for well under $1,000. Meanwhile, computing power has continued to grow and DAWs have become even more sophisticated, with ever-more powerful and creative VST instruments available. In reality, the vast majority of electronic music producers use some hardware alongside a DAW, and there is absolutely no need to choose.

Still, I think it is interesting how in some ways we have come full circle with electronic music production. After all, most of the greatest early electronic dance music tunes were made in a similar “dawless” way. Before PCs had the muscle to host virtual instruments and record multiple audio streams, their role—if they were used at all—was as a sequencer. A series of machines, synced over MIDI or DIN-sync, effects on the mixer send/return, a multi-track tape recorder or ADAT. Whole tracks would be built up by playing the mixer faders and mutes. Of course, the DAW itself is merely a digital simulacrum of this whole setup—instruments, a powerful sequencer, a mixer and a multitrack recorder, all in a single software package.

And if you think about what a DAW really is—a Digital Audio Workstation—you can see that in fact, many so-called DAWless jams are not really DAWless at all. Because what is an MPC Live, or a Elektron Octatrak, or a Synthstrom Deluge if not a Digital Audio Workstation? These modern devices are MIDI sequencers, samplers, synths, mixers and, in the case of the Deluge, even recording devices. With such a richness of features it is not surprising that people are finding that they can make full tracks without using a computer. In a future post I will look at these devices and compare their potential for making full songs without using a DAW.

Finally, I would argue that one of the key drivers of the popularity of going DAWless is the perceived need to deliver visually engaging live performances. The often voiced suspicion that the laptop artist is probably just on Facebook seems to have been taken to heart by a whole generation of electronic musicians. As a result some people seem to feel a table full of devices is required for a fully authentic “live” experience.

The history of music is full of arguments over authenticity and musical integrity. There was a time when people expected a recorded song to be a faithful rendition of a band playing live. Nobody expects that now…we have become totally accustomed to the notion of the creative, artist producer—from Brian Eno onwards. In a way the DAWless movement is taking electronic music out of the producer world—where things are iterated, planned, adjusted, and finally released—into the musician world, where you just play. From asynchronous to synchronous music making. There is nothing wrong with this at all; most people are attracted to one approach than the other.

Do you always use keyboards and hate programming sequencers, or vice versa?

Do you think of yourself as a musician or a producer?

Is a DAWless setup appealing to you or would you rather watch a succulent grow?

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

Taking breaks from music-making

/in /by

It’s strange how some topics seem to pop up in the music world again and again, both online and in person—taking breaks from music being one of them. During the summer in Canada most people—including musicians—don’t want stay indoors as much. Many musicians seem to get FOMO this time of year because they’re not making music. Other people I know are hit by writer’s block (including myself), and some people have asked me if I think music-making should be a daily routine or not. While I love this topic, there are multiple ways to approach music production routines and taking breaks from music; I’m sharing some of my own views here, which are based on my experience.

Taking breaks as you work

This usually surprises a lot of people, but when I work on production or mixing, I take a lot of breaks. I often notice that even after just 10 minutes of working hard, you can lose track of the tone of your song. You get used to what “works”, but the low end or the highs might be too much and you can’t tell because you’ve lost perspective. Even volume can be difficult to assess when your ears are fatigued; you might be playing too loud and not realize it.

Taking a 10-second or so break every 10-15 minutes can prevent fatigue and will help restore your understanding of your song.

If you’re in a creative mood and want to do more, I would strongly recommend taking a break after 1-hour to test the true potential of your music. If you’re familiar with this blog, you probably aren’t surprised to read that I recommend to actually stop working on a particular song after an hour and work on another one instead, or even do something completely different.

Taking breaks and making new songs

Sometimes you’ve made a bunch of songs and you feel like you’re repeating yourself, or worse, everything feels annoying (red flag: writer’s block ahead). Some people feel they need to take a break and not open their DAW at all for a while. Is that a good idea?

Yes and no.

My studio is in a building in Montreal that also houses other studios as well, with all kind of musicians. The ones that impress me the most are the jazz and classical musicians. They have a very, very intense schedule for practicing. In talking with them, they say that skipping just one day of practice has an impact on how they master their instrument(s). I can relate; when I take time off over a 3-day weekend, on the Monday I am a bit slower to figure out which tool works best for a specific situation. If I work on music, it takes me a bit more time to problem solve. In a way, I have to agree with the jazz and classical musicians here even though our music worlds are quite different.

The difference between me—as an audio engineer and electronic musician—and classical and jazz musicians, is that I’m constantly working in a space in which I need to invent new ideas, as opposed to practicing something over and over to master it. For my live sets and productions, I do rehearse and play my music—my workflow isn’t just mastering mouse-clicking around a screen. I humanly intervene by using MIDI controllers, mixing by hand, and when working on sound design I’ll also play with knobs too to create new ideas. I see creativity as a muscle that needs to stay fit to be powerful, but if you’re going to gym regularly, you know muscles also need rest in order to grow.

My conclusion on taking breaks from music is this: I think it’s important to work on audio-related tasks daily in order to stay focused, but when it comes to creating new ideas, creativity is not something that can be forced—it needs to come by itself, naturally. Whenever I push myself too hard to force an idea to come to life, it sounds wrong. The best ideas are spontaneous, often invented quickly, and done without much shaping.

So what does this mean for the musician?

Consider taking long breaks if you have really negative feelings towards what you do, or if you don’t feel good about making music. When taking time off from pursuing your own music creatively, what are some of the other alternatives and things you can do when you need downtime from working on your own songs?

Sound design. Try to see if you can spend time creating one sound you like from scratch, i.e. a pad.

Learn production techniques. You can register with online classes to learn something new; ADSR is full of examples with low prices.

Explore presets. Each effect or instrument you have has presets. You now have time to explore everything. The strength of knowing how many presets sound helps to be able to quickly access a specific aesthetic when needed.

Create templates. Have you considered creating a template for Ableton? I have multiple templates for sound design, mixing, jamming as well as song structure templates to play with.

Build macros. Use multiple effects and assign them to some knobs to see how you can alter sounds quickly.

Sample hunting. So many sites exists for finding samples, but finding time to shop is rare. You can do that now.

Build new references. If you don’t have a folder with reference tracks in it, it’s time to start, and if you do, add new ones. A good way is to make reference playlists on Soundcloud or YouTube.

Try demos and sample them. I love getting a bunch of VST/AU demos to try out and then sampling them. Eventually I get to know which new virtual synth or effect I really like.

Re-open projects that have been pending or recycle them. You might have unfinished songs and sometimes they are a good place to scavenge for samples or ideas to use in other songs.

Revisit past projects you’ve worked on and liked to remind yourself of methods you used that worked. Whenever I feel I need a break but still want to spend some time on music, I go through past projects to see how I worked and what could have been done better—I always learn something from revisiting old work.

All that said, most importantly, when you take a break from music, do not sell any gear or buy anything new. Just wait. If you like music and making it, chances are high that you’ll be doing it for years to come. Sometimes we need a break, but breaks don’t mean you have to give up completely. The feeling of needing a break is temporary—even if it’s a long break—but your love of music is permanently with you.

SEE ALSO : Are Music Schools Worth The Investment?

Why should you make music?

/in /by

Why make music?

This simple question might seem like it has an easy answer, but when I was asked recently why I make music, I realized that the more I started thinking about it, the more complex the answer became. Today it can feel like everything in the modern world works against musicians, but the more I think about it, the more I think that this isn’t exactly true. Let me explain:

You might not be aware of this, but between the 1930s and 1970s in the US Baseball was a very important part of national culture and identity. During this time, the inclusion of immigrants in the sport was quite important—Jackie Robinson was the first African-American to play American baseball professionally, which helped to promote the inclusion of the African-American community in professional sports in the US at that time. Baseball wasn’t the only thing promoting the inclusion of immigrants and minorities in the national culture, but it definitely played a role (I recommend Ken Burns’ baseball series if you’re interested in this topic).

We can see the same sort of trend in the history of music. The countless occurrences of music becoming a part of politics are too numerous to describe in detail here, but electronic music specifically had its popularity grow due in part to its early adoption by gay communities—same with disco. Even nowadays, Montreal’s MUTEK festival is playing a similar role—forcing gender equity in the artist lineup and giving artists a platform to express themselves safely, no matter what their gender or orientation. Music is a platform for self-expression and provides artists with a chance to share their own personal views. MUTEK’s early vision was to create a space for artists to share the fruit of technological research in music and present it as an art form beyond trends, movements, etc., but over time it became clear that personal touches were also quite essential to the festival.

So, when I was asked “why do you make music?”, some of the points I have just explained came to mind, but I also paused and thought about my own inner motivation(s) and how they have evolved over the years.

I think that for me, every 5 years the purpose of making music has changed directions; my motivations were originally very goal-driven. This is something I see a lot with people I work with—their inner motive for making music is directly linked to where they want to go next. For young artists examining the careers of older ones, the point of making music and how it changes over time is a worthy discussion to have.

Based on my understanding and experience, there are common goals that unite many artists and might help to answer the question “why should you make music?” (the answers to this question I’ve compiled below are not in any specific order).

To learn a skill or to have a hobby

My earliest interest in music was in the early 80s, but back then it was nearly impossible to make electronic music. Music lessons felt boring and pointless, but DJing music for break-dancing was pretty dope. However, learning to be a DJ while living outside of Montreal at that time was pretty much impossible. Presently, I often have people ask me if I could teach them to DJ because they’d love to do it for fun for friends, but I refer them to YouTube as it is quicker and cheaper. Many people with this motivation are simply into the idea of assembling music and playing it. DJing music is quite fun and a great hobby that you can do with friends. After you start doing it for a while, the point of DJing might shift from just doing it to entertain some friends towards connecting with other DJs, or sharing demos on Soundcloud and aspiring to play in front of a crowd. The “why DJ?” becomes purely related to the attraction of doing it. It’s rare to see people really asking themselves “why”, but I remember when I was starting to DJ that I had close friends and family asking why they should take my hobby seriously. I was really into theatre back then, and to people close to me the idea of being a DJ seemed silly.

Regardless of your original motivations to start messing around with music-making, making music as a hobby is really fun—it’s a wonderful creative outlet and can even be useful with friends when you have evenings together and everyone wants to be entertained.

To establish yourself as a part of a community

A sense of community comes for most after they’ve started DJing, but many people also start here. What’s interesting about music is it can be a side-project throughout your entire life. Going from one community to another is also not uncommon. I was really into raves in the early 90s and wanted to contribute to that scene by playing music I thought was suitable for that community, but over time my music tastes changed. My circle of friends changed a few times as my passion for what I loved (music) created some distance around people, but music has always been there in the background.

Having music as the centre of your life gives life purpose in-itself, as well as creates a lifestyle around it—there’s no good or bad way to approach this. I know some jazz and classical musicians that have so much devotion to their craft that it would make anyone I know from the electronic scene blush. Is making music the centre of your life to that degree better? These devoted musicians aren’t necessarily happier in the end, but what music gives them personally is the most important reason why they make and/or perform it and a very valuable and satisfying part of their lives.

The tricky part of motivation is that sometimes you might never really feel like you’ve reached your end goal. Being part of a community, for example, is hard to quantify and depends on the feedback you’re getting. This type of internal/external motivation loop is where a lot of people struggle and get lost. It’s common to see people who are under the impression that it would be better to abandon everything and sell all their music related toys than to keep trying to reach their goal. Is there a way to avoid this thought? Why do people slip into negativity all of a sudden and react drastically?

Say you’ve tried to sustain a music “career” or project for years and it never really went as far as you wanted it to—it’s easy to pin the problem on a lack of recognition from others. Same goes for an artist who has been around a long time and has “done everything” and then gets lost when thinking about what to do next. Sometimes your music community might change directions drastically if they reach that point—a lot of my peers switched to making house music at one point—which can also make you feel lost yourself. When you feel lost or tired of trying with music, it really has nothing to do with other people, but more with your personal approach to music. This might sound cliché, but it’s true.

Personally, I have been experimenting with my approach to music quite a lot; I find a lot of relief by focusing on people who care and appreciate what I do. Building your own community or small circle of music friends has been for me the only thing that can get me back on track when I feel lost. I lost my patience after chasing others for years and decided to shift my energy towards those who cared instead—and I didn’t have to search very far.

To make a career out of music

Once people feel included in a music community, the next logical goal is to try to “make it” on a professional level. This can mean many things:

A career for self-expression and self-realization

One of the most important needs of humans is to feel they’re able grow and to have others (and themselves) witness it. If you’re pushing yourself making music, you’ll see and hear the growth of your music yourself, and with time and patience the quality will get better which provides great feelings of satisfaction, especially when it’s turned into a career.

A community-driven career

As I’ve covered in multiple past posts, one can be attracted by a community of artists or genres and want to join their movement. The beauty of this approach is connecting socially over electronic music, which can create opportunities for many conversations and projects, technical, philosophical, or otherwise.

You can also do music for multiple reasons and those reasons can morph through time, through life changing events or simply because your interests are shifting. I come to question myself every now and then. Asking yourself this question also helps you understand where to go next. One of the reason why the base of this question is more relevant than what we think of.

SEE ALSO : Workflow Suggestions for Music Collaborations

“How do I get started with modular?”

/in , /by

Modular synths are fascinating, complex, and alluring machines, but to the uninitiated they can also be enigmatic and confusing. The vast range of available modules, the high price of entry, the obscure interfaces, and the images of gigantic, room-filling systems can make modular synthesis seem like a hobby mainly reserved for the independently wealthy PhD candidate. But the truth is that modular is more accessible now than it has ever been—in this post I’ll offer some of pieces of advice for those of you who are just getting started with modular synths.

Of course, there are unavoidable costs—it will probably never meet most people’s definition of cheap (although Behringer might be about to try and change that.) The lowest priced case and power supply combinations are still hundreds of dollars (the TipTop happy ending kit with power is around $175). Still, once this hurdle is passed, it’s in fact easy and beneficial to start small. Buying a couple of modules at a time, and getting to know them well before buying more, is a great strategy to take when starting out.

Let’s look at some relatively easy entries into modular in a variety of price ranges, looking to answer the Eurorack novice’s question, “How do I get started with modular?”

The semi-modular

Semi-modular is a great way of getting some experience with patching. Standalone, semi-modular synths like the Moog Mother32, Moog Grandmother, MakeNoise 0-Coast, or the Behringer Neutron, give you a taste of the modular experience and are all highly capable synths. They are all fully compatible with Eurorack; essentially they are Eurorack format but with their own power supply and case. Which leads us to a possible disadvantage of this route: if/when you want to go deeper down the “rabbit hole” you still need to buy yourself a case and power supply for your modules. If you are committed to getting into Euro it will be more cost effective to get a case and power right away.

The micro-system

Full voice modules, like the Atlantis from Intellijel or Mutable Instruments’ Elements, function something like a desktop synth module, but in Eurorack. In other words, they combine all the oscillators, VCAs, envelopes and filters of a full mono-synth behind a Eurorack panel. Pair one of these with a Eurorack sequencer, or a MIDI sequencer and a MIDI to CV module like the Hexinverter Mutant Brain, and you have a full synth voice in Eurorack. Without any other modules to patch up it’s not the full modular experience yet – you have a synth voice that you can trigger with gates and CV from your sequencer or MIDI-CV module, but you do not have any modulators. Modulation is the heart of modular, so, tempting though it may be to stick one of these all-in-one modules in a tiny case and use it standalone, it is probably wise to leave some space for growth.

Another approach to build up a micro system is to go for a range of relatively cheap, bread and butter modules. Doepfer, the company that created the Eurorack format back in the 90s, are still a great choice for reliable, straight-forward modules at reasonable prices. Their active product line is vast and you can build a huge system with their products alone. Then there are the very small, low-priced modules from various companies such as Erica Synths, TipTop Audio, and 2HP (whose name refers to the size of all their modules—about as tiny as it’s possible to get). These are great value and can be highly useful but beware, they have tiny pots so too many of them too close together can get extremely awkward. While it might seem like a great cheap solution, a whole system made up of these tiny modules would be pretty annoying to use.

The ready-made, full system

On the other end of the spectrum in starting tiny with a micro system is splashing out on a full-size system. Why not bypass all that decision making, scrimping and saving for one module at a time, and just hit your bank account/credit card one devastating blow? The easiest way of doing this is to go for a single manufacturer’s system – a curated collection of modules by one company, which are sure to work well together. A the ultimate single manufacturer system is probably the stunning MakeNoise Black and Gold Shared System. This is a great option if you have the money and are totally sure of your commitment. But a makeNoise shared system is around $5.5k USD…so there’s that.

The modular drum machine

If you are a producer heavily focused heavily on electronic drums—which you probably are if you are reading this blog—you may want to build up a modular drum machine. Modular drums are capable of more extreme tonal changes and generally have a wider pitch and timbral range than a typical drum machine voice. They can also be triggered in a variety of unconventional ways, allowing for strange, unexpected rhythms. The good thing about drum modules when you are starting out is that they are, by definition, whole voices—they contain a sound source or two, an envelope and VCA, and perhaps a filter. You just feed them a trigger and they do their thing. There are now a huge number of drum modules available from many different manufacturers, analog and digital, covering a vast sonic territory, so you can mix and match to create something truly unique.

When getting started with modular synths, it’s useful to know that you can easily combine modular drums with external drum machines by using the same sequencer (e.g. sequencing your modular drums with an external drum machine) via a MIDI to CV module. This makes starting small simple—just add one drum module at a time. Of course, just as with any other approach in modular, modulation is key, so at least one step-modulation source, such as the Malekko Voltage Block (an 8 track, 16-stage CV sequencer), should be an early addition to your modular drum machine.

The other aspect of a modular drum machine, and one that really shines in Eurorack, is sequencing. Conventional, 16-step x0x style sequencing is of course easy in or out of the case, but you can quickly move far from a typical drum machine sound by using more idiosyncratic sequencing options. Methods of sequencing in modular is a whole other topic but take a look at digital modules that use binary logic gates for a taste of what can be done. For example, Noise Engineering’s range of digital trigger sequencing modules can create unique, ever-changing rhythms.

The DAW-integrated system

For many people, modular synths are totally separate from the DAW; indeed it is almost a point of principle for some modular users to “only” use their DAW, if at all, as a sort of tape recorder. But this is by no means the only way to approach things. If you are already fully committed to a DAW workflow—perhaps you already sequence standalone synths via MIDI from Ableton, for example—there are many options for fully integrating your modular synth with your PC. Sending gates, triggers and pitch CV is easy: the aforementioned MIDI to CV converter can achieve this via a MIDI interface connected to your computer. Expert Sleepers make a range of modules that can give you even closer integration, with smooth control voltages that a MIDI to CV module cannot send, due to the limitations of MIDI. Finally, if you use Ableton and have a soundcard with DC-coupled outputs (most MOTU soundcards have this feature) then you will very soon be able to use Abelton’s new suite of CV Tools in Max for Live to control your modular through your soundcard’s output jacks.

The obvious appeal of using the DAW to control your synths is that you immediately gain the equivalent of several modules-worth of functionality in terms of sequencing and modulation. The drawback is that you perhaps risk sacrificing some of the exploratory potential of modular in favour of greater control.

DIY

Going DIY would seem to be a great option, especially if you are short on cash. But beware, unless you actually enjoy soldering and are keen to learn a little bit about electronics, it might well end up being a lot more expensive than buying your modules ready-made. Remember, if you mess up your build the company is not liable to fix it for you. Basic synth DIY is totally doable and can be great fun….if it’s the kind of thing you like doing. But if you’re doing it only to save money you might find that:

a. It doesn’t save you all that much and,

b. Lots of your modules only kind of work and some don’t work at all!

SEE ALSO : Using Modular Can Change the Way You View Music Production

Honing your production skills before releasing music

/in , /by

For music producers, specifically those interested in releasing music, gratification is one of the most complex topics to address. From the moment you complete your first track, it becomes all about showing it to people to see how they react and to get feedback. As you progress with producing, more of your tracks will start to feel like they are release- worthy. But the real question we have to ask is not if they are release-worthy, but are they timeless?

When you start making music and don’t have the concepts or skills honed enough to do it in a streamlined manner, it’s inevitable that you’ll find yourself “hating” the tracks you make; spending so much time on them means you will dislike them by the time they are “done”. I’m of the opinion that most tracks are never 100% complete—every time you work on a project you’ll notice more details that you feel you can fix and this can turn into a never-ending spiral.

For me personally, my road has been an interesting one—the first tracks I ever made were sent to labels and eventually released, but every time I visit Beatport (or other platforms) are and listen to those tracks, I ask myself if they are what I want people to think about when they hear my artistic name. Each release comes with a technical improvement, and the process is noticeable, but…what if those tracks were never released? 

On the upside, I guarantee 100% that if it were not for those tracks and releases, I wouldn’t have been able to connect with so many people around the genre and network into making contacts—this proved very useful and worthy in the long-run. On the downside, every musician wishes to have his/her very best out there, as it’s our business card, it’s what people will remember the most when they talk about you.

I read the other day about an artist who practiced and honed his skills for seven years straight without even considering releasing a track before that, as he felt his music was not up to the standards that he wanted to put out in the world. So, what then, is the correct road? If I could do it all over again, I would most definitely not have released the first and most technically lacking tracks I ever made. It’s all very personal, but if you can, I would follow that artist’s advice—it removes the stress of wanting to sound in a specific manner for a specific label, and you’ll find your own sound in a more creative way. Make music for the sake of it, not because you have a deadline. Deadlines will come in the future, I can guarantee it.

My honest conclusion is that with production—same as any skill—you have to put in the hours of work and have the patience to accept that it will be slow. As one of my teachers once told me, there is no shortcut to training your ears. Having some perspective now and a short career of 5 years in music production, I believe our best tools are groups like the coaching corner we all know and love; in groups like these you can show your music to the world, get focused feedback, and continue to improve and grow as an artist around like-minded people without it being too permanent.

The key is knowing and accepting that you will always be able to do better. There’s no rush and you will eventually be thankful for having waited to have your very best out there. On the other hand if you don’t want to wait, make sure you have some feedback from artists you know have a deep technical background as they will give you the best tips to improve your tracks.

SEE ALSO : Taking breaks from music-making

Using MIDI controllers in the studio

/in /by

People often say that MIDI controllers are mostly for performing live, but they can also be your studio’s most useful tool. My advice to people who want to invest in gear—especially those who aren’t happy working only on a computer and dream of having tons of synths (modular and such)—is to start with investing in a controller first.

There are multiple ways to use MIDI controllers; let me share some of my favourite techniques with you and give you advice to easily replicate them.

Controllers for performing in studio

One trend I’ve been seeing in the last few months is producers sharing how they perform their songs in-studio as a way to demonstrate all the possibilities found within a single loop. This is not new—many people like to take moments from live recordings and edit them into a song, but it’s becoming clear that after years and years of music that has been edited to have every single damn detail fixed, artists are realizing that this clinical approach to producing makes a track cold, soulless, robotic, and not organic sounding and in the end. If you’re still touching up details at version 76 of your song, this means you’ve probably heard it about 200 times—no one will ever listen to your track that many times. My advice is to leave some mistakes in the track, and let it have a raw side to it. Moodymann’s music, for example, is praised and in-demand because his super raw approach makes electronic feel very organic and real. Performing your music in studio to create this type of feeling is pretty simple; it’s super fun and it inspires new ideas too.

For in-studio jams, I recommend the Novation LaunchXL which has a combination of knobs and sliders, plus it’s a control surface; depending on where you are on the screen, it can adapt itself. For instance, with the “devices” button pressed, you can control the effects on a specific channel and switch the knobs to control the on-screen parameters.

When I make a new song using a MIDI controller, I’ll start by using a good loop. Then I’ll use my controller to quickly play on the different mixes I can create with that loop. Sometimes, for example, I want to try the main idea at different volumes (75%/50%/25%), or at different filter levels. Some sounds feel completely different and sound better when you filter them at 75%. Generally, I put on these effects on each of my loops: a 3-band EQ, filter, delay, utility (gain), and an LFO.

Next, I’ll record myself playing with the loop for a good 20 minutes so that I have very long stems of each loop. Then when it comes to arranging, I’ll pick out the best parts.

TIP: I sometimes like to freeze stem tracks to remove all effects and have raw material I can’t totally go back and fix endlessly.

Controllers for sound design

I find that the fun part of sound design involving human gestures comes from replicating oscillations a LFO can’t really do. It’s one thing to assign a parameter to a LFO for movement, but if you do it manually, there’s nothing quite like it—but the best part is to combine the best of both automated and human-created movements.

I use a programmed LFO for super fast modulation that I can’t do physically with my fingers, and then adjust it to the song’s rhythm or melody—just mild adjustments usually. For instance, you could have super fast modulation for a resonance parameter with an LFO or with Live’s version 10.1’s curves design, then with your controller, control the frequency parameter to give it a more organic feel.

Recently, I’ve been really enjoying a complementary modular ensemble for Live called Signal by Isotonik; it allows you to build your own signal flow to go a bit beyond the usual modules that you’ll get in Max for Live. Where I find Signal to be a huge win is when it’s paired with PUSH, which is by far the best controller you can get for sound design. PUSH gives you quick access to the different parameters of your tools, and if you make macros it becomes even more organized.

Controllers for arrangements

Using MIDI controllers in arrangements is, to me, where the most fun can come from; using them can completely change the idea of a song.

For instance, if your song has a 3-note motif that has the same velocity across the board, I love to modulate the volume of the 3 notes into different levels. When we speak, all the words we use in a sentence have different levels and tones. For example, if you say to someone “don’t touch that!”, depending on the intonation of any particular word, it can change the emphasis of what you’re saying. “DON’T touch that!” would be very different from “don’t touch THAT!” This same philosophy can apply to a 3-note melody; each note is a word and you can decide on which ones to emphasize and how a certain emphasis fits in your song’s main phrase or motif.

If you assign a knob or fader on your controller to the volume of the melody, you can also control the amplitude of each note. You can do this for the entire song, or you can copy the best takes and apply their movement to the entire song. I find that there will be a slight difference in modulation depending on if you use a knob or fader; each seem to have a different curve—when I play with each, they turn out differently (but perhaps that’s just me). Explore and see for yourself!

TIP: Using motorized faders can be a a huge game changer. Check out the Behringer X-Touch Compact.

Another aspect of controllers that people don’t often consider are foot pedals. If you’re the type who taps your foot while making music, you could perhaps take advantage of your twitching by applying that to a specific parameter. Check the Yamaha FC4A. Use it with PUSH and then you have a strong arsenal of options.

SEE ALSO : Equipment Needed to Make Music – Gear vs. Experience vs. Monitoring

Creating a kick drum from scratch with an analog feel

/in /by

There’s no doubt that a kick is an important part of electronic music, and in the last few years, it seems like more and more people are creating kick drums from scratch—analog or digital—with lots of depth. The difference between 90s production and modern production is the increased quality of sound systems around the world. I’ve heard that Funktion One sound systems are appearing more and more at festivals and in clubs. I myself have had to adjust my mastering approach to maximize the sound precision on these higher quality systems. In the end, the results are great for everyone. However, one thing I’ve noticed is how 90s music sounds a bit less warm and less open on these newer systems, which isn’t a big deal, but we’re missing out a bit on quality here, as this music is from a different era.

That said, really well designed kicks are so addictive on a nice setup that a kick alone can keep a crowd happy for a while…I’m exaggerating a bit but this isn’t totally false either.

Do you need to buy a drum machine, synthesizer, or something fancy to make beautiful kicks?

Yes and no. There’s something exciting about having gear, but gear can also be a trap. You’ll use it for a while, but eventually you’ll find that a lot of hardware always produces the same type of sound(s). Do you want want the same kick in 99% of your productions? Personally, I don’t—I want variation. This is one of the reasons why I see people buying and selling gear over and over, looking for something they’ll never really find. I like to have a hybrid setup where I get the best of both hardware and software; but trust me, I get a lot from software alone.

I’m a firm believer that one can do a lot with a little. There are a wide variety of cheap options; you can invest a tiny bit without going out to buy expensive machines.

My main kick sounds come from a few machines—I’d advise you to try to find out which machines make kicks you love. I’ve always loved the TR-808 by Roland, which is a classic, but I also love what Jomox does, as well as the Tanzbar (MFB). Once you learn about a few machines you like, the easiest approach is to find some high-quality samples of them; there are many options and sample packs online.

Creating a kick drum from scratch

If you Google “TR-808 free samples” for example, you’ll find websites like this one and this one sharing samples for free. Search yourself and you’ll find some pretty solid 808 kicks. I know this sounds silly, but samples are the fastest way to get things rolling. In a previous post I explained that great kicks are often layered. The best way to build great kicks using a simple setup is to start with a base of high quality samples. They need to be in 24b minimum, not compressed, but at -3dB.

When it comes to making an analog sounding kick “in-the-box” (no hardware), I’d say you should try following these steps:

  1. Start with the low end made by an oscillator. In this case, you can use Ableton’s Operator; you can use the sine wave or use the user section it to color things a little bit with harmonics
  2. Layer a quality sample over it. I’d high pass samples to let the purity of the oscillator take over the low end. It’s also important to align the phasing to get a punchier sound.
  3. Use a transient from a modular sound recording. Snip out a transient or small slice of an audio recording to layer on your kick (I’ll discuss this again later and provide some free downloads!).
  4. Compress the whole thing with an analog modeled compressor to glue everything together. In this case, we can use the Glue Compressor from Ableton.
  5. Add saturation on the sound to provide some finishing warmth. You can use Ableton’s drive, but I’ve never really been a big fan of it. It’ll do the job though if you’re on a budget.

The best way to work with samples like this is to use the Ableton (or whatever DAW you use) drum rack so you can take advantage of the sampler’s modulation system and envelopes.

In Ableton Live 10.1, one feature I really like is the suggested/preset envelopes you can use on any sample. These settings come handy when modeling percussive sounds out of any samples you want. I love to create textures and then slice them quickly using this feature. Returning to the transient recording approach I mentioned previously—this type of slicing is particularly practical when I grab long recordings from my modular synth; there are tiny sounds I can turn into a snare or hat. Like I said, combining the best of all of these sounds will result in a full range kick.

Download sample transients recorded Pheek:

[download id=”39268″]

If you want to invest, below are some interesting kick plugins I’d recommend:

Raw Kick by Rob Papen. Anything by Papen always is quality and you can’t go wrong. Raw Kick is a no-brainer, it will create something ranging from very clean kicks to dirty, badass ones.

Big Kick. As the name states, this plugin creates “big kicks” and doesn’t disappoint. Even the presets—once tweaked a bit—are pretty impressive and ready to use.

Sasquatch. Another solid kick maker that can make a room shake pretty heavily.

Creating tension in music

/in /by

Electronic music—oriented for dance-floors—mainly relies on the use of tension to create excitement. I was recently asked how I personally approach tension-building in my work. In this post I’d like to share my point of view on the subject, but before writing this I also spent some time reading articles about tension in music to see how it’s approached by others. To my surprise, I didn’t find anything I could really relate to. Many approaches to creating tension use common, established techniques, and it seems like most of the advice about this topic was for rock-type music. While the techniques I read about are interesting, I firmly believe that you need to understand the reasons behind creating tension in music first, and once you understand them, you might find that things I discuss in this post are still relevant 10 years from now. Personally, I’ve been approaching tension-building in my music the same way for the last 20 years, from a philosophical point of view.

There’s a moment that stands out to me most with regards to my first true understanding of tension in electronic music. I spent the first few years of my DJ career as the opening act. I’d be the minimal dude that plays mellow, heady, trippy stuff, which—at the time in Montreal’s scene—meant opening slots. No complaints here though; this part of my career is when I learned the most about playing live. Opening a show is one of the most misunderstood roles in live music; it’s far more important than most people think.

When people start arriving at a show, the club is empty and there’s already a bit of awkwardness and natural tension mixed in with the audience’s excitement and anticipation. People arrive with expectations, and the opening artist is usually there to set the mood and to build a foundation for what the night will become (which includes not playing too uptempo if the floor is empty). Creating sonic comfort as the opening act is essential.

It’s difficult to create tension if you haven’t yet created a trusting relationship with the people at the event while performing. You’ve probably read many times that the best DJs are the ones that know how to read a crowd—and there’s a reason for this; you have to be aware of the audience’s needs and how to fulfill them, but also of how to create anticipation before addressing those needs: this is tension-building.

Now, it’s important to understand that there are three main tension-building scenarios in music:

  1. Circumstantial. In a given context, some natural tension/excitement might already exist, such as playing your last song before the headliner plays. Those 5 minutes will be naturally more tense as people’s eyes and ears are getting ready for the main act, and the music is supporting this anticipation.
  2. DJ-related. When a DJ knows how to play a track at the right moment and combine it with something else to create an experience, then the music becomes part of a puzzle.
  3. Music-made. This type of tension is created within a song itself, sonically via producing.

When you understand that your music might be heard in these three different contexts, it can give you a better idea of what sort of tension might be best for you personally to create. For instance, perhaps you only want to create music that will rely on the skilled hands of a DJ to really be effective—this doesn’t mean your song is made to be less interesting; skilled DJs search for these kinds of tracks as “tools” for their sets! When someone thinks a song is boring or too “simple”, I’d reply that usually it’s because it’s being listened to out of context, and someone like Villalobos or Hawtin could easily turn a simple track into a bomb by dropping it at the right time. I made an album on my label Climat that was quite experimental, and it was reported that Ricardo played some of the weirdest cuts in the middle of his sets and people would cheer…I doubt many acts can do that with a purely experimental track. That said, music that’s made for DJs to use as a tool has to be very clean from a technical point of view, which means that you need to have your sections very spaced out and have elements that come in repetitively at regular intervals. For example, your 4-bar sections could always end with a snare roll to indicate you’re finishing a section. This organization in your arrangement becomes a track that can be easily layered without confusion, for both the crowd and the artist.

If you think that most of your tracks are for DJs and are meant to be played in clubs, it’s important to test your tracks yourself in a DJ set to see how they go. You’ll want to determine if the tracks are easy to layer or not and to see what you can do with them.

When it comes to creating elements in a track through producing that can create tension, it’s essential to understand that tension rises as an expectation of something to happen (or not). If you write a song so that there’s a specific sound at a specific point every bar, if you have have a bar or two where you leave it out, this can create anticipation and tension. So from a technical point of view, there are some specific tension-producing techniques that can work well when implemented properly:

  • Breakdowns. I’d say that techno between end the of 90s until about 2009 usually had at least one breakdown with “stuff” happening. Breakdowns can include things like cutting the kick out or removing lower frequencies—applied for about 4 bars or so—then a drop would follow. A few years after, people started to get really fed up with this approach, and many producers realized that it was actually more effective not to include a breakdown, and to let the DJs create their own breakdowns by cutting the lows at a moment better suited to their own personal set(s). That said, cutting the lows often still works well.
  • Volume changes. When you introduce a new element into a song, you can either fade it in or simply drop in the sound at 100% volume. A fade will create tension as it the sound becomes louder and louder, while a drop-in is useful to create surprises, which is also a good way to resolve tension. One of the most misused techniques when it comes to volume changes is to have a variation in the volume of an entire section, then having the following section louder. When this is done properly, the contrast is a good way to create an explosion.
  • Decay. Sounds that have their decay increase over time seem bigger and more powerful, especially if you approach changes progressively. Reverb use is also a way of adding decay, and if you add a very large one to short sounds, they’ll become longer, creating tension.
  • From maximal to minimal. Having a lot of sounds happening at the same time and then trimming them down to the essentials will create an “emptiness” that people become familiar; they will anticipate resolution to a “fuller” mix. The density change is something that can be physically felt in a club setting. This is why everyone was using the white noise technique to create excitement for a while; it was a good way to resolve a moment of emptiness.
  • Pitch. Playing with the pitch of a melody or sound is a good head trip, and if you play with it subtly, it can really create uneasiness and tension. Some genres use pitch manipulation in an extreme way by slowly modulating pitch to its highest point, but to me, this technique becomes irritating and predictable after a while.
  • Pattern changes. If you’ve established your groove with a certain pattern and then introduce a hole or change, it will create tension.

Now, is there a particular duration for a tension-building section that might make it work better?

Yes and no. I’m lucky and have had the chance to hear and see many of my songs in a club setting. I’ve had many attempts at tension-building fail, and some succeed. Shorter tension-builders work better than longer ones. Also, keep in mind that some songs will play better if you don’t try to add tension to them at all. I think that 2-bar moments are great for tension-building because it also gives the DJs some time to play within them. If you make your tension-builder too long, you’re making the DJ work hard and potentially fail. Think about tension-building like a sauce—if it’s all premade, you have less room to add your own stuff. Don’t overdo it in your own productions; developing a sense of trust with the DJs who will be playing your work is essential. When people listen to minimal music and say it’s boring, it’s something I take with a grain of salt—perhaps at home in your living room it might be, but in the right context (such as a club), it might be more than enough.

SEE ALSO : Building a great groove