Tag Archive for: contrast

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.

Sound Design and Arrangements Series Pt. 2: Balance

/in , , /by

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

Balance in mixing—and in music in general—is one of the main aspects of healthy sounding music, mostly because it is a reflection of space, and perhaps, our life as well. While this post is mostly about my philosophy of work, I’ll still discuss some technical tips that can be applied to your mixing strategy and arrangement work.

Let’s define what balance means in design and see how this translate to music:

Balance is the distribution of the visual weight of objects, colors, texture, and space. If the design was a scale, these elements should be balanced to make a design feel stable. In symmetrical balance, the elements used on one side of the design are similar to those on the other side; in asymmetrical balance, the sides are different but still look balanced.

Source: Getty Edu

While this comes from visual design, you should already able to see how this is applicable to the world of sounds. When I first read this definition, I could understand how I was already applying it to mixing music, as I get very conscious of space and the distribution of the frequencies. One of my favorite tools at the moment is Neutron, which I use on all my groups and sometimes, all channels, so I can monitor all of them visually. I can also apply EQ flipping, where if you boost on one channel, you’ll do the exact opposite cut on another channel that is battling the first one to be heard. Using the Visual Mixer tool, you can then place each sound in space. For people who struggle with panning, this is a precious tool that will also help you see if you have distributed your sounds properly.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of mixing I see is the volume difference between elements. Thinking that everything should be loud is a not only a misconception, but it creates imbalance. The volume difference represents the space use and you need some that are further away otherwise the louder one won’t be important, they’ll be lost.

Same goes for textures. Not all your sounds can be textured simultaenously, otherwise you won’t be able to notice their differences. However they can all be textured at different times. I like to split the arrangements timeline in 3 parts and will let sounds have their moment in each; it keeps the story evolving.

Regarding the stereo spectrum, we often relate this to left and right panning, but one important part a lot of new people to mixing don’t see is the importance of the mono section. If you want your song to have a backbone, you need that part to be dead solid. One trick I like is to have a compressor in a return channel and add a mono utility there. I’ll send a lot of my groups to that mono’er channel that will beef up the mono signal of the track.

As for the frequency spreading, I find that your whole spectrum can be divided in 5 sections: low, mid-low, mids, highs-mid, highs. You can technically have them all loud, but that’s not really good balance, and your mix will probably sound harsh if you don’t control resonances and transients properly. I think having 2 out of those 5 frequency ranges slightly lower than the others will give some room for your mix to breathe. When people book me for mastering, they can select a coloured or transparent master, and if they ask for coloured, this is basically what I’ll do. Re-adjusting 2 of the bands will give a new tone to the track and most of the time, mixes I get are already unbalanced as there’s often a band that is way too loud (most of the time, the lows). If the lows are too loud, then I will lower them.

Now, when it comes to arrangements, this is where it gets fun.

I find that there’s a lot to say about the significance of arrangements. Arrangements come in many forms: short stories, edited experiences, live jams, etc.—but I find those three types are a good starting point. A pop song can be a short story, and a piece of minimalist techno music can also be one, but with a different purpose. The reason we apply a certain methodology to arrangements is to maximize the potential of the sounds, as well as the patterns. In the previous post in this series, we talked about contrast and how it can be used in a specific sound—balance, on the other hand, can be exists on multiple levels.

How Do I Know if an Arrangement is Well-Balanced?

The idea of using balance to leverage creativity is not a rule, but an idea and approach. There are countless pieces out there that have no balance and it work perfectly. I find that balance in arrangements is a method of regulation, but it’s not something I’d focus on alone as the main approach.

See balance as tomato sauce. It can be a really great base for a lot of dishes and yes, it can be used as-is, but it does a better job when it’s combined with other ingredients. This is why it works well on a pizza and pastas, etc.

So It depends what you listen to and of course, some great songs are totally unbalanced and that’s what makes them special. I like to say that rules are made to be broken, but you need to know the rules first. A balanced song has a better chance of creating a quality that we all strive for in music: timelessness. In visual arts, minimalism aged well. The logo of Mercedes has basically remained the same, compared to Google’s original disaster brand. Same for music, in general. What I see is that music which is balanced, has a number of sounds playing at a time and has an organization and internal self rules that are set to keep a clarity and easy understanding.

I find that balanced arrangements usually feel easier to understand and are not too destabilizing. But if you go in the opposite direction voluntary, it can be a good way too create contrast.

A song with a balanced mix has a full presence and usually doesn’t have one element stand out. So for percussion, I like to have a balance of numerous sounds but you can then have one that pop out, in contrast (refer to part 1).

As for having balanced arrangements, I’d recommend the following:

Set the rules of your song in the 1st minute (or first part). This can be the tempo, time signature, density, motif preview, etc. The rest of the song is a balance of contrast operating in the rules you’ve set. By balance, we can agree that it’s about not placing all your tricks into the same thing.

Distribute your ideas evenly across your song. I’m talking about the motif for instance, that could reveal one variant more per section. Balance predictability as well unpredictability by having your sounds come in and out at times the listen gets used to.

Use repetition to create patterns that support one another. The famous call and response technique is a good example.

The best way to leave annotations in your arrangements is by adding a empty MIDI channel and creating blocks that you can stretch over sections of your song and leave notes accordingly. This can be very helpful if you have a hard time seeing how sounds are distributed once a channel is flattened.

I like to have colours for each genre of sounds. This usually tells me if there’s too many percussion blocks compared to another group, for example.

Background sounds are often a good way of helping everything work together. Songs that feel full have a background, a noise floor. It can be a reverb, noise, or it can be field recordings. People often ask me where you can find sounds like that. Archive.org, Freesounds.org, Loopcloud, and Soundly are all super useful for finding these as well as odd and out of ordinary ideas.

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

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.