The Paradox Of Releasing Original Music

/in , , /by

Releasing original music can be hard if the artist is truly original. Recently, the techno producer and label owner Ramon Tapia lamented that after spending the day listening to demos that, “Young aspiring producers create pretty much identical tracks.” However, when you listen to his label, Say What? Recordings, you realize that all of his tracks kind of sound the same. 

So you have this well known producer insisting that everything he gets sounds the same, but then when you listen to the stuff he releases on Say What?, it all kind of sounds the same. Therefore, naturally, after people listen to his label, they’re going to send him a pretty accurate representation of what they believe fits on the label, and thus everything he gets will sound, more or less, the same. This, my friends, is what you call a paradox. However, he is not alone in this. This is just how the industry is.

 

Categorization = Homogenization 

A problem that many artists have is squaring their artistic integrity with being able to get their music heard. And just like artists have this conundrum, so do the labels that sign them. Many labels wish they could allow artistic integrity to shine, but ultimately they have to make sales, and truthfully, most people, even music hipsters, are pretty closed minded to new sounds. 

Additionally, for better or worse, we live in an era where sound has become homogenized into a bunch of genres and subgenres, and where time has essentially collapsed (nostalgia is strong in 2021). It seems like this was originally meant to make it easier to create a taxonomy of music, and thus open up more possibilities for artists to create more unique sounds, but in a lot of ways, it has done the opposite. 

While everything back in the day used to be “rave music”, now everything has its own neat little home, and anything that strays outside this becomes too different to stratify, or simply gets earmarked with the ubiquitous “experimental” label, which is often a red flag for “inaccessible.” That’s why releasing original music can be hard. 

How This Has Made It Hard To Release Unique Music

This has made it difficult for people who create art focused music to find a home. Sure, there are labels that are more open minded than others, but those are far and few in between. Most labels have a sound and they stick to it, because they know that it will sell to their market. 

However, every once in a blue moon you see one of the label curators, like Ramon, stating that all the songs that they get sent all sound the same, not realizing that they caused their own conundrum by “curating a sound.” 

Archipel (my label), while we curate a sound, does things a little differently. That’s why, in this blog post, I wanted to touch on how we balance originality with marketability. 

How Music Is Sold And Consumed

First, let’s talk about how much is listened to and sold. There are three spheres – people who make music, people who listen to music, and the bridge that connect people between the two. This bridge is either labels, or channels such as blogs, YouTube channels, and Spotify playlists. 

However, because of the algorithmic era that we live in, in order for many of these channels to grow, they have to keep listeners engaged, and the unfortunate fact is that most listeners aren’t that interested in hearing new music. Sure, they may be into new music in a respective genre, but anything that challenges that genre may result in a user skip. And every time you get a skip, you get devalued in the algorithm. And content curators know this. Therefore, it’s in their best interest to keep things predictable, and to be wary of anyone releasing original music. 

a picture of how culture matters while releasing original music

Your Culture Matters

Another part of how people consume music is the culture that they live in. If it encourages people to be open minded to new sounds, then they may check out new sounds. 

A good example of this is Montreal, where I’m from. We have a ton of unique, forward thinking musicians that don’t sound like anyone else, releasing original music. Good examples of this are Tim Hecker, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Arcade Fire, Grimes, Kaytranada, and Leonard Cohen. 

Sure, there are a dime a dozen Arcade Fire and Leonard Cohen sounding musicians, but at the time they were first releasing original music, these sounds were fresh, and exhilarating. And this innovation was only possible due to the culture they existed in. Unfortunately, most places aren’t like Montreal though. 

Don’t Disregard Small Cultures

Speaking of culture, even if you don’t live somewhere as open minded as Montreal, there are most likely small circles where you can get away with releasing original music, and performing it to a receptive crowd. There is this perception that in order to enjoy music, you somehow have to be part of the mainstream crowd that represents it. This is usually unrealistic for most people, so I always recommend finding five or so people who can become advocates for your sound. They’ll tell others about it, and you never know what opportunities that will open up, or what other subcultures they belong to that your sound fits into.

a photo of a guy preparing for releasing original music


The Label’s Culture Matters When Releasing Original Music

I’ve written about this a lot, but another thing about Archipel is that just because your sound might fit, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be signed. That’s because just as much as a label is about creating a sonic portrait, it’s also about cultural fit, just like most other businesses. 

Think about it, you’re a software developer who applies for a job. You have all the credentials, and can write clean code with the best of them. However, so can everyone else who is in the same round of interview you are in. So what separates you from them? Your personality. That’s why we generally only sign people who we have a personal relationship with, or someone who presents themselves to be culturally relevant. 

Therefore, before you try to get signed with Archipel, it’s best to talk to us for a bit. Maybe get some mixing and mastering done. Interact with our posts. Talk to our artists. But if you don’t want to do all of this, then, for God’s sake, don’t just cold email a link. This has been happening constantly over the last 10 years, and it’s a waste of time. Instead, write something about how you would be a good fit and show that you have done your homework, just like any job interview. This attitude will result in a higher acceptance rate to other labels as well, even if your sound may or may not fit.  

Good Labels Release Original Music As Part Of A Narrative

A good example of this is a while ago I was mastering this artist’s release, and I thought that it would fit the label. So I reached out to him asking if he wanted it to be signed. His response was somewhere between flattery and shock. He was flattered that I thought it should be on the label, but at the same time didn’t think it would fit. That’s because with Archipel, I approach the label like an album, or a DJ mix, where the next release is a song that acts as a bridge to the next. 

I see the whole thing as a narrative, in a way. And that means that even if a song would have worked in the past on the label, at this particular moment, it didn’t, because of the curated story. 

However, this guy’s release, while it might have not made sense in the past, made perfect sense here. 

The moral of this story is that if you really want to be on a label, and that label curates many different genres, don’t worry if it will fit or not – just send it over. You never really know the intentions of the A&R. However, if you want to send music to a label like Say What? Recordings that almost exclusively releases 130+ BPM peak techno, then it’s probably not wise to send them your leftfield ambient track.

In Conclusion

Labels are a tricky thing if you plan on releasing original music. If it’s too similar to everything else, it will get ignored. If it’s too different than everything else, it will get ignored. Even if you find a sweet spot in the middle of that, chances are it will get ignored too, since you don’t have a relationship with the label. Therefore, it’s best to cultivate relationships, and join a culture that will accept you for who you are. Remember, at one point, all genres were truly original. It just took a curator to have the the confidence in order to release it on the market. Maybe it’s time for curators to have more confidence?

 

Ableton-Hardware Hybrid Setup

/in , , , , /by

Producers often get comfortable in the computer and feel they are not getting enough, so they decide to invest in hardware.

Once you get good at something, it’s only natural to want to upgrade to the next level. You may get that feeling that you aren’t getting enough out of it, or that the medium is limiting in some way. With my students, often this feeling means leaping from a DAW like Abelton to a hardware-based setup. 

They often think that by doing so, they’re going to unlock a richer sound, and a more intuitive, instrumental interface. They believe they will be liberated, able to just jam out compositions without having to rely on an “unnatural” mouse click or MIDI mapping inside a DAW. 

The truth is that once they make this leap, and ditch Ableton for an Electron Octatrak, and a modular, they often find themselves being even more limited by the foreign user interface and the fact that modular doesn’t have an “undo” button, or patch saves.

That’s why I always recommend that they use an Ableton-hardware hybrid setup that incorporates the best of both worlds, where the tactile, plug and play nature of hardware meets the convenience of being able to easily save, and revert back to settings on the computer. 

Over the years, I think I have a pretty rounded philosophy of how to tackle this integration, which I would like to share with you in this post.

However, let’s talk about hardware first, so that you can understand its strengths and weaknesses. 

A photo of a simple example of an Ableton-hardware hybrid setup.

 

Myths About Hardware

It automatically Sounds Better

Just because something is hardware, doesn’t mean that it’s going to mythically sound better. In some cases, analog summing can fix some issues and enhance certain things but it can also be sounding different than digital and since our ears are used to the digital realm, it might be misleading. It’s not 2005 anymore; virtual instruments have grown leaps and bounds over the years. Even to a trained ear, it’s hard to tell the difference between an emulated TB303 and the Roland Cloud version. Analog does have charm and specific texture but it’s different than digital. Some people get confused once in front of certain pieces of gear.

However, there are things that happen with the sound in hardware that is difficult to emulate in software. For instance, the “ghost in the sound’ – that almost invisible hand that creates random, happy accidents due to the fact that you are working with pure electrical current, rather than a binary representation of it. 

This “hand” often results in sounds that are impossible to replicate, existing for only as long as they project from the speakers. To me, this is the magic of hardware – that unpredictability that exists for a fleeting moment, until it’s gone, never to be heard again, unless you capture it. 

In other words, analog has a sound that digital doesn’t have and that’s an aesthetic that pleases many people. Believe it or not, some people really do prefer the digital sound, mostly because our ears have got used to it.

However, what is this capability worth, if you can’t capture it properly? That’s why it’s imperative when buying hardware that you also buy a solid audio interface to be able to record the sound at the highest fidelity. Because at the end of the day, your hardware will only sound as good as the weakest part of the chain.

It’s More Intuitive

This is another fallacy. If anything, analog hardware can create a new set of problems, with the main problem being that you can’t just pull up a setting or patch. You also can’t revert back to a previous setting if something gets all messed up. 

Instead, you have to work backward in order to figure out where it went wrong. And if it’s analog, chances are that due to the “ghost in the machine” you won’t be able to get back to where you were. This results in endless hours of fruitless tinkering.

This also poses problems for live performance as well. I remember when I was performing at MUTEK with a modular setup. I was in the middle of soundcheck, jamming on my modular, getting lost in the frequencies. Then at the end of the check, I realized that I had to repatch everything back to where I wanted it for the beginning of the set. It was frustrating, to say the least. On a computer, I could have just reloaded the project. 

If you’re allergic to the mouse and sceen, perhaps hardware might be closer to your needs but it doesn’t mean it will be easier.

It’s DAWless

What is an MPC, Octotrak, Deluge if not a Digital Audio Workstation? They are digital, process audio, and they are a workshop. If anything, you are just substituting an intuitive interface that looks like a laptop, for a complicated interface that looks like a box with buttons on it (wait, isn’t that what a laptop is; just a box with buttons?). 

If you can’t stand the aesthetic of a laptop and want something sleeker, then that is your right as a creative. Just know, it’s way harder to drop a drum sample into an MPC than Ableton assisted by a Push or Maschine. If you hate the look of a laptop on stage, disguise it in a case.

 

How To Get The Most Out Of Your Hardware

Learn One Piece At A Time

People will often buy a lot of gear all at once without understanding their needs. Unless you are copying someone’s setup exactly from a YouTube video, and want their exact same sound, chances are people want their own thing to fit their artistic vision. 

So people will often be like ok, I need a synth, a drum machine, a set of effects, and a “brain” that I can route this all into. Then they set this all up, and realize that they are totally overwhelmed and have no idea how to use it, because there is no blueprint for it.

That’s why I recommend starting out with one piece of gear and getting really good at it. Once you know how it plays, then you can start thinking about the next part of the chain. 

So, let’s say you start with an analog synth. First, you must understand where all the filters are, and what they do. Understand how the oscillators sound, and how you can route them. Then you can consider your next addition.

So if you got a synth, the next thing you’re probably going to want is a way to sequence it. That is often a drum machine with a VC gate that can signal the synth to play (or not play) certain parameters. I recommend Beatstep Pro (Arturia) or Pioneer DJ Toraiz Squid. Of course, there are many you could add but those 2 are very versatile and fast to learn.

Once you figure that out, maybe you want an effect in order to get some more character out of the synth. Make sure that the effects that you buy are exactly what you want by testing it on the sequenced synthesizer. If they don’t create exactly what you want, then get new ones. No need to move on until you figure this out. 

By moving on too soon, you may just get tangled in your new setup, and not realize how to use it. Now you’re $5,000 deep into a headache, and not any more or less creative.

However, if you understand your pieces inside and out before expanding the chain, then you will run into fewer obstacles.

Record Everything

Remember, often with analog hardware, what you made will only exist at that moment. You may never be able to record that again. Therefore, make sure that you have plenty of space on whatever device you are recording onto because you should be recording nearly everything.

This works especially well if your creative process is to create a bunch of loops, and then assemble your loops into a song.

Truth be told, hardware doesn’t require endless MIDI mappings, and clicking, and is more instrumental, in a lot of ways. The knobs are properly dialed in with the circuits, and the keys are weighted to interact with the synth in ways that a standard MIDI controller may not be. Therefore, the loops that you create may very well be more interesting than anything you could have made with a soft-synth. 

Make Sure Your Recording Is Clean

Like I mentioned before, you need a good audio interface. I recommend Focusrite Scarlett or SSL2. These record at a high sample rate, and will capture the purest representation of what’s outputting from your setup. 

Also, you have to record it properly. Therefore, the signal has to come as close as possible to 0dB because the noise floor will always be the same on hardware. So if you’re recording at -6dB as you would with digital instruments, when your hardware recording is loaded into your “brain”, it will not seem loud enough in many cases. 

That’s because -6dB in the physical world is quiet. So, naturally, you will turn it up. However, when you turn it up you add 6dB of noise to the recording. Maybe you want this noise, but it won’t be accurate to the fidelity of your original recording. Therefore, always make sure that when recording, that it is as close to 0DB as possible.  

Realize You Will Be A Noob, Again

Just because you were a proficient Ableton user, doesn’t mean you will be a proficient hardware user. You will have to pick up the user manual again and start watching copious YouTube videos in order to get back up to speed. 

Your first stuff will probably sound terrible. This may be discouraging, but this is the reality you will have to accept. Just because you made electronic music “in the box”, doesn’t mean you will be able to “out of the box”

another photo of an Ableton-hardware hybrid setup

How To Get The Most Out Of An ABleton-Hardware Hybrid Setup

 

For the sake of this article, we’re going to assume you’re proficient with your DAW. In this article, we’ll use Ableton as our primary example. 

Play To Each Other’s Strengths

The goal with a hybrid setup is to buy what the computer can’t give you, and/or compliment what you’re doing on the computer with hardware. 

As you know, the process in Ableton is pretty intuitive, and not destructive in nature. If you screw something up, you can always undo, or revert to a previous version of the project.

It’s also way easier to visualize a song’s arrangement on Ableton than it is on an MPC. 

However, perhaps you like the playability of the MPC. Well, there is a solution to that – it’s called Ableton Push. I use it for basically everything; it’s amazing. It adds that tactile instrumentation that’s missing when dealing with a mouse. Additionally, all its MIDI mappings are designed to be standardized and intuitive with Ableton. 

Use Ableton As A Band Member

A good way to use Ableton in conjunction with your hardware is to use it as a session musician/band member. Write out a basic structure of a song on Ableton, MIDI clock it with your hardware, and then route your hardware into channels, and start jamming. Inside Ableton you can also create some complex effects chains that can modulate the hardware in unexpected ways, giving you something entirely fresh.

Use Ableton To Preserve Sounds

Another way you can use Ableton to compliment your hardware in an Ableton-hardware hybrid setup is to be able to have multiple versions of the same project that contains all the hardware loops that you recorded. Since Ableton’s environment isn’t destructive to waveforms like something like the MPC would be due to its limited hard drive space, you can modify the waveforms, without having to have multiple large files. Instead, you just have individual projects for different versions of the recording. 

Split Your Time Into Technical And Creative Sessions

This kind of works whether you are pure hardware, or using an Ableton-hardware hybrid setup. The fact remains, whenever you are integrating analog gear, there will be a setup process. You can’t just load settings. So you have to get all your patches set up, your effects set up and properly bypassed, your sequencer running, and your patterns in order. You then have to make sure that everything is playing back close to 0dB to avoid the dreaded noise. 

This will consume a good amount of brainpower. 

Therefore, once this is all ready, make sure to take a break. Go drink a beer, meditate, exercise, or do whatever you do to reset your mind.

Then come back and start jamming and being creative with your Ableton-hardware hybrid setup.

MIDI Controllers Are Your Friend

MIDI mapping is really easy on Ableton. Sure, it takes a little bit of time to set up, but it’s often nothing compared to the amount of time you will be tweaking hardware to get a similar result. Therefore, get some MIDI faders and knobs to control some internal processes in Ableton. 

MIDI will create that tactile sensation that hardware provides. The Push is, once again, a great way of accomplishing this, since it’s intuitive with Ableton. However, some people don’t want to spend that much money on a MIDI controller. In that case, there are dozens of great controllers out there that allow you to essentially create your own instruments on the fly.

Some suggestions: AKAI midimix, Novation Launch Control

These mappings will also affect your hardware as well, since you can map them to different internal faders that change the sound of the hardware, such as channel volume, or surgical EQ parameters. 

 

Ultimately, do what works best for your creative process. These are just my recommendations from my experiences using both exclusively, and then integrating the two. Just remember, there is a learning curve with everything, and things that were true for one, will not be for the other. There is no magic bullet when it comes to making music. Hardware won’t make you amazing, software won’t make you amazing. Only talent and dedication will.

Some links contain affiliate offers.

Electronic Music Coaching Lessons

/in , , , /by

There is this attitude in electronic music that if you share your secrets and techniques that somehow an essence of it will get lost, and some of the magic will dissipate. Additionally, people may take that advice, utilize it, and somehow outgrow and surpass the teacher. And nobody wants to feel like they dug their own grave. This philosophy about electronic music coaching took me some time to overcome, and I’m glad I did. 

Instead of the relationship between teacher and student becoming parasitic, instead I have found it to be purely symbiotic. Sure, some students have surpassed me in many aspects, but I find that they are reciprocal about their newfound knowledge. Now I have many people who are happy to help me with aspects of music making that I don’t enjoy doing as much as they do.

A photo of George Martin coaching the Beatles.

George Martin helping The Beatles. He would have been excellent at electronic music coaching.

Success Takes A Team

As I’ve harped on in previous posts, it makes sense to delegate some of the tasks of your music making, as this is what happens in every other genre of music, yet, for some reason, seems to be stigmatized in electronic music. Think about it, The Beatles had George Martin, Miles Davis had Herbie Hancock. Michael Jackson had Quincy Jones (as did Frank Sinatra). It doesn’t make you less of a musician to be the teacher and embolden your students; it empowers you and propels you to greatness.

That’s why, around Spring of 2016, I announced on my Facebook page that I’d do free electronic music coaching to anyone who would come to me. Back then, it was just a pure invitation to share my knowledge to people and using Mailchimp’s newsletter technology, I was hoping I could send emails to people and guide them in exercises. 

Initial Experiments In Electronic Music Coaching And The Lessons Learned

My initial attempt kinda failed pretty quickly as my lack of understanding of the email technology drove some of the participants mad and I had more damage control to do than coaching. So I closed that option and decided to open an electronic music collective / Facebook group with a precise goal – to provide a safe space for anyone who was unsure about their music before posting it publicly or sending it to a label. Of course, any question would be welcomed and we would have a hive mind to answer questions from various people.

As I’m approaching 5 years of free electronic music coaching, I’ve learned a lot from this. From giving feedback and to seeing mentees grow into solid musicians, these are the scenarios I saw play out.

Common scenarios In Electronic Music Coaching

Pretty much everyone who came to me to get some help had one thing that was blocking them from something. A minority would come to perfect their skills and some would come to have guidance in different situations but in the most part, people come to me because they’re blocked. In our electronic music collective, the more specific questions are usually searching for a specific effect used to replicate a sound or getting feedback on a song. These are quickly answered by the community that share a few ideas and hints. Often, it might not be exactly what the person needs but it often guides them down a path that may lead them to something more proactive.

However when doing one-on-one electronic music coaching, I often am presented with the same problems:

  • People who are experiencing a major writer’s block and are feeling helpless.
  • Aspiring artists that have worked really hard and are feeling stuck, not seeing improvements.
  • People who have the loopy syndrome, having countless loops but not being able to finish songs.
  • People who have deep love for what they create and are stubborn about any criticism, or conversely, they have intense hate towards what they create, and beat themselves up over it.

How Evolution Impacts Knowledge

If you look in hindsight at what happened in the world of electronic music production in the last 20 years, the software world paired with the internet has made it much simpler. 20 years ago, we were limited to a few resources and we’d always be in stasis waiting for our answers to come (if they ever did). We are now living in a world where we are constantly having our attention pulled in multiple directions, with each direction espousing that “this is the true way,” when there is rarely a “true way” for anything, especially in art.

It’s these conflicting statements that seeds a ton of doubt, or unnecessary confidence in their practitioners. This doubt, or this overconfidence that my one on one sessions seek to remedy. 

There is nothing wrong with being confident in your work, but overconfidence creates barriers to learning, and conflicts with progress. Sometimes I wonder why these people want electronic music coaching at all, but the fact that they get it, shows they at least have a conscious understanding of its importance, even if their subconscious confidence conflicts with it. 

Conversely, the doubt that many musicians have creates a similar problem. They may be in coaching to become more confident, but their lack of confidence results in that sort of barking little dog syndrome, where any bit of critique damages their already delicate creative ego, even if they consciously know it’s necessary. This can be likened to something like physical therapy; it’s going to hurt to walk again if you broke both your legs, and you’re going to hate it, but you know it’s necessary.

Successful Students

After coaching for over 15 years total, I had noticed that some people did better than others. At the beginning, I was working with a plan, and would teach all the people the same things but I quickly adapted that because it was not working well. Some were learning fast and would provide some interesting challenges or questions while others had some of the same questions but were always struggling on basic issues.

I understood one thing which is, you can’t really teach electronic music theory and music production training from a rigid approach because what makes it successful is to understand someone globally and then, as a team, find strategies to build a routine and work habits. More importantly, I tried to help the person find its own way of learning through the internet jungle.

Here are common points that people who succeeded had:

  • They had a clear direction: People that I see with a clear intention and direction, such as “wanting to sound like X”, are the easiest to guide. If you have a target and goal, you can always try to push what you do and technically study how it is done with music you have on hand.  With my help, we can reverse engineer some songs and try different things. Once that target is mostly reached, what’s interesting is how it leads them elsewhere. The fact that they know how something is done allows them to discover other artists or songs that are itching their curiosity. But working with targets, is always a clear indication of improvement.
  • They showed consistency: Anyone who works on a regular basis, over a constant time, has shown great improvement. More than people who started really strong but couldn’t keep up the pace. Working hard isn’t always smart. It’s more about knowing what you can do and try to consistently learn something new, practice it and then putting it into context of a song.
  • They asked a lot of questions: Often creative success and inquisitivity go hand in hand. Asking for advice and technical guidance is a must if you wish to go far. You can do everything yourself but you’re not giving yourself the chance to grow adequately. Even if someone thinks otherwise than you, there’s some part of his view that can be useful.
  • They stayed humble and always wanted to learn. If you come with the idea that you’ll learn something everyday, you won’t be stagnant in whatever you do and will always be looking forward.
  • They were not afraid of rejection and criticism. Because each song is an experiment in itself and anyone’s point of view is arbitrary.

electronic music coaching photo

Struggling points

These are individuals who have been facing a number of problems in the learning and while have learned a lot and improved much, they unfortunately haven’t rolled out as much as they wished. These are what commonly hinder them.

  • The student focuses on the success of a specific song.
  • They work in a linear fashion and won’t change.
  • Insisting on doing everything themselves.
  • The musician is often convinced they know more than they do.
  • Their expectations are set really high.
  • The belief that hard work brings success is deeply ingrained in them.
  • They see music in a hierarchical way.

 

What I’ve Learned In Electronic Music Coaching

The Latin proverb docendo discimus translates to “by teaching, we learn.” These are some of the lessons I’ve learned by teaching others.

Free isn’t always a good thing

If you give something for free, it doesn’t always have value. Free advice is cheap advice. Unless people pay for it, there is less of a chance that they will anchor said advice. Not saying that giving free advice is bad; that’s what these blog posts and the group flourishes on. It’s just that they can be easily dismissed. However, if you paid for advice, there is a greater chance that you implement it.

Consistency is key to development

Think of it like training for a sport. If you are training for a marathon, and decide to take a month off, you’re going to have to spend time ramping back up to that level. Additionally, the longer you put something off, the more chance you have to disregard it.  

Not be afraid of making mistakes

The comic strip artist Scott Adams has a really poignant quote about mistakes in the creative journey. He says, “Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.” I find this statement to be very true. Many of my favorite parts of my works have come unintentionally, or are a result of seriously messing something up. 

Bob Ross would have been great at electronic music coaching.

Being part of the community

No man is an island. Civilization was built by teams, and communities, not individuals. Teaching has allowed me to be part of a vibrant community, and for that I am extremely grateful. It has taught me at least as much, and provided me as many resources, as I have provided others.

Other Benefits of Electronic Music Coaching

Since my music is pretty esoteric, I learned over decades of performing that the people who attended my shows were cut from a similar cloth. They were musicians, and sound designers, eager to absorb some of the essence of the performance in order to translate it into their own creations. 

This gave me the realization that in order to grow and keep my fan base engaged, I had to give the people what they wanted. Therefore, electronic coaching became not only empowering creatively, it became a solid marketing channel. 

If you’re interested in becoming part of our community and getting some free coaching, join our electronic music collective, Pheek’s Coaching Corner. We also have a bunch of tutorials on YouTube as well. If you want more personalized coaching, I offer that as well.

Sound Design and Arrangements Series Pt. 4: Emphasis and Proportion

/in , , , , , /by

This post is part of a series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

In this post I thought I’d dive into two principles that I find go hand-in-hand: emphasis and proportion. Let’s start by defining what they mean, then how we can use them in what we love doing—music production.

In past articles I’ve talked about how to start a song. While there’s no right or wrong answer here, we can agree on certain points for the core of a song. Let me ask you a straight-up question to start with, which is, when you think of your all-time favourite song, what automatically comes to your mind as its most memorable part?

All kind of answers can come up, and perhaps you’re hearing the song in your mind while reading this. Maybe you remember the chorus, the main riff (motif), or have a part of the song where a specific emotion is evoked in you; you might even be thinking about a purely technical part.

Whatever you remember from that song was your point of focus. The focal point of the listener is what grabs attention and keeps it engaged.

Emphasis is a strategy that aims to draw the listener’s attention to a specific design element or an element in question. You could have emphasis on multiple focal points, but the more you have, the less emphasis impact you’ll have.

When producing a song, I like to ask, what is the star of this song? What is the motif, the main idea? What’s going to catch your attention first and keep you engaged? When listening to a song, you might have different layers and ideas succeeding one another, but of course, they can’t all grab a listener’s attention, as you can only really focus on 1-2 elements at a time. As explained in past articles, the listener will follow the arrangements exactly like one would follow the story line of a movie.

I see emphasis is from two perspectives: from the tonic side and/or from the storytelling part.

The tonic part is where you have your phrase (melody) and there is a part that is “louder” than the others. So, let’s say we take one sentence and change the tonic accent, it will change it’s meaning (caps represents the tonic):

  • I like carrots.
  • I LIKE carrots.
  • I like CARROTS.
  • but also, I LIke carROTS!

We have here 3 different tonic emphases, and in each, the focal point of the listener is shifted to a specific word. When we talk, we change the tonic naturally—emphasis on a specific word is to put importance on it for the listener. It can be used as weight, on insisting your position about a topic, or to clarify one word.

The same is also true for timing:

  • I like… carrots.
  • I… like carrots.

Or spacing perhaps the syllables to create another type of tonic:

  • I li..ke carrots.
  • I like car…rots.

Pausing creates tension as you wait. If you can focus on one idea and articulate it in various ways, you can imagine that your motif will keep the interest of the listener.

Now imagine these ideas transposed to your melodic phrase; you can play with the velocity, but also create emphasis by pausing, delaying, and accentuating it.

Potential solutions to add emphasis: velocity, swing, randomness.

In our coaching group on Facebook, I often see people try to focus on everything a song should have, but without a main idea and therefore without emphasis, listeners have a hard time getting hooked on any part of it. You can do anything you want in music, yes, but perhaps if you listen to your favourite songs, you might notice that they usually have a strong hook or something to suck you in.

Tip: Strip down your track to the bare minimum but so that it’s still recognizable as the same song. Are you left with the melody or is it something else? What’s unique about your song?

While this post is not going to discuss motifs and hooks in detail, since it was previously covered multiple times on this blog, I’d like discuss how emphasis can be used to bring a hook/motif to life.

To emphasize a specific sound, hook, or motif, you can use any of these techniques:

  1. Amplitude: One sound is 25-75% lower or higher in gain than another. Think of different drum sounds in a kit.
  2. Brightness: Brightness mostly starts at around 8khz. A filter or EQ boost around that area and higher will feel like magic. Same for multi-band saturation. This is why cutting or taming sounds compared to the one you want brighter will help contribute to emphasis.
  3. Thickness: If you take multiple samples, percussive for example, and compress some in parallel (eg. 50% wet) very aggressively with a ratio of 8:1, you will definitely see a difference.
  4. Dynamics: Using an envelope, map it to some parameters of your plugins to have them interact with the incoming signal.

However, all of these techniques depend on one thing: whatever you put emphasis on must have an “edge” in comparison to the other sounds. In ambient or techno with multiple sounds, you’ll want to make sure to setup routing in your production even before mixing your song. I like to group all elements that are decorative so they are treated as if they’d be a bit more distant. For example, for that group you could start by cutting most of the highs at around 10k with a gentle filter curve, then control the transients with a transient shaper by making them less aggressive and then have a reverb that focuses on a late response, which will create a distance. You can then lower the gain of the entire group to taste to get more of a background feel from all those sounds. Something like Trackspacer could also very useful here to create space between the main idea and your other sounds.

To support emphasis, you need proportion. In sound design, I like to think of proportion as an element of design more than a pragmatic thing. If you think of a drum set, all hits are really at different volume levels—you never see a drummer hit everything at the same volume level; they probably wouldn’t even if they could because it just doesn’t sound right. This is a version of proportion that can be applied to any of your sequences, percussion, and other ideas—it’s often related to velocity.

I also see proportion in the wet/dry knob of your effects. How much do you want to add or remove?

For the listener to understand the importance and emphasis of an effect, you’ll need to counter-balance it with something proportionally lower. If you want the listener to hear how powerful a sound is, try using another one that is very weak; the contrast will amplify it.

Proportion comes from different aspects. Arrangements take over from the mix in a dynamic way. So, if you think of your song as having an introduction, middle, and ending, proportion can also be address from a time-based perspective in arrangements. While there’s nothing wrong with linear arrangements, which are some of the friendliest DJ tools possible, they are perhaps not strongest example of proportion in music.

Here are just a few examples of how you can address proportion in your productions with some simple little tweaks:

  • When mixing your elements, look at the volume metering on the Master channel. You want your main element to be coming the loudest and then you’ll mix in the other ones. You can group all your other elements besides the main element and have them slightly ducking with a compressor. I’ve been really enjoying the Smart Compressor by Sonimus. It does a great job at ducking frequencies, a bit like Track Spacer but, cleaner since it provides a internal assistant.
  • If you’ve missed past articles, one technique I’ve outlined is the 75-50-25 technique, as I’ve named it. Once you have your main element coming in, you’ll want other channels to be either a bit lower (75%), half of the main (50%), or in the back (25%). This will really shape a spatial mix to really provide space and proportion for the main element.
  • I find that if you want emphasis, there’s nothing better to bring in some life in it and I’d recommend you use a tool like Shaperbox 2. I would automate the volume over 4 bars. I find that 4 bars is the main target for electronic music, mostly for the organization and variation it needs to keep the listener engaged. If it changes every 2 bars, the listener will notice, but every 4 bars, with a progression, it will create the idea that there’s always a variation. Also, I like to create fades in different plateaus of automation. You can have a slant between bar 1 and 2, then jump to a different level on 3 and a slow move for 4. This is very exciting for the ear. Pair that with filtering automation, and you’ll have real action. Emphasis will work well if this type of automation is happening on your main element, but it’s hard to do on all channels because it becomes distracting.
  • Supporting elements can share similar reverb or effects with the main idea for unity.
  • Dynamics are helpful for articulation and emphasis. The new Saturn 2 is pretty incredible for this—it can tweak the saturation based on an incoming signal.

Can you trust yourself to judge your own music?

/in , , , , , /by

This has been a popular topic recently—I think that because of the pandemic and the isolation that comes with it, people rely a lot on online contacts to get feedback on their music. The lack of in-person music testing as well as and lack of being able to go to clubs has changed the way we are able to analyze our own music.

I was a part of an organized live stream recently to support a friend named Denis Kaznacheev, who has been held in prison for something we all think is impossible (but that’s another topic). Being in a room with 4 people, playing live, and getting feedback after months of isolation was a weird experience. The first thing that came to my mind was, that my music sucked. Yeah, I also go through it once in a while, and I had forgotten how playing music for and in front of people changes the dynamic of a song. In studio, it sounds a specific way but add one listener and it’s all of a sudden, different.

Some song, different context, completely different mood. Was there something I could do to predict this?

Technically, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what I did. People who tuned in loved it. The thing that clashed was the mood, the feel of the track, compared to what I had in mind. In past articles I’ve discussed the importance of a reference track, and this could have helped me in this particular situation, and could have helped better classify my music as well. But as you know, there’s no do-it-all plugin that can prevent this. This is why many people struggle with judging their own music.

Technical Validation

When it comes to technical items, you can self-validate using some handy tools.

See if your track is, compared to a reference, feeling like the same tone and balanced, I’d recommend using Reference. This tool is my go-to plugin whenever a client insists that the track I’m working on doesn’t sound like a particular song. I’ll load up the reference song and then, after volume matching, I can see if the lows, mids, highs are adjusted in a similar way than my mix. It also shows you if you have, per band, the same level of compression or wideness. It doesn’t lie and you can match it to have something similar. But how do you raise one band to match the reference?

I use a multi-band compressor to compress and, or EQ. A shelving EQ, with 3 bands can be helpful to adjust, but a multi-band compressor really can set the tone. You’ll set the crossovers of each band to match Reference and by adjusting, you’ll see it react to your gain or reduction. While you could use any multi-band compressors, I’d highly recommend the Fabfilter MB.

The same company that makes Reference also made a plugin named Mixroom which, with the same idea as reference, focuses on everything in the mids and highs. It’s a bit tricky to use at first, but once I found reference songs that were analyzed properly, it gave me some interesting pointers on what to push or remove. I thought it was pretty interesting to reverse-engineer some complicated mixes.

Many times people will tell me they don’t like to compare to anyone or that they’re going for their own style but that’s like trying to draw your grandmother from your memory. Some people might do better than others, but audio is abstract and you need to compare yourself to someone else to know what’s lacking or overflowing. I mean, even within a mix, I compare my channels to see their peaks, densities, and panning to make sure one doesn’t cross another, unless to create something as a whole.

People struggle with loudness, but it’s is a bit easier to manage. You’ll need a metering tool such as the IKmultimedia TR5 Metering or the lovely Hawkeye from Plugin Alliance. They are costly but necessary. For a mix, you have to keep in mind a few details: the loudest peak should be -6dB, the RMS (more or less the density) around -13 to -20dB, in LUFS, I’d suggest to be around -15dB and dynamic range to be above 10. A plugin such as Reference will also indicate loudness, and that can be really useful to see if you’re in the same ballpark.

Please consider these are numbers I deal with, and that for certain genres, it can be completely different.

If you come to struggle with the low end, the guys from Mastering The Mix also have a low-end validation/enhancement with the excellent Bassroom plugin. Again, you’ll need a quality reference to do the trick, but once loaded and with some practice, a muddy, weak low end will be a thing of the the past.

These are the best technical validation tools I’ve used in the last few years. They’re efficient, affordable and very useful in whatever I do.

Self-Mastering and Mixing

Pretty much anyone who’s been making music for a while or has studied audio engineering will agree that mixing or mastering yourself isn’t the real deal. It’s doable, understand me right, but you’re not winning. With the previous listing of all the technical tools I shared, you can make some really efficient mixes, but perhaps sometimes that’s not enough.

As an engineer, the main thing I’ll say is that someone else might spot things that are in your blind spots, plus that person is also emotionally detached from the music itself, so making decisions feels like less of a risk in itself. If you’ve been reading this blog regularly, you know I often refer to our duality as humans to have a analytical side and a creative side. When I work with musicians, I invite them to see this duality as a muscle. Your creative side needs to be exercised; it needs to constantly be fed because it’s a sponge. You want to find the perfect routine and be efficient at it, then break it to pieces to reinvent your new way of making music by re-combining them for a new version of yourself.

The way I see music-making isn’t about trying to be in full possession of your potential, but more about always putting yourself into a state of instability and risk, so new creative ideas emerge. You’ll connect the dots of the past to create a path in the now.

This state of mind is one that is not always technical, and it’s raw. I would invite you not to tame it, but to create spontaneous ideas and raw projects.

This approach is basically the exact opposite of sitting in front of your computer to design and fix a snare. There’s nothing wrong with that if you like, it but like I say to people, artists should become experts at flow, not perfection. They want to be artists, not craftsmen. But I won’t stop you from being both—I just often feel that technical production doesn’t age as well as solid creative ideas. The only thing that stands the test of time is simplicity, and that comes with a mastery of both flow and technical expertise.

If you want to be a master at everything, you’ll be very average at everything as well for quite some time, or potentially forever.

So, imagine you have an amazing idea that you made but you are very average at mixing and new to mastering—you’ll probably be butchering your idea when you try to do either. Yes, you save money and learn by doing it yourself, but I think if you’re aspiring to release something on a good label, to get attention, it might be a good thing to have someone look into your mix, even a friend. But if you really want to do it all yourself, get yourself solid tools to make sure you get the most out of them.

If you want to practice mixing, I suggest trying to find what I call, a swap buddy who can send you their mixes and vice-versa. You both learn by tweaking each other’s work, and going back to your own music after will feel easier, and clearer as well.

Psychological Validation

Now, psychology is an area where don’t get any tools to help that we all have to deal with. It’s that limbo where you maybe made a few different mixes and feel unsure which one is best. You know technically everything is there and in order, but in the last bit you’ll try to label your song into one of these buckets: Good, Not Good, Still needs work, Ready for mastering…etc.

Are advanced, experienced, and veteran producers exempt from this state of mind? Not at all. After decades of making music, I still have no idea if my music is “good” or not, even if got in the top 10 on Beatport or if my friends all love it. Deep inside, sometimes, I’ll doubt myself. However, I came up with some personal rules to help me judge if I think my own work is decent or not.

Deal with technical points first: This is why I started this post with technical stuff. I see in our Facebook group, people giving feedback, and my observation is that it is often biased by their mood or listening situation. What has become clear to me is that when giving feedback, you need a common reference. I can tell you that your kick is too loud, but compared to what? I have clients sometimes who complain about the low end being overpowering but in the same mastering session on that day I had another client who loved really, really loud kicks. The difference was laughable and both had the exact opposite feedback: one had weak low end but he felt it was too much while the opposite was a bass orgy but he wanted more. Could it just be what they hear? Yes, probably, and this is why you need to be able to use a FFT to check, but also, listen to you music in the middle of a playlist that has other songs of the same genre to know if it sounds right.

A client was telling me “It sounds right in the studio, wrong in the car and at home, its a different song… which one is right?”

The one that is right should be your studio version, but it should be cross-validated technically with other songs. If it doesn’t sound right at home, then find a song that sounds good there and then study it at the studio to see what that song has that yours don’t.

Know that you’ll never really have a permanent opinion about your music. Each day your mood might change and affect how you appreciate your music. Down the road, you’ll learn new techniques and then hear mistakes in your song, you’ll hear a better song than yours… all these points will make you doubt yourself. You’ll always want to go fix something. Since you know you’ll never be really satisfied with it, then you can accept to move on faster. Just start another song, apply what you learned, use your new influences and try something new.

Nothing exterior will validate your music. No matter what you think or do with your song, you might doubt it. This means, you don’t need the latest synth or to be on that specific label. “...and then I’ll be happy.” is a fallacy. Knowing that, it re-centres you to count on a handful of friends for feedback.

4. Let things age. Nothing better than taking a few weeks off before listening to know how you feel about it.

What’s interesting is that, whenever I receive criticism, I start see a perspective I didn’t look into enough—super important. Music production and audio engineering is often discouraging and that’s the reality of the art. That said, I don’t think there’s a day where I make music that I don’t learn something new. Accept that everything is work in progress. This is why songs that take too long to finish are often because my perfectionist side took over, and that’s not where I can make magic happen—it’s often the other way around.

Sound Design and Arrangements Series Pt. 3: Repetition

/in , , , , /by

This post is part of a series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

This post focuses on how I approach repetition in my music, as well as how I perceive it when working on clients’ music. While this is a very obvious topic for electronic music oriented towards dance, where patterns repeat, I understand that as an artist, it can be a very personal topic. Each genre has a way of approaching repetition, and if you’ve been browsing this blog, you will recognize some concepts previously covered that I’d encourage you to look into in more detail. I’d like to approach repetition in music by reviewing your workflow to avoid wasting time on things that can be automated.

Tempo

Using tempo to deliver a message is a very delicate subject. Often before I played live in a venue, I would spend some time on the dancefloor and analyze the mood and the dancers’ needs. I’d check out what speed a DJ’s set was, how fast he’s mix in and out, and the reaction of the crowd. It has always surprised me how playing at 122 BPM vs 123 BPM can shift the mood; I really can’t explain why. But when I’d make a song, I’d keep in mind that DJs could speed it up or slow it down—an important factor affecting energy. I find that increments of 5 make a huge change in the density of the sound in the club. If you slow down very complex patterns, the sounds have room between themselves which also gives the listeners to perceive the sound differently.

Whatever tempo you’ll be using, I highly recommend that you look into using gating for your short percussion or use an envelope maker like Shaperbox 2 to really shape the space between your sounds and have some “white space” between each of them. If you go for a dense atmosphere, I would recommend that you use very fast release compression and make use of parallel compression as well to make sure you’re not over crowding your song.

Sound Repetition

Once we find something we love, we tend to want to repeat it for the entire length of a song. This is, of course, a bit much for someone who listens to it. People expect change—for sounds to have variants and to be sucked in with perhaps something unexpected from the sound. Also, John Cage would disagree and suggest that an idea could be repeated for 10 minutes and the listener would be liking it, but I honestly haven’t heard many songs (through experience or work) that kept me that interested for that long.

The question is, how frequently can an idea be repeated?

It depends of a lot of factors, and while I don’t claim to know the truth, there are techniques to keep in mind. I’d like to teach you how to learn the best way for your music. Let me explain some of my own personal rules—my “reality check” for the validity of a song and the questions around repetition.

First impressions never fail: This is really important. 99% of people I work with start losing perspective and trust in their song’s potential by doing extended sessions on production. This means, when you first open a project you worked on, what hits you at first is what you should fix in that session. Once this is done, save it under another name and then close it. If you can space your sessions out by a few days or weeks (best option), then you can check your first impression of the song again and see if there’s something new clashing.

Hunting for problems will haunt you: There’s always something to fix in your song. Even when you think it’s done, there will always be something. At one point, you have to let go an embrace imperfection. Many people fall into the mindset of searching for problems because they think they missed something. Chances are, they’ll be fixing unnecessary things. What you actually think you’re missing will be details that are technically out of your current knowledge. Usually I do what I call a “stupid check” on my music which is to verify levels, phase issues, clipping and resonances. The rest is detail tweaking that I do in one session only. After that, I pass it to a friend to have his impression. Usually, this will do it.

Listen with your eyes closed: Are you able to listen to all of your song with your eyes closed upon first listen? If yes, your repetition is working, otherwise, fix, then move on.

Generating Supportive Content and Variations

In music production mode, if you want to be efficient and creative, you need to have a lot of different options. So let’s say that your motif/hook is a synth pattern you’ve made, what I would suggest is to have multiple variations of that.

In this video, Tom showcases a way of working that is really similar to how I work (and how many other people work). It’s something that is a bit long to do but once you switch to create mode, it becomes really fun and efficient. The only thing is, I personally find that he’s not using repetition enough, and while this is super useful for making short, slower songs that have a pop drive like in the video, it is not great for building tension. Too much change is entertaining, but you really have to flex your creative muscles to keep it engaging. I would rather have a loop playing to the point where the listener goes from “it should change now” to “I want this to change now.” So perhaps there will be a change after 3-4 bars in your loop. This is up to you to explore.

How do you create variations?

There’s no fast way or shortcut, creating good variations takes time and patience. It also take a few sound design sessions to come up with interesting results. To do this, randomizing effects is pretty much the best starting point and then you tweak to taste.

  1. MIDI Tools – The best way to start editing, is to start by tweaking your MIDI signal with different options. The MIDI tools included in Ableton at first are really useful. Dropping an arpeggio, note length change, or random notes and chords are pretty amazing to just change a simple 2-note melody into something with substance. One plugin that came out recently I’ve been very impressed with is Scaler 2. I like how deep it goes with all the different scales, artist presets (useful for a non-academic musician like me) and all the different ways to take melodies and have templates ready to be tweaked for your song. One way to commit to what you have is to resample everything like Tom did in his video. Eventually, I like to scrap the MIDI channel because otherwise I’ll keep going with new ideas and they’ll probably never be used. If you resample everything, you have your sound frozen in time, you can cut and arrange it to fit in the song at the moment it fits best.
  2. Audio Mangling – Once you have your MIDI idea bounced, it’s time to play with it for even more ideas. There are two kind of ideas you can use to approach your movement: fast tweaks or slow. When it comes to fast event, like a filter sweeping or reverb send, I used to do it all by hand; it would take ages. The fastest way out there is to take a muti-effect plugin and then randomize everything, while resampling it. The one that I found to be the most useful for that is Looperator by Sugar Bytes. Internally you can have random ideas generated, quick adjusting, wet/dry control and easily go from very wild to mellow. It’s possible to make fast effect tweaks (common to EDM or dubstep) but slower too. Combine this with the Texture plugin to add layers of content to anything. For instance, instead of simply having a background noise, you melt it into some omnipresence in the song so it can react to it, making your constant noise alive and reactive. The background is a good way to make anything repetitive, feel less repetitive because the ears detect it as something changing but it constantly moves its focus from foreground to background.
  3. Editing – This is the most painful step for me but luckily I found a way to make it more interesting thanks to the Serato Sampler. This amazing tool allows, like the Ableton sampler, to slice and map, and rearrange. You can combine it with a sequencer like Riffer or Rozzler (Free Max patch) to create new combinations. Why Serato instead of the stock plugin? Well, it’s just easy—I just want to “snap and go”, if you know what I mean, and this demands no adjustments.

Editing is really where it you can differentiate veteran from rookie producers. My suggestion to new comers would be a simple list of different ideas.

  • Decide on internal rules: Some people like to have precise rules that are set early in the song and then that will be respected through the song. I do it because it helps me understand the song’s idea. If you change too much, it may fall in the realm of “experimental” and maybe this isn’t what you had in mind. Every now and then, when booked for track finalization, people have a problem with the last third or quarter of their song. They lose focus and try to extrapolate or create new ideas. If you create enough material in the beginning, you’re going to make the last stretch easier. But when people are lost, I usually listen to the first minute of the song and go “let’s see what you had in mind at first” as a way to wrap it up around that logic. Basic rules can be created by deciding on a pattern and a series of effects that happen, more or less, at the same time, or a sequence of elements or sections. Pop has very precise rules for sections, while techno “rules” are more related to the selection of sounds and the patterns created.
  • Process, process, process: If I have one channel of claps or a different sound, I want to have variations of it, from subtle to extreme. Why? Because even simple ones are going to make a difference. It’s what makes a real human drummer feel captivating (if he or she is good!), because their playing slightly changes each time, even when playing a loop. Looperator is a good tool but you could also use the stock plugins and just use the presets to start with and resample, move knobs as you process and you can get some nice effects already.
  • Duplicate everything: Each channel should have duplicates where you can drop all your wet takes. You can put them all on mute and test unmuting to see how it goes.
  • MIDI controllers for the win: Map everything that you want to tweak and then record the movements of yourself playing. Usually will give you a bit of of a human feel compared to something created by a mouse click. You want to break that habit.
  • Use your eyes: I find that working with the clips visually and making patterns is a good way to see if you are using your internal rules and see if you use too many sounds.

Now, after all this, how do we know if a song’s repetition is good enough, and how do we know if it’s linear?

Validating with a reference is quick way to check, but if you take breaks and distance your sessions, that would be effective too. But the internal rules are, to me, what makes this work properly. I think the biggest challenge people face is that in spending too much time on a track they get bored and want to push things, add layers, change the rules and what perhaps felt fresh at first will be changed to a point where you’re not using the repetition principle to its full potential. The best example of someone being a master of repetition is Steve Reich and his masterpiece Music for 18 Musicians. There’s nothing more captivating of how one can create so much by playing with repetition.

Some effects in here would be reproduced with delays, phasers, the delay on the channel and such. You can also use the humanize patch to add a bit of delay randomly. I would strongly encourage you to listen to this a few times to fill yourself up with inspiration.

Sound Design and Arrangements Series Pt.1: Contrast

/in , , , , /by

I’ve been wanting to do a series of posts about arrangements because I’m passionate about this aspect of music production, but also because I noticed many of the people I work with struggle with arrangements in their work. There are so many different approaches and techniques to arranging—everyone has their own, and that’s sort of the goal I’d like to drive home in this series. I invite you to make a fresh start in developing a personal signature, aesthetic, vocabulary, and personality.

This post is not for people who are just beginning with arrangements, but if you are, it still contains information that could be interesting to consider down the road.

What do I Mean by “Contrast” in the Context of Arrangements?

In design, contrast refers to elements (two or more) that have certain differences, and their differences are used to grab attention or to evoke an emotion. When I teach my students about contrast, the easiest example to understand and summarize this concept is a difference of amplitude (volume). In movies, to create surprise, excitement, or tension, the amplitude will be low, and then rise either quickly or slowly, supporting the images in the emotion that is present.

In many electronic music songs, we have heard (too often) noise used as a rising element to create a tension. Noise builds became a caricature of themselves at some point given their overuse—but it’s a good example, nonetheless.

How is Contrast Used in Sound Design?

I spend my days working with musicians—contrast comes into play in different circumstances.

Within a single sound, it can be fast or slow changes from one extreme to another. I like to visualize this by analyzing a sound through different axes to help me understand what can be done to it.

  • Attack: Does it start abruptly or slowly?
  • Decay/Amplitude: Does it get really loud or is it more subtle?
  • Frequency/Pitch: Is it high, medium, low?
  • Release/Length: Short – Medium – Long – Constant?
  • Positioning: is it far or near? Low or higher in front of me?

Good contrast, generally, is to have two extremes in some of these domains. Think of a clap in a long reverb, as an example of how a super fast attack with a long release can create something unreal, and therefore, attention-grabbing. A sound that changes pitch is another form of contrast, as we go from one state to another.

Another way of thinking about contrast is to think about how pretty much all complex sounds are the combination of multiple sounds layered. When done properly, they feel as one, and when it’s done with contrast, the contrasting layer adds a movement, texture, or something dynamic that revives the initial sound. Of course, short sounds are more difficult to inject contrast into, but if you think of a bird’s chirp, which is basically the equivalent of a sine wave with a fast attack envelop on the pitch, it’s sounds are short but incredibly fast moving, too.

If you think about using contrast within a sound itself, the fastest way to make this happen is to use a sampler and really take advantage of the use of envelops, mod wheel assignment, and of course LFOs, but it’s really through the use of the envelops that you’ll be able to produce a reaction to what’s happening, sonically.

As I mentioned, the easiest way to produce contrast is by using two sounds that different characteristics, for example, short vs. a long, bright vs. dark one, sad vs. happy, far vs. close, etc. When you use two sounds, you give the listener the chance to have elements to compare, and the ear can easily perceive the difference.

When you select sounds to express your main idea, think of the characteristics in each sound you’re using. Myself, I usually pick my sounds in pairs, then in batches of four. I’ll start by finding one, and the next one will be related to the first. I’ll keep in mind the axis of both sounds when I select them and usually start with longer samples, because I know I can truncate them.

In the morning I usually work on mastering, and in the afternoon, I’ll work on mixing. The reason is, when you work on mastering, you get to work on all kinds of mixes; they have issues that I need to fix to make the master ready for distribution. By paying attention to the mix, I often deal with difficult frequencies and will spend my time controlling resonances that poke through once the song is boosted.

When I’m mixing, often I deal with a selection of sounds that were initially picked by the producer I am working with. The better the samples, the easier will be the mix and in the end, the better the song will feel. What makes a sound be great comes from different things:

  • Quality of the sample: clarity, low resonances, not compressed but dense, well-balanced and clear sounding, open.
  • High resolution: 24 or 32-bits, with some headroom.
  • No unnecessary use of low quality effects: no cheap reverb, no EQ being pushed exaggeratedly that will expose filter flaws, no weird M/S gimmicks.
  • Controlled transients: nothing that hurts the ears in any way.

You want to hunt down samples that not too short, because you want to be able to pick it’s length. You won’t need a sample that covers all frequencies—you’ll want to feel invited to layer multiple sounds all together without any conflicts or have one shelf of frequencies to be overly saturated.

When I listen to a lot of mixes, the first thing that I look for is the overall contrast between the sounds. If they lack contrast, they will be mostly mushed together and difficult to mix, and harder to understand.

In theory, a song is a big sound design experiment that is being assembled through the mix. If everything is on one axis, such as making everything loud, you lose the contrast and make your song one-dimensional.

How is Contrast Used in Arrangements?

If contrast in sound design is within one single sound, it’s through and entire song or section that we can approach contrast in arrangements. A song can have different sections—in pop, think “chorus”, “verse”, etc., which are very distinct sections that can be used in any context as moments through the song. You can move from one to another, and the more of a distinction between one another, the more contrast your storytelling will have.

Is this type of contrast essential? No, but it can engage the listener. This is why, for a lot of people, the breakdown and drop in electronic music is very exciting, because there’s a gap and difference and the experience to go from one to another, is intense and fun (especially on a big sound system).

In techno, linearity is a part of the genre because songs are usually part of a DJ set and made to be assembled and layered with other tracks, to create something new. Huge contrast shifts can be awkward, so it’s avoided by some—tracks emit contrast very slowly and subtly, instead of a sudden drastic change.

So, what makes a song interesting, to me, or to anyone, is the main idea’s content, based on the listener’s needs. What do I mean exactly?

  • A DJ might be looking for song of a specific genre and want its hook to match another songs he/she has.
  • Some people want to have a song that expresses an emotion to be able to connect with it (ex. nostalgic vibes).
  • Some other people might want to have some music similar to songs they like, but slightly different, while others, to be exposed to completely new ideas.

When I listen to the songs I work on, my first task is to quickly understand what the composer is trying to say/do. If the person is trying to make a dance-oriented, peak-time song, I’ll work on the dynamics to be able to match music of the same genre and make sure all rhythmic elements work all together.

The precision in the sound design is quite essential to convey a message, whatever it might be. Sometimes I hear a melody and because of the sample used, it makes me frown—a good melody but weird selection of sounds results in an awkward message.

It’s like you trying to impress a first date with a compliment/gift that doesn’t make sense—you wouldn’t tell someone his/her nose is really big…?!

The combination of good sound design and supporting your idea, is executed by arrangements. The whole combination of multiple sounds through a mix is what creates a piece.

Some examples of contrast use within arrangements could be:

  • Different intensity between sections, either in volume or density.
  • Different tones, emotions.
  • Changes in the time signature, or rhythm.
  • Changes in how sounds move, appear, or evolve.
  • Alternating the pattern, sequence, or hook, adding extra elements to fill gaps, holes, or silences.

One of the biggest differences between making electronic music 30 years ago and the present, was that back then, you’d make music with what you could find. Now we have access to everything, so how do you decide what to do when there are no limits?

I find that when you remove all technical limitations like sound selection from your session, you can focus on design and storytelling. Same goes for if you feel like you have managed to understand your technical requirements and now want to dig deeper—then you can start with contrast.

To summarize this, use contrast within a sound to give it life, either by slow or fast movements. Create contrast in your arrangements by having differences between sections of your song—play with macro changes vs. micro changes.

Stuck on a Song? Tips to Help You Overcome Negative Thought Patterns

/in , , , /by

One of the best things I’ve ever done has been a challenge I signed up for in early 2020 to make one song per week for the entire year. It felt a bit like wishful thinking at the time knowing how busy I am; I didn’t think I’d be able to pull it off, but it’s turned out to be one of the best exercises I’ve ever done. The most important lesson for me was learning that writer’s block comes and goes, but being stuck on a particular song seems like it happens more frequently. The more you make music, the more you develop personal strategies to overcome this problem quickly. My experience making one song per week has been extremely useful when working with younger artists, as I quickly spot where they’re stuck and can help them see options they’re not seeing.

I made myself a list of rules and tricks to refer back to when I get stuck on a song and noticed they usually stemmed from two categories: technical issues, and mindset. Rethinking your mindset helps re-frame what the problem is, exactly—but that’s usually the hardest part of overcoming issues finishing a song.

The trick, as an artist, is to quickly spot in which of those two categories of problems you’re facing, and then find a solution. Let’s discuss some of the most common problems that makes people get stuck on a song:

“I don’t know where to start.”

Category: Technical Issue & Mindset

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I lack material to start using, I have difficulty translating my ideas into software, or I lack motivation.

This is a fundamental question that, even with experience, many artists sometimes still have. The thought of starting something new can be overwhelming. Coming into a new session with tons of motivation and ideas doesn’t overcome the very first hurdle you face when starting a new project: how to get it done, and of course, how to get started.

My first recommendation is to take a Kaizen approach (a Japanese project management methodology) and first think about what you want to do, and then start with the first thing you know about it. For example, if you are making a house track, maybe you know you’ll want a 4/4 kick as a loop, so start with that, then add a few other elements. Maybe it won’t be the right sound exactly, but just start with that. Can’t make a loop? Get pre-made loops, slice them, and rearrange them to taste, and have that as your starting point.

For productivity’s sake, use sounds you find, don’t chase something you have in mind. Find one that you like and then play with it to see what you can make out of it. Break your project down to things you know you can do, as this will bring self-confidence before tackling tasks that are difficult to do.

Is there a right way to start a song? No. Each song can be started in multiple ways. But capturing yourself jamming with loops and sounds is about yourself being “in the moment”, and that is very much what music is about.

If you’re overwhelmed by a lack of resources, I’d encourage you investing into LoopcloudLoopcloud. It’s a quick-fix solution to gather samples based on what you need, instead of buying bundles. It’s also an incredible option to find that missing link, as you can open it in your project, sync it to your DAW and play samples in context to see how things fit. Using samples is, for me, a hip-hop inspired approach that never fails. It’s also a way of layering different sounds to create something new. When I’m lost, I go back to sampling.

“I don’t feel motivated to make music.”

Category: Mindset

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I don’t see why I’m doing this, or I lack an idea of where this will go.

One of the reasons why people are obsessed with releasing their music comes with the fact that their efforts are now validated. A lot of artists are goal-oriented, others are more interested in the journey. As life goes on, you might find you’re more one or the other. If you lack motivation, it’s possible you lost track of priorities. Maybe you need to have a goal in mind? Or perhaps you need to be exploring a new technique?

Knowing your needs, you can reorganize your music sessions accordingly. If it’s because you don’t have labels to send your music to, perhaps you can focus on podcasts or DJs. If you need new ideas, I suggest you check YouTube and look for a technique, either new or something else.

I’m a firm believer that I get better results by seeing each song as a lesson, an experiment, something to learn…instead of seeing it as something to be controlled or perfected.

Every time I find myself in front of someone who lacks motivation, I try to bring them back to what makes them happy and encourage them to get back to what works, what brings them joy. Do that for a while, and prepare material for when the inspiration returns.

“My sounds (or anything I use) don’t feel as solid or as cool as my references”

Category: Mindset

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I lack the technical knowledge to achieve something similar to artists I like.

Comparing yourself is nothing new or uncommon; we all do it. Where it fails is, when you compare yourself with people who are not in your league. It’s like playing football and complaining you’re not able to play like Ronaldo or other pros. Your friends would start laughing, right?

How is that any different than comparing yourself to artists who has a lot more experience? You’re seeing a song but you don’t see the 30 other songs they did before nailing that one. Do you need to be a pro to enjoy playing a sport? No. It should be the same for music.

If you keep in mind that each song you make is a lesson, then making 20-30 songs will teach you a lot. On the 50th, you’ll have a vocabulary and fluidity to express yourself with a lot more ease. After this, you can slowly look to others to pick up tricks, inspirations, or ideas.

“After a while, I lose interest in what I do.”

Category: Technical

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: Listening to my song for too long bores me.

Welcome to music production! If you only work on one song, you’ll get fed up with it quickly. The idea of working on a song is that it’s something you want to finish quickly so you don’t lose sight of your initial idea, but you want to take your time to fix the issues. I usually wrap a song and then I’ll come back to it in sprints of 30 minutes to an hour (max) to fix as many issues as I can, but then I’ll close it and do something else. I never get bored and the distance I take between sessions keeps my judgment fresh. As you might have already read, I’ve encouraged musicians to make multiple songs at once to not get bored in this blog many times before.

I have more and more clients that come to me being frustrated with their first song. Usually, this is normal. A large part of my songs don’t feel right, but I need to move on. Moving on is an important habit to learn, I find.

“My song feels boring because of getting too technical.”

Category: Technical

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I tend to over-analyze what I do to the point where I get lost.

Technical tweaks often kill the beauty of spontaneous creativity—I try to find a balance between the two. Sometimes, I ask friends to take care of the technical part of certain songs I don’t want to ruin the rawness of. The thing that makes it boring, is that you have been over-hearing it. To think that anyone would listen as much as yourself, or that someone would analyze your song as much as you do after 100 listens, is highly misleading. Again, this comes down to taking a lot of breaks and working on multiple songs at once.

“Mid point in the song, I don’t know what to do next.”

Category: Technical

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I struggle to make the story-line evolve properly.

Having a loop is one thing, but keeping it interesting is another. Many people make the mistake of starting a song by at the beginning, thinking their loop is the starting point, but I like to think of putting the main loop you’ve been working on, right in the middle of the song. Then I deconstruct it by simplifying it from the beginning. You can then add elements to create the last stretch of your song.

Usually when you’re at the mid-point, most of the song’s main work has been done and you can process your elements to create “child” ideas that you can use as supporting elements, which will help a song carry on until the end.

I usually start working on the main part of the song as well as what follows so I have a better idea of the song’s core. Creating the intro and conclusion ends up being a piece of cake. This usually solves this issue of now knowing what to do in the middle.

Now the other technique is also to give variation to your main idea. The fastest way to do that is to slice it and then change the order, either randomly or by hand, depending of your style.

“I’m lacking ideas on what to add to my song, is it enough?”

Category: Technical

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: My song needs validation.

I always like to start with the premise that my song is enough, and that if something seems to be lacking, it could simply be because I’m not exploiting enough what I have already. Less is more, is the school I come from, and I’ve made tracks with three sounds alone, which was probably the most useful exercise ever, as well as an eye opener for creative use on whatever I had already. If someone playing the hand drum can make a song out of it or if a pianist can write an album, you can do a song with what you have already.

Now, if you say something is missing compared to… that’s another story. The best way to validate your work is to load up the reference and to A/B. The first question is, do they have the same amount of sounds used? Take the time to count them, you’d be surprised sometimes that you might have more than your references. Sometimes, what’s missing is just a good mix, a reverb, or modulations.

“I don’t know how to create a new idea that I’ve never made before.”

Category: Technical

If you’ve made 20 songs, at some point you might run out of ideas. If that’s the case, there are a few quick things you can do to get your inspiration back. I’m not talking about having a writer’s block here.

The first thing I encourage people to do to find new ideas is the “talking out loud, describing what you hear” method. I’m not sure if I’ve shared this idea before, but it’s fairly simple. The way I use it is to check a random song, either in my Soundcloud feed or Spotify, or whatever you use to be exposed to music you haven’t heard before. Play it, and then, using your smartphone, record some vocal notes of you describing your best what you hear. Try to do it for the duration of the song and when it’s done, stop the annotation. I like to have a bunch of tracks described like that and have vocal notes without any references to what I have listened to. When you eventually listen to your notes, it will be very abstract ideas of songs you can listen to. You can also do this throughout the day—some people think about making music all day and don’t know how to vent, so I suggest to record all the ideas they have, vocally.

This method came to me as I was waking up during the night with ideas and I would record a description of my dream. I would later listen to them and have a lot of concepts.

The other way to get a lot of ideas is to use songs or samples and chop them into random ideas. This sometimes will generate an idea that you can extrapolate by pulling out the best of it.

“I don’t feel satisfied with my mixes.”

Category: Mindset

This thought pattern can also be re-framed as: I feel technically inadequate.

This one’s a bit complicated. First and foremost, the idea of a perfect mix is counter-productive because such thing doesn’t exist, or at least, for the person who mixes it doesn’t. There’s always something to fix and at one point, you need to wrap it up and call it done, even with imperfections. What’s left undone, unless it’s a huge issue (which are usually hard to miss), will often be seen as something that is part of the song. People who are looking for the flaws of your song are rare. Usually someone will like or dislike it. This is why very few people care for details. People have small attention spans, and those who really see the issues, aren’t the people you’re making music for.

The idea that each song is a lesson also applies to mixing. You bring your song to the max you can bring it to. I like to have my mixing sessions in three rounds: the first, I remove all issues. The second, I work on embellishments. Third, I do the final adjustments and fix the tone.

You can’t fix everything effectively in one session so it’s always a good thing to take a second look after a night of rest.

“I don’t know how to finish a song.”

Category: Technical

Finishing music is a hot topic. It’s a good thing to know but it’s not a prerequisite to enjoy making music. Some people have a lot of fun jamming or starting loops and that’s it. The idea that you have to finish a song and potentially release it is, what I call, a romantic idea, and just like any romance, it’s not a necessity. Some beautiful relationships exist without romance. I find it way more important to collect ideas, create sketches, and make loops in large quantities. Eventually, when you get to finishing songs, if you have all those ideas and loops ready, it will feel like you have a gold mine.

Learning to finish songs is a skill that comes with using references, as I’ve explained many times in this blog. You use one song, check how it’s made, then apply part of the template to a loop you have. That’ll do it. Really, it’s that’s simple; it’ll feel like cheating.

I hope this was helpful in your day-to-day struggle!

Tips to Keep a Loop Interesting for an Entire Song

/in , , , /by

To keep a song built mostly on a single loop interesting, we need to discuss how you work and your perceptions. I can’t just recommend technical bells and whistles that will solve everything. You need to think about how you see your music, and from there, there are certain things that I think can make a difference in helping to keep a listener engaged, even if your song is built around a single loop.

There are two main things you need to consider with regards to listener engagement when making a song:

  1. How someone listens to a song.
  2. How your song can engage the listener in his/her experience.

Meeting Your Listener’s Expectations

If you read this blog, you’ll know that this topic has been covered in other posts, so I won’t deeply go into this again but I’d like to remind you of a few key elements. The first and foremost important point here is to understand what you want to do in the first place. From the numerous talks I’ve had with clients, this is where many people get lost. To know what you want to do with a song has to be clear from the start.

Is a plan for a song something set that can’t be changed afterwards?

Of course you can change your mind, but this can open a can of worms, as the direction and vision of what you want to do becomes less clear. Music is about communicating some sort of intention.

When, in the music-making process, should you set your intention?

You don’t have to about your intention explicitly, of course, but doing so helps if you’re struggling with a lack of direction or when you feel you can’t reach goals. I find there are two important moments where setting an intention can provide significant benefits. The first is when you start a project—when you start a song, you can think of something somewhat general, such as “an ambient song” or “making a dance-floor track”; but the more precise you are, the more you are establishing some boundaries for your wandering mind. Many people don’t feel this approach helps and may skip this aspect of writing music, but for others, it can be a leveraged to maximize your efforts in what you do.

For instance, I often make songs without a precise goal because I just like to let things flow and to see how it’s been made affects the end-product. But when I’m asked to make an EP, I need to focus the results.

For me, for example, to meet my client’s expectations, I need to know what they want. It helps if they work in a specific genre or can reference an artist they like so I can help them deliver music that will appeal to people with similar tastes. When working with a clear intention, one needs to study how the music is made, more or less, in terms of variations, transitions, number of sounds, duration, tones, etc.

The objection I always get to this recommendation is “yes, but I want to have my own style.” I feel this a bit of a erroneous statement. We always are influenced by other artists and if you’re not, then you might have a problem in your hands: who are you making music for?

I know some people who make music for themselves, which is great. But when they tried to sell it or promote it, there was no way to know who it was for because we had no model to reference. Can you be original and still be heard? Yes, but I think a certain percentage of your songs need to have some sort of influence from a genre that people can relate to. For example, a very personable version of drum and bass, or house—then your music will fall under certain umbrella.

Meeting Your expectations and Your Listeners’ Expectations at the Same Time

The number one problem I hear is of the producer being bored of his/her own music, rather worrying that the listener might be bored, and that’s quite normal, considering the amount of time one can spend making music. Personally, I make my songs with a meticulous approach:

  • 1 idea, 2 supporting elements.
  • Percussion, limited to 5 elements maximum.
  • Bass.
  • Effects, textures, and background.

That’s it.

The main idea rarely evolves more than 2-3 times in a song. If it changes more frequently than that, you might want it to evolve on a regular, precise interval, i.e. changes every 2 bars.

When Writing Music, How Can You Keep a Single Idea Interesting?

I use design principles that are used in visual content and apply them to my music. If you learn about these principles for music-making, you’ll develop a totally new way of listening to music. In searching for these principles, you’ll see some variety, but generally these are the ones that usually come up:

Balance: This principle is what brings harmony to art. Translating this to music, I would say that, mixing wise, this could mean how you manage the tonal aspect of your song. If we think of sound design, it could be the number of percussion sounds compared to soft sounds, or bright vs dark. I find that balanced arrangements exist when there’s a good ratio of surprises versus expected ideas.

Contrast: Use different sources, or have one element that is from a totally different source than the others. This could be analog vs digital, acoustic versus electronic, or having all your sounds from modular synths except one from an organic source. If everything comes from the same source, there’s no contrast.

Emphasis: Make one element pop out of the song—there are so many ways you can do this! You can add something louder, or you could have one element run through an effect such as distortion, and so on. Emphasis in music is often related to amplitude, dynamic range, and variations in volume. In a highly compressed mix, it will be difficult to make anything “pop”.

Pattern: This is about the core idea you want to repeat in your song. It can also be related to the time signature, or an arpeggio. It could be the part you repeat in a precise or chaotic order.

Rhythm: This is the base of a lot of music in many ways, and this, to me, can directly refer to time signature, but it can also mean the sequence of percussion. You can have multiple forms of rhythm as well, from staccato, chaotic, robotic, slow-fast…it’s really one of my favourite things to explore.

Variety: This relates to the number of similar sounds versus different. This is a bit more subtle to apply in music compared to visual design, but a way I see this is how you repeat yourself or not in your arrangement. If you make a song evolve with no variety, you might lose the listener’s attention…same thing for if you have too much variety.

Unity: This is what glues a song together. To me, the glue is made from mixing, but there are things you can do that makes it easier, such as using a global reverb, some compression, a clean mixdown, same pre-amps (coloured ones) or a overall distortion/saturation.

To wrap this up, I can’t recommend to you enough to space out your music sessions, set an intention and pay attention to your arrangements. If you know what you want to achieve with your song, you can refer to a specific reference, and then build up your ideas using some of the design principles I have discussed in this post. Good luck!

Working with Loopcloud

/in , , , /by

Making music in 1990 involved working with samplers, a very basic Atari computer running Cubase, and sampling sounds from tape cassettes here and there to make music. We’d also add synth lines over what we had, but we were really limited in what we could do. You have no idea how exhausting making a simple loop could be—it sometimes took a whole afternoon. Plus, we’d have to leave everything running to continue later without losing anything. If you fast forward 10 years, it was much easier, but to find samples you needed or that you couldn’t make yourself, you’d buy samples on CDs or sample music you liked—it still wasn’t super easy.

When I decided to start working with people on their music as a producer, there’s one thing that became essential, which was the organization of my files: samples with tags so I could find them easily. When I work on a full album while working on 2-3 other projects for clients, if I’m not organized when I have a flash of inspiration, my flow will be lost.

Enter Loopcloud into my life, and I haven’t been the same—no joke.

What’s Loopcloud and How Does it Work?

First and foremost, Loopcloud is a desktop app that syncs with your DAW. It’s also a sample organizer and online store for any samples you might be missing. So, the app contains your samples and the cloud’s library—it’s like a door to a library where you can find pretty much every single sound you need. The best way to use it is to open the Loopcloud VST in your DAW and then go on the app to browse for sounds you need. If you do that in a song you’re working on, it will sync your BPM and then you can also tell it what key your song is in (if that applies). If you find loops that aren’t in key, you can also force the app to tune it to the key of your song. Then you just simply drag the sample you found in Loopcloud and drop it directly in your DAW—it’s pretty magical.

 

 
 

The Different Ways I Use Loopcloud

  1. Finding a specific missing sound for a song. You can spend 30-40 minutes trying to do a drum roll properly, tweaking a synth to sound exactly like some deep house leads you like, etc. With Loopcloud, I sometimes find 2-3 samples that are similar to what I envision and layer them to create something new.
  2. Exploring genres you usually shy away from. If you’ve been collecting and buying samples based on one genre, sometimes it’s very interesting to venture off into other genres that you aren’t familiar with and find sounds that are different from what you’d usually use. It’s normal to be picky with sound-fetching, and you might not be interested in buying a full pack of a genre you might never use. Now you can get a single sample—a vocal or a weird world instrument—to create unusual soundscapes. Using organic sounding, acoustic percussion over your digital sounds can add a nice extra touch.
  3. Test a sound in context. Since the Loopcloud’s audio-out is rewired in your DAW, you can add effects on it to see, for instance, how a hook will sound once compressed or with a delay. Normally, it’s hard to know exactly how the samples you’re about to buy will fit in there, but with a Loopcloud channel, it opens up a lot of options. However, sounds are watermarked for piracy control so don’t expect to record them from there!
  4. Randomize ideas. With more randomized samples, you can try a lot of different things in your work that you’d normally not be looking for—with Loopcloud you can test them and see what happens. There’s a great discovery aspect here that often makes me smile.
  5. Testing multiple options in arrangements. Sometimes in a moment where you know something is missing, but you’re not sure if this or that would be the thing that makes the difference, you can check out loops that might provide you with a better perspective of what you can do.
  6. Use Loopcloud’s sample editor to fine tune a loop. While there are a lot of loops in Loopcloud, you can rearrange sounds in the editor and also add some integrated effects to tweak the perfect sample. The multi-layer function allows you to have up to 8 loops playing. This is really an added value to your library, giving yourself a lot of options to tweak original material from, perhaps even very simple content.
  7. Test one sample alone in a context. You can pick one sample and with Loopcloud’s inner sequencer and create a pattern to hear how it would sound. This is pretty killer, as sometimes you’re missing that one thing. This is, by far, way faster than Ableton’s browser, so with all your samples you have along with those you don’t have, there’s absolutely no way to fail in finding good sounds. Perhaps, having too many sounds might become an issue!

If haven’t read about it in this blog already, for 2020 I will be making one song per week as part of a personal challenge that I’m doing on WeeklyBeats, and it’s been a life changing experience. Music is one of the central parts of my life, both my lifestyle and working life, but putting my own music first was a bit of a challenge because I’ve been dedicating a lot of my time to clients—but this has also paid off in many ways. The first benefit of taking a break from my own music was to review in detail how I start a new song.

Loopcloud is a very useful tool to be able to start new songs from scratch. Basically, how I work is that I need first a core groove to be able to jam new potential ideas. The groove can be generic or simple, but I need something different each time. To make something new and refreshing is difficult if I’m stuck with a certain set of sounds, synths, and habits. Having access to random banks of new grooves is mind-blowing because it’s as easy as popping-open the app to see what today’s flavor will be. Perhaps ethnic, world beats, with a funk background and house bass? I’m the only one responsible to make it work, and if I let my brain tell myself “no”, then I know I’m missing out.

To start a track and to begin sketching, here’s how Loopcloud can help:

  • Try a base BPM and key to the song. This can of course be changed, but if you can start with that, you can then also find samples to work with.
  • Think of a genre you want to work with. This is just to remove a lot of potential distraction. If you think of techno, this will eliminate a huge number of decisions you have to take.
  • Pick a sub-genre or influence. If you’re a purist, this might be for you. I suggest picking a second genre to go fetch cross-genre sounds. Ex. Arabic melodies with house.
  • Decide on your rhythmic signature, such as 4/4 or breakbeats or anything else. Build a core loop to work with. Loopcloud also lets you pick one.
  • Collect a large group of sounds for your song. This should be, bass, main melody, supporting ideas, effects, stabs, transitional elements and background. I usually make sure I have 3-4 sounds for each of them, ideally in key to the song.

Is Working With Loopcloud Making Music Production “Easier” a Trap for Producers?

I don’t think it is. I find that the more people making music, the more refreshing ideas get invented. This starts with making music increasingly accessible, which Loopcloud does. In the hands of experienced producers, tools give us more time to focus on important details and things we like the most. In my case, I noticed I gained a lot of speed in starting new ideas or tweaking my client’s needs. I have more control and I also can share ideas with my clients before sending them a project so we’re on the same page.

Does Having Access to so Many Sounds Limit Creativity?

No, quite the opposite. If I have more material to work with, I find there are fewer obstacles to creating richer songs. One of the things I explain to many new music producers is that working with quality samples trains your ear on how to pick quality material, which gives you top results. For instance, once you realize that best hi-hats often have a certain air in the highs, you’ll combine the transients of certain hats you have with some others you found through your searches. You’ll soon be able to create your own percussive combination of layers 3-4 sounds to get another very odd sound design. Same for melodies. But it’s really hard to start learning sound design on your own if you’re not familiar with what really works. Once you learn, you can then work to reverse-engineer the sounds that work best. But to do that, there’s nothing like having access to a huge library, like what Loopcloud offers.

In the end, what music comes down to is only a few things: reproducing melodies/atmospheres/experiences you want, with the best flow possible. That requires experience, patience and the use of quality material.

 

Update: June 2021

Loopcloud recently released version 6 of the platform, which extends its sampling capabilities by incorporating artificial intelligence to match harmonic and rhythmic samples, similar sound matching, and enhanced search filters so that you can find a sample easier without having to do the dreaded “scroll and listen.” In addition to their enhanced algorithm, Loopcloud 6 comes loaded with tons more samples to increase artistic expression.

Sound Matching

Whenever you select a sound, a list of adjacent loops will appear that should work well with the one you selected. This algorithm will also look through your sample collection and find sounds that will compliment them too. So, if you have a sound that you have been using as a signature, Loopcloud’s updated algorithm will pump out a list of recommended sounds that may help expand that pallet, whether that is harmonically or rhythmically. This could be the spark that gets you to the next step in your game, while saving you a hell of a lot of time, all by working with Loopcloud.

More Advanced Search Filters

Perhaps you already have an idea of what you want in a sound, but are having a hard time building it from scratch. Loopcloud 6 has advanced their search filters in order to make working with Loopcloud and finding that particular sound more seamless. You can search for the tone, length, stereo, BPM, swing, rhythmic density, attack, and decay in order to track down that elusive tone in your head. You will probably not be able to find exactly what you need, but even if you find something adjacent, that can inspire a whole new universe of creative thought. 

Find Familiar Sounds

This feature does just as it says. If you have a sound that you like and click the “find similar sounds” button, Loopcloud 6 will populate a list of sounds that it thinks are similar to it. This makes working with Loopcloud a valuable tool for quickly cycling through sounds that may fit your timbral palette. 

Three New Effects

Working with Loopcloud just got more diverse, with its additions of compressor, Tonebox, and EQ effects. You can tweak the parameters of these effects or select a preset on any of the sounds to tailor your sound in unique ways before exporting it to your DAW.

Easier Sorting

If you want, Loopcloud’s AI will combine your sounds into theme-friendly folders so they are easier to find.

 

Links may contain affiliate offers.

 

 

Changing Genres: Coming to Electronic Music from Other Genres

/in , , /by

Since interest in electronic music really blossomed in terms of popularity, musicians from different spheres have all tried to capitalize on it. 20 years ago, big musicians in rock, pop, dabbled with it. We saw Madonna and some other bigger names venture into electronic sounds, but they sounded mostly like tourists in a country that they were visiting. With the recent victory of Billy Eillish at the Grammy’s for her album, not only it is mostly electronic, but it was also recorded in their modest home (precisely, in a bedroom) in Los Angeles. I’m currently involved in a few mixing engineer groups on Facebook, and while many were laughing at the album, some people took real interest in it—sometimes, less might be better, and you don’t need the latest toys to make something interesting.

Most newcomers to the scene, however, lack the knowledge of electronic music culture, and understanding of what electronic music is or sounds like. For people like me who have been listening to the genre for decades, when I hear someone with a rock background pick up synths and try to make techno, there’s something that always sounds slightly off: it doesn’t sound like what electronic is generally like, or it sounds something like rock, but not in a good way. In the 50s, people experimented with making classical music on synths—most of it was plainly horrible. Same goes for the early attempts of synth presets mimicking very colourful instruments like a trumpet. “Trumpet” presets make jazz musicians cringe, and with good reason.

Should an experienced musician restrain themselves from venturing into a new genre? Of course not. But knowing some tips to make the switch is probably the right course of action.

References and Getting to Know What Works

The biggest mistake I see from people who come to electronic music from a different scene, is not understanding who they are making music for. I can’t speak for how it works in the rock industry, but I think there are fewer fragmented areas of it than there are in electronic music. Electronic music has DJs, fans, labels, media, internet, etc., all with different sub-scenes. Knowing your specific audience can influence how you make music itself. For “musicians”, this is something many have a hard time getting their head around. For instance, if your track is made for DJs, you wouldn’t approach it the same way as if you make music for yourself, or for the general public.

“Why would I do it for DJs?”, a rocker once asked me.

Well, they expose your music to a public that might be interested to listen to it in a specific context. Your purpose is not the same as if you make music for, let’s say, home or even, after-parties.

“Oh, there are different types of DJs?”, he replied.

Yes indeed, I replied, and that’s another level of complexity in electronic music. You don’t make music for opening sets or after-parties, the way you would for peak time—and even for peak time, each genre has their own standards of what constitutes “peak music”. House, EDM (aka Vegas music), minimal, techno, etc., all have different styles. Even ambient and drone, have their own version of “peak time music”, which might sound bizarre if you’re not familiar with these genres, but go to an ambient or drone festival and you’ll know what I mean.

“But I just want to make cool music”, he then said.

Yeah, I know, I do too. But then again, if it’s for yourself and friends, you then know who you make it for and that’s very cool. If you’re aiming for a broader market and want to commercialize it, that approach probably won’t work well. Electronic music is a genre where you are free to do whatever you want and have unlimited resources to make many dream ideas come true, but the whole commercialization aspect of it is really messy, complicated, frustrating, paradoxical, and sometimes counter-productive. I’m aware this is the case in other genres as well, but the “successful” dance-oriented market is pretty tricky.

So what’s the real problem if you don’t follow a certain aesthetic?

Well, the most common scenario I see is enthusiastic people following their current tastes (often based on music that was cool 5-10 years ago) and without any self-criticism or feedback release music, and years later feel embarrassed about how off they sounded, or how badly it aged. Not a big problem, but it’s simple to not fall into this trap.

If you’re familiar with this blog, I frequently discuss the importance of references.

  • One thing that might surprise you is that I often recommend Spotify as an exploration tool. Let’s say you like the Chemical Brothers… Spotify can expose you to similar sounding artists. You can also see the latest releases by an artist and how he or she has developed. Personally, I love that.
  • Another thing I suggest is to spend some time listening to a lot of different artists. That also includes checking online magazines (I love XLR8R), get familiar with DJ charts, see what festivals book them or other artists you like, and get to know the other artists playing.
  • Going out to events is important, too. To hear music in context really gives huge insights to a musician. As an engineer and coach, I occasionally pop in to local events to see what’s happening.

Collaboration, Mentoring, and Networking

I think another very important thing to do when you venture into other genres is to quickly find someone of reference or reputation that you can trust. Develop a relationship where there’s no filter on your discussions or feedback—this can take quite a while to find or build.

Working with friends who have great taste or hiring professionals also, for the most part, provides you with some quality control.

  • Try to get to learn about plugins that are used on a daily basis by professionals.
  • Have some ideas of where to buy quality presets for certain soft-synths for the purpose of learning how some sounds are made.
  • Have a good idea of influential artists behind current trends. For every bigger, commercial trend, there’s a lesser-known artist who started a movement, an idea, or a musical direction that often “inspires” bigger names who commercialize it.
  • Get familiar with festivals that are fun and that could be good hubs for networking.
  • Build a network with media, promoters, and DJs. There are a lot of benefits and opportunities this type of network can produce.

However, when everything is said and done, collaboration is about making music, and getting to know the tips and tricks while networking. These are, in my opinion, some of the best things to know about if you aspire to make your way into a new genre!

SEE ALSO : Making and breaking genres in your music

Does Your Mix Sound Too Clean? Unpolish It.

/in , , , /by

If you think about it, it’s pretty astonishing to consider the number of tools that exists to make our music sound more professional. Since the 90s—when the DAW became more affordable and easily attainable for the bedroom producer—technology has been working to provide us with problem-solving tools to get rid of unwanted noises, issues, and other difficult tasks. We now face a point where there are so many tools out there, that when confronting a problem, it’s not about how you’ll solve it, but about which tool you’ll pick. Some plugins will not only solve a particular problem, but will also go the extra mile and offer you solutions for things you didn’t even know you needed.

The quantity and quality of modern tools out there have led myself, and others I’ve discussed this topic with, to a few observations regarding the current state of music. A lot of music now sounds “perfect” and polished to a point where it might be too clean. Just like effects in movies, deep learning, and photoshopped models—it feels like we’re lacking a bit of human touch. On top of the tools, engineers (like me) are more and more common and affordable, which makes it easier for people to get the last details of their work wrapped up. For many, music sounding “too clean” is not an issue whatsoever, but for others—mainly those who are into lofi, experimental, and old-school sounding music—the digital cleanliness can feel like a bit much.

If you think about it, we even have AI-assisted mastering options out there, but mastering plugins are also available for your DAW (Elements by Izotope does an OK job), as well as interactive EQs or channels strips to help you with your mixing (Neutron, FabFilter Pro-Q3), and noise removers and audio restoration plugins (RX Suite by Izotope). We’ve been striving to sound as clean as possible, as perfect as a machine can sound, and with increased accessibility, technology gives us the possibility to really have things sound as perfect as we can dream of.

So where should you stop?

Monitoring

You can only sound as perfect as what you can hear. If your monitoring isn’t perfect, you might not be able to achieve a perfect sounding mix. I know some people who intentionally will work with less-precise monitoring—it could be on earbuds/Airpods (not the Pro version), laptop speakers, cheap headphones, or simple computer speakers. Engineers usually test their final mix on lower-grade systems to make sure it will translate well in non-ideal settings. Starting out mixing this way also works; if you make music on low or consumer-level monitoring, you’ll be missing some feedback, which can actually turn out to be a good thing for your sound.

When producing on lower-grade speakers however, it also means you might not polish parts that actually need fixing. One of the frequency zones that always needs attention is the low-end—not paying proper attention to mixing it can be problematic in certain contexts, such as clubs. In other words, making bass-heavy music without validating the low-end is risky, because compared to other songs of the same genre that do sound “perfect”, your mix might have huge differences, which could sound off. In my opinion, if you want an “unpolished” sound, you should still give the low-end proper attention if it’s an important part of your song.

However, having self-imposed limitations, such as in your monitoring, is a good way to add a healthy dose of sloppiness to your mix.

Technical Understanding

The more you learn, the more you realize you really don’t know much. It’s perfectly fine not to know everything. Each song is a representation of where you are at the moment with your music production. I never try to accomplish a “masterpiece”. The more time and energy I put into a song to make it sound “perfect”, the more I realize I’ve sort of screwed up the main idea I had in the first place. Quickly-produced music is never perfect, but its spontaneity usually connects with people. I see people on Facebook amazed with music I’d consider technically boring from a production perspective, but the emotion these works capture strikes people more than the perfection of a mix.

Every time I search for something music-related, I learn something new. There are also some things I’m okay with not doing “the proper way”. I don’t think my music should be a showcase of my skills, but more of a reflection of the emotions I have in that moment.

I often see people over-using high-pass filters in their mixes, which makes their music feel thin or cold, or using EQs side-by-side that could introduce phasing issues…but does fixing these things actually matter? I’ve made some really raw music without any EQs at all (Tones of Void was recorded live without any polishing), which sounded really raw and was my most complimented work in the last 10 years of my productions.

Similarly, a lot of producers know very little music theory—how important is it? I’ve never gone to school for music and it’s only recently that I started wanting to learn more about it. Clients often ask me questions like “is it okay if I do this?” To which I reply that there is no right or wrong. Following rules might actually lead you to sounding too generic, if you’re technically-influenced.

The resurgence of tape in production and the rise of lofi love is great thing for music. People on Reverb are buying more and more old tape decks, four-tracks, and recording entire albums on them. One thing I love is the warmth it brings and the hiss as well (note: I get sad when clients ask me to remove any hiss). Some even have a shelving-EQ that can create a nice tone. Using an external mixer for your mixes can also create a very nice color, even on cheaper ones. Perhaps you shouldn’t be looking for the best sounding piece of equipment to improve your sound!

References

If your usual references are music that is really clean-sounding, you’ll be influenced to sound the same. I like that at the moment I see younger producers who are interested in uncompressed music, and like to have as much of a dynamic range as possible in their work; this is the opposite of the early 2000s when people thought loudness was the way to go—a trend that made a lot of beautiful music sound ugly as hell. Now some of the top producers have been passing their love for open dynamics on to the people who follow them, and that opens up a really large spectrum for exploring the subtle art of mixing.

When music is too clean and safe, it also becomes too sterile for many peoples’ tastes. If your references are only the cleanest sounds possible, perhaps you should explore the world of dub techno, lofi, and strange experimental music on Bandcamp—you’ll start to understand how music can exist in other ways.

SEE ALSO : How to balance a mix

Make Music Faster: Self-Imposed Limitations for Expanding Creativity

/in , , /by

“I think we need to go backward now”, is what I said to a friend who was asking what was ahead for the year—referring to a view I had years back about recognizing when it’s time to go with the flow, and when it’s time to reverse or deflect it to move in another direction. I was thinking back to the mp3 revolution of 2001; geeks downloaded all the music they wanted thanks to Napster or other software. There was a continuous debate about music being copied and shared. Back then, it was mostly pop and commercial music taking the biggest hit from file-sharing. In underground culture, Netlabels became a mysterious movement, sharing music for free. Now free music is common, but back then it was really seen as a nonsense approach to a label, “backward thinking” even, and often talked down and ridiculed.

Back then, Dennis De Santis (who now works for Ableton) and I were approached to be part of a compilation for a German Netlabel called Thinner (which eventually became fairly well-known netlabel). Why did I do it? There were two main contributing factors:

  • I wasn’t putting releases out at that time, and I was a yes-man to whatever would come my way.
  • There was a huge new audience flow of people who wanted music for free…so why not just give it to them?

I decided to go with the flow. In doing this, you get pushed in a direction and accept that you might not control where you’ll end up. In my case, I’d say it only led me to great things—meeting people, getting gigs, and a lot of attention.

It was no surprise that when I started my own label, Archipel, in 2004, I kicked it off as a netlabel as well. But in 2006, I decided to go against the flow and do what many didn’t really approve of, which was sell music on Beatport. It was the beginning of digital music sales and many people thought it wouldn’t work, but it did really well.

My point is, there are times when it makes sense to keep going in a certain direction, and there are other times when changing directions is more sensible. Keeping this in mind, being flexible is something that can applied to many spheres, such as your music aesthetic, or even a song itself.

As I’ve mentioned, I recently joined Weeklybeats—a challenge to create one song per week, for the entire year, and I’ve experienced a great feeling of freedom. Normally, I impose a very rigorous workflow on myself when I make music, and often it can take me months to finish a song. Switching up my approach to a faster pace forced me to think less. Yes, there’s a risk of reduced quality with increased speed, but at the same time, with the experience I’ve gained over time, I know I can at least make sure that the production is solid.

I also realized that my number one distraction is that I’m constantly bombarded with new music tools promising tons of new features and spend a hell of a lot time going through them and waiting for a sale to buy them, but never really pushing the stuff I already own to its maximum potential. With this weekly challenge in mind, now that I have self-imposed limitations, I feel like I’ve exprienced a huge breakthrough.

Time

Deadlines make you creative and productive. A friend who is a father of two told me recently that he realized that he was creating his best ideas in moments where he’d squeeze a quick session of music, knowing that he’d be limited to maybe 10 minutes. So, let’s say he had to go to the grocery store; while people were getting ready, he’d open Ableton and would test a new macro he made, or would try to make temporary arrangements. The time-constraint made him more efficient than when he’d have a full evening to himself to make music, which often led to nothing interesting.

My theory is that with too much time, you can spoil what you make. This is why I think 5 hours of studio time spent on one song is not the best idea—a thought I have proven to be correct for myself while taking part in this weekly challenge. Now, I take a few hours to create an idea, save it, and later will expand it—the next day I add a layer, and so on. I’m limited in time and I do multiple things at once, but I’ll squeeze in 20 minutes here, 40 minutes there, then 10 minutes before going to bed.

Try this fun Max patch that will time your work and give you an idea of how much time you’ve spent on things.

Tip: Give yourself a due-date for wrapping up a song and accepting that it is what it is, once you hit it. It’s more important to move on than to try to reach some illusory perfection. Use your agenda alarm as a reminder.

I decide the length of my song before trying to speed things up. This is a tip discussed many times in the blog but I will insist that doing this is a strong limitation that clarifies a lot of things.

Tools

If you’re a reader of this blog, you’ll remember that for one song I encourage you to focus on one main idea supported by two minor ideas. It’s really easy to get lost trying to find an idea to start with. My take is to try to use what comes out fast.

Synths: Know what you have—cycle through synths that came with your DAW, and some that didn’t. I encourage people to get at least one synth that is an analog emulation of a classic model (Arturia does a great job at these) and another that is focused on a wide range of sound design options (I’m a big fan of Rob Papen and encourage you to test his products).

Samplers: Honestly, Ableton Live’s Sampler does the job for me. There are a few more alternatives out there but in the end, they all do a similar job except some have more bells and whistles. I always come back to the stock sampler because it’s simple and extremely versatile.

Once you have decided if you’ll generate a sound or use a sample, it’s time to play with it. Mapping a MIDI controller is very useful for playing different notes. Sometimes I see people in front of their keyboard and they are not sure what to do. This might sound obvious but when jamming, I test:

  • different pitches by playing higher and lower notes.
  • harder or softer hits to see how the velocity influences things.
  • listening to the sound a different volume. Sometimes a sound at very low volume is much more interesting than loud.
  • alternating between short and long notes. Depending on your preset, it can play differently.
  • playing fast and slow notes to see how they feel.

Keep in mind that you can make a song out of any sound if you how to use it. The reason why we discard sounds is because we’re after something else. We’re not paying attention to the sound and its potential. Limiting yourself of only one tool per song eliminates a lot of exploration time. It also forces you to do something with what you have.

Same goes for reverb, compression and EQ. I’ll only use one or two, max. When I’m in mix mode, I usually explore different compressors.

Composition

If you use a modular, or hardware, you have your gear in front of you and you’ll just start working with what you have. This limitation forces you to be creative. But on a computer, you’ll have many ways to make music.

Templates. To speed up my work, I created a main template that I use to create macros and techniques, while recording everything. I mostly jam and will not spend too much time going into detail—raw on purpose. When I have something potentially interesting, I make a channel called “ideas” and put my clips in it. Later, when I start working on a song, from the left side browser, I can open the template and import the “ideas” channel in my new song to select from it. Have multiple templates that you import your sounds to, and in that other template, create sound modifiers. For instance, I have a dub template filled with tons of reverb modulators and delays. I can drop anything through it and something dubby will emerge.

Jam. I try to invite people to jam their song as much as possible. Whenever I have a loop as a main idea, I’ll automatically start recording and will mute it, play it, change volume and try different combinations. This lets me explore ideas I couldn’t discover if I just mouse-edit the clips in arrangements.

Sound

For the longest time, we wanted to have access to as many samples as possible, but now that we have them, we’re completely lost. Try to decide which snare or clap you want. Swapping out a sound isn’t super easy but I found this amazing step sequencer that fixed this problem. It’s made by XLN and it’s called XO.

If you want to make music quickly, you need to find your favourite sounds and create drum kits. Import them whenever you start a new song. Back in the day you’d have a 909 or a 808, and that would be your drum kit, end of story. So create a good main kit, then add a few different ones, and that’s it.

And for crying out loud, stop thinking that you need to do everything from scratch, all the time! Yes, it’s cool, but it slows you down a lot.

I mentioned that I’d “go backwards” this year. What I meant by that is that all my habits have to be upgraded or changed. Habits keep me safe and comfortable, while feeling uneasy forces me to be creative and think outside-the-box. Join me in this approach; I’m sure there’s magic waiting for you too!

SEE ALSO : Reverb Tips to Boost Your Creativity

My Music Production Tips and Tools for 2020

/in , , , /by

As 2019 comes to an end, I’d like to discuss some of the most important things that went on, things I’ve talked about the most, plugins I loved, topics discussed in coaching, and so on.

Productivity and Writer’s Block

I was pretty busy in the first half of the year. I released my 22nd album and two EPs. While these achievements look great on paper, I can tell you that it was probably one of my least productive years of the last decade. I had a writer’s block (on-and-off) since May, and was unable to really finish a song, so I mainly focused on working on collaborations or engineering. Being hit by writer’s block at this point of my life was unusual, but reminds me that no one is really immune to it.

Signs of Writer’s Block:

  • Everything you do feels or sounds like crap or is uninspiring.
  • Other people’s music is not really hitting the spot either or feels old.
  • Being unable to make music for more than 20-30 minutes. A feeling of discouragement comes in really fast.
  • Mostly unable to turn a loop into a song.

If you’ve been making music for more than ten years, the signs are slightly different:

  • Feeling like you’re repeating yourself over and over.
  • Not feeling satisfied with the techniques or gear you have.
  • Unable to finish music in general or not able to start.
  • Mostly struggling to polish existing songs.

My solutions to resolve writer’s block are not necessarily going to work for everyone, as there’s no cure-all. Everything passes at some point, but you can’t resolve writer’s block without going through it—you can’t get around it.

Suggestions for Resolving Writer’s Block

  • Completely change how you work by trying a new DAW.
  • Test tons of presets from your synths and learn how they’re programmed.
  • Learn about modular synthesis.
  • Try online sound banks such as Archive.org, freesound.org, or even YouTube’s obscure archives.

But more importantly, figure out what the block is in your writer’s block. Is it linked towards your expectations? In my case, it’s simply a question of finding the next concept to build an album upon. The way I discover concepts is by trying to reverse-engineer sound design. The quest to make something similar with the use of different tools to shape the sound is more important than the result itself. I see many people getting writer’s block from trying to identically replicate a sound they want and discarding other techniques.

The difficulty in replicating a technique comes from the “early beginnings of a new producer“, in which someone starts on the wrong foot. I’m always happy to have someone who wants to start producing come to me to make sure he/she will start off well.

How and Where to Start Producing

In 2019, new producers have infinite access to information and tools. Too much information means a few things:

  • Giving you the wrong first impression that everything is easy and doable.
  • Misleading you into investing into things sold as being essential, while they’re not.
  • Having so many choices makes the task of picking one overwhelming. If you have access to all the sounds you could ever dream of, where would you start?

Counter-Productive Tips New Producers are Often Told

  • If you work hard enough, you can learn anything.
  • You can learn and do everything yourself.
  • Not watching tutorials or reading articles is better than education because you learn as you go.
  • Make all your sounds by yourself so you can be original. Hello, down the rabbit hole.

I see people coming into production with the wrong intentions/goals. Of course, if you come with the idea that: a. things are easy and that b. you can learn everything yourself, people set unrealistic goals for themselves before they’ve ever created a loop.

In the last five years, I have been frequently reminded of a client who once came to me with an artist page on Soundcloud and Facebook with thousands of followers, a logo, professional photos, etc., but not a single minute of experience in music production. He had to make some music that could match the image he had been selling, and the first step felt huge.

The other side to early production is the artist who finishes a first song quickly and gets signed. With no experience, keeping up the pace of releasing is difficult, and the quick rise can be a situation that might be difficult to handle.

My Suggestions for People Who Want to Start Producing

  • Listen to a lot of music when you have the time, and attend shows. This is super important for multiple reasons: you’ll learn the relationship between what you hear on your headphones vs. a venue. This is important to develop your mixing skills—learning how people react to sounds and how artists perform music in a live context. This is valuable information for music-making.
  • Try to befriend people who make music as well, a mix of newcomers and older producers. This is super important for building a network of contacts to ask questions, swap music with, share gear, get a bunch of info that you can’t find yourself, and also to break-up periods of isolation.
  • Ask as many questions as you have. No shame, just ask. Ask a lot of how do you do this or that? What is the name of that sound? What effect can create that impression?
  • Have studio jams. This is the best way to learn. You’ll learn so much because you’ll run into so many problems that you’ll have to troubleshoot them, and that’s useful. Jamming also puts music-making into a context that is impossible to replicate—alone in a studio.
  • Try to make loops everyday. You can make them all into one project file or start a new one each time. It’s important to make many because it’s good to first practice how to start making a loop. If you make a lot, you’ll get more efficient, develop tricks, and get faster at finding your way through a new tool.
  • It’s more efficient to do 10-20 minutes everyday than a five-hour session on a weekend. The optimal focus time for your brain is around 30 minutes, so you get the best of yourself. Working for five hours isn’t recommended at all: you’ll feel like you did a lot but after that time, your ears can’t really judge what you’re doing. You can do five hours in a day, but on multiple tracks. I just feel that it’s not the best of yourself that will come out of long sessions on a single project, but you’ll learn.
  • When you can start a loop in 10 minutes and feel great about it, then you’ve leveled up and you can now go back to all the loops you made and practice turning them into a song. Next level comes when you can finish them in a breeze.
  • One song, one idea. If you make a decent loop, it’s probably the middle part of your song. How many layers do you have? What is the main idea? Can you, or a friend, sing that idea?
  • Don’t make a big deal about not finishing songs. It will come naturally if you take things one step at a time.
  • Forget releasing your music or getting signed by a label. If you focus on that, you’re just distracted from doing what you have to do which is to have skills to make music like you want.

Common Issues Other Than Writer’s Block

People often share other struggles in music-making with me like:

  1. A loop or idea feels boring or repetitive at some point in the song. First, don’t reveal your main idea too quickly. Second, create multiple variations of that loop (ex. changing the timing or adding effects). Third, add modulation to the sounds so they’re constantly changing.
  2. A song feels like something is missing. This might be because you’ve heard it too many times. Try leaving it alone for a month. Otherwise, here’s the a quick checklist: percussion, bass, pattern or melody, background, and a supporting idea. If you have all those, you should be more than okay. Otherwise, try to compare your song to a reference, concentrate on all sounds and see if you have about the same number.
  3. A track feels empty compared to references. Often resolved by creating a noise-floor. Try a reverb or a hiss at low level.
  4. Sounds never feel right. You might have bad samples. If you are convinced you should do everything yourself, you’ll indeed sound off, for a while. Try buying and using pre-made sounds. If you can’t make them, find some, and learn how to make killer loops and songs. As you go, you’ll eventually train your ear on how these sounds are made and will be able to make them. Honestly, even after 20 years, there are plenty of sounds I’m slightly not sure how to make even though I know, in theory, how to… it’s harder than it seems!
  5. Creating original ideas and not cheesy ones. If you listen to a lot of music, this will train your ear. If you listen to a lot of music before making music, it will put you in a mood. If you use a reference track, or even try to compose music over it, it can greatly help with this issue.

Essential Music Production Tools From 2019

EQ

Even though it was released in 2018, Fabfilter’s Pro-Q3 has won many prizes this year and has gained prominence with many major engineers. I’ve been watching a lot of tutorials from Mixing With The Masters, and Pro-Q3 is often the EQ of choice. You can use multiple instances to see how each channels are interacting between one-another, do some side-chaining, corrections, and shelving. You can turn any points into a dynamic filter too, which is very useful. If you have the budget, try to get an analog inspired EQ such as the PSP E27. These types of EQs aren’t parametric and can add a musical colour.

Compression

The compressor I loved the most this year was the Avalon from Universal Audio. So badass, so powerful, so useful…no need to say more. If you don’t have a UAD, I always turn to PSP Vintagewarmer 2. Not only does it compress well, it adds warmth—people want both.

The Do-It-All Utility of the Year

No doubts, it comes to Shaperbox 2. It is perfect for resolving many, many issues like modulation, side-chaining, movement, variations, creative ideas on the fly…it’s so good that I blindly bought it when I received it in my newsletter from CurveGuys.

Reverb

If there’s one effect to have on top of your stock plugins is a good reverb. There are many out there such as this gorgeous reverb by Fabfilter but I suggest the Convolution by Melda—it’s fantastic and will be useful for years.

Quote of the Year

We make music to come together, and yet spend so much time alone. Reach out to others, create new concepts and see how viewing music as something fun will build things organically.

SEE ALSO : Design Thinking for Music Production

The acoustic-electronic combo

/in , , /by

In the last 5 years, I’ve been seeing more and more projects that combine the use of acoustic sounds, samples, and recordings with synthetic, analog sounds. What’s interesting is that in the 90s, this combo wasn’t very popular, and in the eyes of many purists it was a huge no-no. The benefits of an acoustic-analog recording combination is what I’d like to discuss in this post.

There are a huge number of amazing musicians we could point to as being good references of this combination. For instance, in 2011, ECM asked Ricardo Villalobos to remix some songs from their catalog.

I remember that Ric had been playing many tracks from the jazz-influenced label mostly because he loves to create these epic moments of weirdness, where he’s play something totally unexpected in the middle of his sets. Sometimes even in a peak moment where most people would be expecting a bomb song, he’d drop some weird jazz music and layer it with some of his own techno songs he recorded in his studio, mostly from his modular. Seeing him play some of that during a few events circa 2005-2009, I saw how the acoustic-electronic combo always brought some magic into a very electronic set, but you’d have to be happy. I remember some people being weirded out by it but that, as he’d say, is not his problem.

In the 90s, this combination wasn’t always welcomed, mostly because people were really wanting to dive deep into pure electronic music, as in, if it was techno, it had to be techno and there was no room for anything that wasn’t on that agenda. I’m sorry to say that I was one of those guys as well! Especially when I entered my minimal techno era around 1996, I wanted the purest electronic aesthetic and anything acoustic would make me cringe, especially guitars.

I find that ever since Ric explored the ECM catalog, it really opened a lot of doors for people to combine the two worlds to unite them. One person that jumps to my mind as one of the artists that explored that the most is certainly Petre Inspirescu, who was really known for bringing classical vibes to techno—in his mix for Fabric or in his work with the Pi Ensemble. It’s important to note that it was an exploration, yes, but it also worked really, really well. Sometimes people explore something and it doesn’t really work, but Petre, in my humble opinion, brought it to a more refined result than what Villalobos did.

So, what should we take from this history exactly? How can one get into the acoustic-electronic aesthetic and make it work well?

Reverb and Room Acoustics

It’s crazy how a good reverb can bring life to anything, and since acoustic instruments are recorded in a room, organic reverb added to a sound brings a whole new world to it. The more realistic the reverb, the more warmth it can bring [to a mix]. This is what influenced me the most to start my own reverb collection, and my lust for finding the most realistic reverb. I did many tests with mastering, asking artists who have great reverb in their productions what can make a difference.

  • Convolution: If you can, always use the convolution reverb by max for live. One thing I noticed about stock plugins is the grain that comes out weird during mastering; this is never the case for convolution. If you’re not familiar with what convolution means, it’s basically taking the “image” of a place’s reverb and applying it as a preset for your plugin. You can then have special places such as a specific studio, concert room or even, a restaurant. It’s used in movies for creating proper atmospheres but it does such a great job on percussion. One of my favourite convolution reverb plugins is the one by Melda called mConvolutionMB—it’s multi-band, giving you a lot of options for creating really special spaces. You can also browse the internet in search of free impulse responses that you can load in your plugin. I also encourage you to randomly put sounds in it to get the reverb that is used in the sample to apply it to your song so you get a feeling that it’s all part of the same place.
  • Record your own: I know some people who buy pieces of drum kits separately to have the real thing then can play with. They’ll then record themselves playing percussion over their song. You’d be surprised about even with a cheap microphone, you can create something pretty interesting to layer your sounds with. It will catch the reverb of your place which is also unique. Snares, hats, cymbals are cheaper to buy than you think, and having them physically with you is pretty fun too.
  • Binaural recording: You can buy a binaural microphone that allows you to record sounds based upon your head, which is ideal to create stereo impression on the listener who uses headphones. If you record percussion at your ear level, it will give the listener the idea that the percussion is right in front of you. It really creates a special aesthetic for whatever you record and also some stereo placement that is unique. There are all kinds of tricks you can do with recording random things. Since it’s very precise for stereo, some people use frequency modulation using binaural technique to induce the brain in different states of mind like relaxation. I won’t get into that but there’s plenty to read on the topic if you’re curious.
  • Hardware reverb: This is hard to beat. If you can invest into a hardware reverb unit such as a pedal or a rackmount effect, you’ll get some really next level results. Something like an old DP4 by Ensoniq or Alesis, Lexicon ones can be a dramatic improvement. You can also look into a multi-effect pedal like the one by Big Sky.

Preamps and Other Tools

While the idea of acoustic layered over analog is magical, you’ll have to agree that the highest quality recordings will make a huge difference. This is why when you look for quality samples, you’ll look for the highest sample rate possible and something like 192khz will be the holy grail. This means you can re-pitch it with the least compromise, and you’ll get a lot of what we call the air-factor, where the complexity of the high end will be crystal clear.

Something else people overlook, especially when it comes to samples that were recorded, is the use of preamps. I’ve been shying away from this topic for years until I really saw how using them can completely change the quality of your sound, adding not only beefiness but also, a special texture, depending of the preamp you’re using. Ones by Neve will sound different than API, for instance, and using them on certain things will change the character of a sound. Plugins that emulate them are pretty solid at it. I tested all of the preamps this year, from Universal Audio, and found that the ones by Neve are the ones that feel the suitable for the music I want to do. I also saw a considerable amount of enthusiasm from clients when I used them on their projects. So, recording your own, even with a cheap microphone, if you use some nice preamp, you’ll get something pretty solid out of it. Cheap microphone can even be a source of coloration for your samples but nowadays you can find really nice, affordable microphones so it might be worth investing a bit more so you get something useful for years ahead.

Virtual drummers are also something you can look into. There are many out there but Slate Digital makes really high quality program that can help you have highly realistic percussion. Otherwise, you can look at Addictive Drummer that has a range of different drum kits to get sounds from. It’s very realistic as well and layering it over a rigid drum machine sequence can provide a lot of depth!

SEE ALSO : Integrating a modular setup with your DAW

Making Digital Synths Sound Analog

/in , , , , /by

In exploring online electronic music production groups and forums, you’ll see a lot of hate around the use of presets. Some people think it’s a lazy way to get things done, and others that it’s just less creative and adds to the pool of music that all sounds the same. I have no shame saying that I myself use presets. I use presets to help myself understand concepts, how my tools work, and to give myself ideas that are outside of my normal routine. However, I don’t use presets “as-is”; generally—at the very least—I’ll run the sounds through a hurricane of colouring tools. I’m mostly drawn to very, very bizarre sounds that presets are usually not made for, except for some made by Richard Devine (but he usually goes too far).

Personally, my biggest pet-peeve with presets comes from cold-feeling digital synths or pads—they sound like Kraft Dinner served cold with canned peas; plain and horrible. Not only do I dislike these sounds themselves, but I can’t get over the fact that very simple things could have been done to enhance them, which is why I am writing this post.

Why Digital Presets Sound Cold and Bland

Analog equipment involves slight, microscopic, ever-changing modulations. Digital plugins and presets do not have these variations—they operate in a linear way. Think of an analog watch—the hands slide from one number to another without pause. A digital watch jumps sharply from one number to another without anything in the middle. This is the simplest analogy I can think of to help you understand why digital synths often sound surgical and cold, and inversely, why analog synths sound round and warm.

There are things you can do with tools to remove a digital or cold feeling, which mostly involves embracing the world of subtleties and tiny modulations. Don’t be afraid to push things to the point of feeling slightly “ugly”. Let me explain:

One of the things that’s become more obvious for me lately is how a tiny bit of distortion and clipping can bring a lot more of precision to a sound in a mix. I’ve always been a fan of saturation (sometimes my clients tell me to reduce it a bit); in case you didn’t know, saturation is a mild form of distortion—wave-shaping that you can really push in a very subtle way. Subtle distortion sort of breaks a signal’s linearity, or coldness. Recently, I was in a studio with my friend Jason—a brilliant sound designer—and asked him how he turns something cold into something more analog sounding. While he could have applied a bunch of effects and processing to a sound, he said he was more interested in creating multiple layers around the pad or digital sound.

A good way to combat the cold side of digital sounding synths is to add a good dose of acoustic samples, field recordings or other organic sounding findings around it. The combination of digital and organic really guides the perception [of the listener] away from the digital aesthetic.

What makes some acoustic recording samples feel warm is a combination of a bunch of things. The quality of the microphone, for example, can translate a lot of the details and capture more depth. The sample rate of the recorder will also make a huge difference. Microphones are often overlooked, but they basically determine the level of precision in your recording; if it’s extremely precise, with a lot of high-end information, it will contribute in the definition of the sound quality. Another thing to consider is the preamp of the recorder. There’s a world of difference between preamps, and having high quality one will certainly add a lot to sounds. If your sounds are thin and lacking substance, you can also use preamp plugins. Some of the best out there are from Universal Audio, but you can also rely on Arturia’s preamp emulation for something quite impressive as well.

I had a talk with someone who was saying that one of the things that made Romanian techno so good was the combination of the acoustic kicks with the analog ones, to which I added that without good preamps, the acoustic kicks would sound like garbage.

If you have raw synthetic sounds, you can also pass them through some convolution—this helps create a space around it. The mConvolution Reverb by Melda is quite spectacular. It also has some microphone impulse response which mimics as if the sound had been recorded in a space. You can make it multi-band so you can assign specific bands to have a specific reverb type(s). This allows you to be very creative, and if you leave it at a very low wet rate, it will infuse the sound with a nice, warm presence.

Regarding warm presence, again, with distortion, I’d encourage you to look into trying various distortion plugins and use them with a wet factor of about 3-5% max. Depending on the plugin, you’ll see how they add a little bit of color to a sound. My way of using distortion is usually bringing it up to about 20% and then rolling down until I barely hear it. You want to hear it a bit, but not much.

Some nice distortion plugins I like include Decapitator by SoundToys, mDistortionMB by Melda, Wave Box by AudioThing, Saturn by Fabfilter.

Get Out of “The Box”

There’s no doubt that moving outside your computer will infuse your sound with some texture, presence, and some analog feel.

Use a little mixer for summing. If your sound card (audio interface) has multiple outputs, then you can send them to a little mixing board where you can group your channels into different buses. For instance, you can split them into a channel for kick (mono), stereo channels for bass and melodic elements, and another one for percussion. If your board has more channels, you can experiment with different things, but just these sound groups are a great start; the mixing board will give you a rawer feel than your DAW alone. For simple, affordable boards, look into Mackie’s latest series—pretty impressive and absolutely affordable.

Use external saturation. People love Elektron’s Analog Heat. It’s a good external distortion and does a pretty solid job of adding colour to sounds, out of the box. You can also look into using distortion pedals, reverb, or invest in a 500 series lunchbox and get some saturation modules—there are many to look into.

Use VHS, cassette, or tape. Some of my friends have been searching local pawn shops for cassette decks or old VCRs; they offer a static saturation that you can explore. There’s a whole world of possibilities too when you compress the recorded result—you’ll create something weird sometimes, but it will give you a lofi feel.

If you have other suggestions, please share!

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

Inspiration and Risk: Returning to FL Studio and Reason

/in , , /by

As 2019 is comes to and end, I realized that it will be the 4-year anniversary of this blog. For the first time, I’ve had a hard time finding inspiration and motivation for writing, but also for music in general. After releasing an album this spring, I really felt like I’d explored techno inside-out, in terms of what I can bring to the genre. Motivation and drive are something that rise and fall for many people who make music—many try to find novel ways of keeping it going. 2019 also marked 20 years of releases as Pheek for me; I realized that I’ve kept this alias going for a long time. However, in 2009 I took a big break from music-making, before I became a father and after touring for 8 years—I felt like I had seen enough. The thing about being a musician, is that you may call it quits or feel you’ve had enough, but somewhere down the line, the drive to create something will always return.

You need patience—this was probably one of the things I said the most to others this year, and I also had to take this advice myself.

When you need a break from music—or anything that usually makes you happy but isn’t anymore—it’s mostly because you’ve created some lofty expectations that are very difficult to achieve. For example, maybe to feel satisfied with your music, you expected a release on a specific label? Or perhaps that after releasing music, that you should get more recognition, more gigs, or be more demand?

99% of people who come to me with writer’s block have lofty expectations. These expectations usually have nothing to do with reality and create a dissociation from the pleasure of making music. This issue often comes up when setting goals—we set goals too high and are hard on ourselves when we don’t meet them.

I’m no stranger to unrealistic goals, and have experienced this dissociation deeply myself. It’s a good thing to go through every now and then; I can relate to anyone who’s also stuck in that uncomfortable space.

However, I think I’ve slipped into the other 1% of causes of writer’s block, which is, in my case, boredom and being jaded. I mix and master music all day, so it’s hard to disconnect from my critical voice. Teaching Ableton Live and knowing it inside-out leaves me with fewer angles to explore to discover unknown territory (although I do love finding YouTube videos with new techniques to try; even if I was already familiar with a technique, people will often do things in a different way).

This boredom brought me to a tough decision which involves taking a risk: get rid of everything that makes my way of making music safe, easy, stable, effective, productive. Creativity is about problem solving—challenging your brain creatively will push it to become more flexible, alert, and open to new ideas.

In my case, I decided I’d go back to my very first DAW, FL Studio. I missed its awkward design and logic. It’s a bit of an odd-ball in the world of music because it wasn’t made by-musicians-for-musicians, but more by-nerds-for-nerds who wanted to make music, which is suitable for techno nerds like me. Honestly, I didn’t really understand what I was doing when I made my first few albums with FL Studio; I was doing my best to make things work and sound okay. The limitations created some interesting results; some people wondered why or how I did some things, to which I replied that it was because I didn’t know how to do them otherwise. FL Studio is often regarded as a toy or a not serious DAW, but it’s actually really badass, if you can learn to understand it.

It took me some time to sync it to Live because on the OS X version, Image-Line decided to not include the ReWire function. ReWire was something I heavily used circa 2002-2009. If you have this issue, here are some tips on how you can record audio/MIDI from anything in Live:

ReWire Alternatives

Many people love Soundflower, but I hate it. I find it frustrating and confusing. A really lovely alternative is Loopback by Rogue Amoeba. It’s not free, but it’s worth every penny—it can do a lot of internal routing to record audio from your internet browser or other software (very practical for audio artists). Loopback solves audio routing, but not MIDI sync.

On OS X, there’s a built-in tool called Audio MIDI Setup; here you can create a virtual MIDI channel to be used. Then, in FL Studio, in the MIDI out, you pick that channel as your out while selecting the “Send MIDI sync” option. On the other side, in Live, set it as slave, then in the preferences, set the MIDI channel to Track/Remote—this should work.

Things I love about FL Studio

  1. The automatic piano roll on all channels. You can drop a sample into a track and instantly play with its pitch, but what I love the most is the number of options to randomize sequences, quantize, slice and alter the notes. I have not seen anything like it in other DAWs, and in less than 5 minutes, I can have a solid groove going.
  2. Swing & quantization. FL Studio’s swing simply kills it. Logic has good swing also, reminiscent of classic MPC swing, but FL Studio has a killer, killer swing for techno.
  3. Automation, LFOs, and modulation. In FL, these are really a pleasure to use—not only do you get exactly what you want but often things come out even better than you expect.
  4. Native effects are solid. FL Studio has really high quality native plugins.

However, there are also many things I don’t like FL Studio, but they’re not the point of what I am discussing in this post. To put it briefly, I can’t see myself having a speedy workflow with arrangements in FL Studio; I tried for 10 years and eventually wanted to knock my head into a wall.

If you’ve missed out on all the hype about Reason, its latest version is making it the DAW of the year to me. Reason basically turned its effects and instruments racks into a VST, which lets you open it in any DAW. Reason does not crash—that’s the beauty of it; but don’t forget the power of the sound it makes as well. I’ve often done patching in Reason (the visual UI triggers my inspiration right away) and people weren’t sure if it was from my modular or not. 90% of my last album was done in Reason 10. What I loved doing was opening one of its native synths, and patching some LFOs, or envelopes to do some intricate routing and create a bunch of sounds that motivated me to turn them into songs right away.

Opening Reason with FL Studio, connected to Live, really felt like science fiction as I would have never imagined this trio 15 years ago. But, not only does it work like a charm, it’s absolutely a thrill to use! One thing I love about Reason is its feature to be able to rent plugins. They have an internal line of modular inspired tools that let you patch similar setups as you would with a rig.

The reason why I still route everything to Ableton is to be able to record all the tweaking in real time, with the mistakes as well as the good moments that might not be replicable. I still like to do my arrangements in Live, as it is the most efficient. I could export stems from FL Studio, but I find it more fun to grab things imperfectly.

If you work with multiple DAWs, I’d encourage you to create a folder where you save all your recordings, projects, and tests. Export everything as you go, and go fishing and build a mothership.

I wrote this post spontaneously, not really thinking of where it would lead me to. Spontaneity feels good, and so does music production these days.

SEE ALSO : Spending Long Hours in the Studio