Tag Archive for: references

References From Clients And Exercises

/in , /by

When it comes to making music or mixing, you sort of need to start somewhere and to get inspired by others if often a good way to get started. There’s a lot of misconception on how to use references. While I covered that in a past article, I thought I’d go deeper on the topic. 

 

While there’s no right or wrong way to use references, I often use references for one thing in it. It can be a sound that intrigues me, a type of sequence, rhythm or concept that tickles my brain into trying to reverse engineer it. While I can most of the time understand what is going on, it doesn’t mean I can reproduce it as is. Some clients that I coach became really good at reproducing what they hear, sometimes with my help or not.

 

But the idea is to try something out and be open to where that will bring you next.

 

While I do a lot of production from clients, sometimes people wonder what others are into, who are the artists to follow but also, who are the artists that I personally follow for my own inspiration.

 

Many times, I have clients who start an idea based on a reference but they struggle to get it “right” as they want. I give here a few things to check first in order to get things started properly (in other words, this is where clients fail).

 

Load your reference song in Ableton (or other DAW) and you may solo it at first to be able to compare it to your project. I would advise to lower the volume of your reference as it may be mastered while yours isn’t.

 

There are a few initial points to consider:

 

  1. The tone: Use either an FFT analyzer (SPAN from Voxengo is free or Fabfilter ProQ3) on the master to see if the tone is similar. Is the curve similar or different from you

 

  1. Root Key/Scale: You can use a Key detector on your reference to see what is the root key and scale, then check if yours is set properly. While you don’t need to have the same as your reference, some clients don’t realize that their different elements are not in the same key. This will often translate with the feeling that the song doesn’t feel one or perhaps, that is sounds off. Note that it might sound off if you were overexposed and then you got used to it but for a fresh pair of ears, it might be awkward sounding.

 

  1. Speed and rhythm: Find the BPM of your reference and try to match it to yours. What is the time signature.

 

Lately I’ve been enjoying Decoda as a full analysis software. You can do so much with it as well as extract melodies in midi. I find it essential to work with demanding clients.

 

When it comes to artists my clients love the most, I compiled a few and will drop a few words why they are loved.

 

Ricardo Villalobos

Not a surprise here since he’s one of my favorite artists and a lot of people come to me know that I spent decades understanding his unorthodox style and can explain how certain of his songs are made. Love or hate him, that guy has certainly develop his own persona when it comes to production and his music composition is always opening new grounds to what you can do in music.

 

 

Things he has inspired us: 

 

  • Making super long tracks with more or less structure can be fun.
  • Leaving your songs sloppy has a more human side.
  • Combining really weird sounds all together can work if you keep some elements one can refer to.
  • Not afraid to sample obscure records as the main idea of his songs.

 

Ricardo is known to have a huge collection of modular synths but compared to many people who have a lot, he records new tests weekly so you can see the wide array of his tools. 

 

Exercises related to studying to his music:

 

– Use VCV to try the modular thinking he use and randomize some elements for madness.

– Polyrhythms are the key here with uneven time signature. Also look into Euclidean rhythms.

– Ric uses a lot of granular synthesis on percussion instruments or synths.

 

Vid

 

 

This is another that is often referred to as a reference. People love the simplicity and yet complex songs he makes. As opposed to Villalobos, his songs are quite polished and organized.

 

Things he has inspired us: 

 

  • Atmospheric techno is quite fun to make and is both exciting, while meditative.
  • Lush pads over field recordings are hypnotizing.
  • Dark tone gives a more mysterious vibe.

 

Exercises related to studying to his music:

 

  • Collect field recordings and ambient space sounds such as a restaurant or a church inside.
  • Grooves and beats that are groovy are worth being studied and I often recommend looking into pre-made loops and then copycat them. Removing a lot of the sustain of percussion to keep them short really helps having a minimal house feel.
  • He often doesn’t have bright elements and keeping sounds low will give a mysterious vibe.

 

Pablo Bolivar (Or Dub Techno)

 

Since I have a long background in dub techno, I get a lot of questions on how those pads are made. While it is not necessarily complicated, it still needs a bit of tweaking because what makes the dub techno pads captivating is the always moving side of them. That is coming from modulation or automation. Pablo does a great job of picking some nice sounds, pads and beautiful, lush melodies which makes him a reference for a lot of clients.

 

Things he has inspired us: 

  • A lot of classic dub techno has a 1 or 2 notes melodies, going full on minimal. Pablo brings in simple melodies but more complex than 2 notes which gives it memorable moments. 
  • Super clean production and mixes. Nothing unnecessary is ever added.
  • Just like Vid, his approach to have dynamic ambient makes it enjoyable for relaxation or dancing.

 

Exercises related to studying to his music:

 

  • Use a key root with a minor scale. Minor chords as well to complement the melody. Most of his melodies are 4-5 notes maximum. Consider doing chord progressions.
  • Use field recordings to complement the melodies.
  • Percussion are fairly straightforward here and repetitive. It does a fine job.

 

J Dilla

I wouldn’t say that anyone contacted me to make music exactly like him but I do have some clients into lofi hip hop, which in my opinion, is a derivative from J Dilla. He’s from the MPC generation where people would sample records and then play with it. His album “Donuts” is considered an innovative album for hip hop and is worth listening to it.

 

Things he has inspired us: 

 

  • Sampling blatantly and being bold about it. Sample some music from any source and use short notes of it, either to make your hook or to put an accent on whatever is happening. 
  • Go short. Learn to make songs that are under 3 minutes long. A challenge for techno but for electronic music, it’s an exercise that forces you to be straight to the point.
  • Exaggerate on swing for your percussion. Try to push it to the max to see what happens. 

 

Exercises related to studying to his music:

 

  • As stated above, those learning are also things to try. But I would recommend digging some records at a second hand shop and sample obscure parts.
  • Use a midi controller like the PUSH or with pads and try to manually punch in your beats.
  • Within a clip, play with the warp points to create weird stretches and elastic beats.
  • Slice up beats and reprogram them into a new patterns.

 

Fred Again

I’ve lost interest in pop music years ago and commercial electronic music has always been something I stay away from. But Fred Again has been impressing me for how he makes music and of course, for the end results. The thing about his music is that it’s basically the typical approach from any commercial, standard structure music that is made and good tastes is what matters here.

 

This means understanding chord progressions and working with key/scale is going to be the main focus. Using plugins like Captain Plugins suite will make a huge difference unless you have a lot of patience to learn music theory.

 

There are no shortcuts to this kind of music. But the tools you can use will make it easier.

 

His recent album with Brian Eno is what made me appreciate him. 

 

Daft Punk

 

I’ve been following the pair from 1995 until their separation. I don’t think there’s been many music acts that had the impact over their career like these guys did. It’s mostly due to their desire to innovate but also to take ideas that work really well and pull out some solid ideas to give it a new twist. 

 

In a past article, I was stating that there are 2 main modes when it comes to working on a project: you might want to repeat an idea you love from a song or artists vs you might want to innovate something from what you do.

 

The things I’ve learned from working with clients who want to get inspiration from them are mostly about, once more, digging for samples and then play with them. It’s sort of like what we covered from Dilla, but with a faster pace and 4/4 time signature. There was a point where the French Touch house/disco was all rage. That music was about using a sample with heavy filtering and the classic pumping/ducking effect. This technique is still used nowadays but with a bit more control where you perceive it less.

 

Besides filtering, some notable effects they use that you can explore today: Bit crushing, tape saturation, vocoder, heavy chorus/phaser. They also love a good 909 kit.

 

And to finish up, who are my personal references?

 

Ada Kaleh, Gigi Masin, Jan Jelinek, Rhythm and Sound, Vladislav Delay, Ricardo Villalobos, Matt Dear, Lawrence… but way too many to name.

 

The Problem With “Good” Music

/in /by

Here’s the problem with good music – it’s subjective. One person’s idea of a “good” song is certainly different from someone else’s unless they come from a similar cultural background. And even with a shared cultural background, people still differ between what they think is good and what isn’t. This is similar to people calling music “interesting.” 

The term interesting is subjective as well. What is interesting to me might not be interesting to you. For instance, I could enjoy a technical aspect of a song that someone who doesn’t understand that technical aspect might not care about.

Art Is Often Philosophical

The foundation for this article all started with a client of mine who came to me and asked if I could make his song interesting, which perplexed me, since as I said before, what’s interesting to me might not be interesting to someone else. This led to a debate about if it’s really the mandate of the artist to be interesting. Is it the artist’s fault if the music isn’t “interesting” enough? After all, music is subjective.

For instance, some people absolutely hate the music that’s on the radio, but if you’ve ever run a club, you know that it’s your Top 40 nights that are going to make you the most money. It’s reasonable to assume, that to the patrons, there is something about the music that makes it “interesting,” or else they probably wouldn’t be there. Sure, it might not be the music itself, but it could be the purpose… the intention.

I got the sense that my client doesn’t appreciate philosophical debates as I do, so they may have just been annoyed. But that’s what had me thinking about this article, because when people come to me and ask for me to make their track “interesting,” or “good,” I would like to have a reference to show them to help them describe what they really mean. So that’s what this article is about – giving people the tools to objectify something that is inherently subjective.

 

“Interesting” Is Intentional

Instead of interesting, it’s best to describe a context and/or an emotion that goes with it. Maybe you want the song to be exciting, emotional, tense, or have a narrative flow. Perhaps you imagine it in a soundtrack to a movie, or you want it played in a club. These will have different technical and compositional elements, which segment into their own specific terms.

For instance, if you want a song played in a club, that’s going to require more compression, and often more density so that it can keep up with the loudness of all the tracks it’s mixed with. However, if you want it to be in a soundtrack, it will be more transparent, and use frequencies that don’t clash with whatever it’s being overlaid with, whether that’s dialog, or foley sounds in the film, etc.

Also, the length of the song will matter. If someone comes to me and say, “I want a radio-friendly song” and they give me an 8-minute song, we have to figure out how to isolate 5 minutes of it for a radio version. We may even have to add other compositional elements to so that there is a congruity to the song when we reduce it that significantly.

Nowadays, whether we like it or not, social media runs everything around us. There are tons of DJs who get gigs because they have a great social presence, rather than artistic output. That means, in order to compete, many artists who do have a sizable artistic output still have to do stuff for Instagram, or TikTok. And if it’s good for TikTok it might not be good for Spotify. I was reading an article about making music that grabs attention in the first 4 seconds, and if they don’t do that, then it will fail on places like Instagram Reels and Tiktok. Once again, these are things I need to know in order to make it “interesting” for those contexts. 

 

The Axis Of “Interesting” Music

The aforementioned thoughts are best explained by an axis, I think. This axis is pretty arbitrary, as it’s my own personal one, but I think it does a good job illustrating the intention of music in general.

The axis is a pie chart of purpose, emotion, and technicality. Then somewhere surrounding that pie chart is distribution. 

When all of the elements are congruent, then magic happens. If they are off-kilter, there is a good chance it won’t sound right.

Purpose is the context: is it meant for the club, is it meant for at-home listening, is it meant for a movie, etc? Emotion is the existential part of it; it’s the part that makes it feel human. If it’s too emotional, then it may not develop, or it may seem campy, or annoying. Technicality is the musicianship and the engineering on it. While you want it to be technically sound, if it’s too technical, like a Dream Theater album, then it might sound emotionless, or pretentious. However, if there is too little technicality, then it might sound sloppy. Having a balance of these to fit your goal is the key. 

Sometimes songs are “purposely” untechnical. These are the songs that might sound kind of jangly or have poor mixing, but you can tell, based on the style of music, that this may have been intentional. Take “lofi” music for instance – it’s purposely mixed weird.

Or sometimes, things are purposely overly emotional in order to illustrate a point. Maybe it’s part of a skit for a campy comedy/parody about romance or something of the sort. That is bound to need an overly emotional track. 

However, what all of these examples have is a purpose, which grounds them.

Distribution is the final part. Is it going to be on vinyl, or is it made for TikTok? If it’s on vinyl, then certain mastering will be required. Also, you will need to consider the length of the songs as it has to fit on the grooves. 

If it’s TikTok, as I mentioned earlier, you have to grab their attention in 4 seconds, or else it won’t carry on the algorithm properly.

 

Attention Matters

Right now, one of my projects is to create a 12-hour long ambient album. Do I expect it to be intently listened to? No, it’s background music that sets the mood. 

The idea came from these playlists, or stations, that I leave playing for an entire day because it’s a presence that isn’t actively listened to. It’s more an atmosphere rather than for attention. 

There are different levels of attention: passive (background), attentive (stopping what they do to listen with care), critical (either people who are trained with music theory/engineering listening for flaws). It’s up to the artist to set that intention.

 

What Is Your Intention?

A label once asked me for “good music” and I was like that doesn’t make any sense – I don’t go into the studio thinking I’m going to make “bad music.” I try to make something that is meaningful – that’s all

At the end of the day, the question is: what are you chasing? Are you chasing appreciation, artistic integrity, or attention? You can’t have all three, because you can’t please everyone. But does that really matter?

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.

Music Feedback: When to Take the Opinions of Others Seriously and When Not to Care

/in , /by

If you make music, you’ll get what I’m trying to explain here—the head space where you’re fully aware that it’s important to make music solely for yourself, but yet you really want to share it with the world, with other people who could potentially like it. If you love what you do, maybe someone out there also loves it, too?

Where should you draw the line between making music for others versus making it for yourself?

Honestly, it’s a tough question. The voice of reason in most people will answer it with something moralistic, like:

Making music for yourself is the way. Sharing is good, but don’t make a big deal out of what people say.

Unless you have a real mastery of your emotions, if you’re an artist, you will, at some point, want to share your work. If you share your work with “random” people, especially close friends or family, you’ll mostly get random feedback which can be confusing and hard to analyze constructively. Sharing your work is, at its most fundamental level, about seeking validation. Even old fart producers like me who have 20+ albums and have toured, still carry the need for validation. The difference I see between myself and younger artists, is that I carefully pick the people I share my music with—a way of knowing if you’re still relevant to people you trust. In past posts, I’ve explained how to network properly and how to build a circle of solid contacts.

A pattern I often see is artists having a very productive session, and the resulting track feels very emotionally powerful to them. Validation comes in when they seek to determine if the emotions in the session were valid, or if they were hyped over something bogus.

This sort of pattern results in an “they’re right, I’m wrong” thought process that causes cognitive dissonance. Let’s examine this pattern from a technical point of view:

  1. You make music absolutely for yourself, but this is artistic masturbation; it’s normal to want to connect with others to validate these feelings.
  2. The opposite is making music for a label, other artist, crowd, club, or festival, in which an artist is chasing other people’s opinions and lacks control over their own work—they usually end up frustrated.

If you ask someone for advice about music, sometimes people come at it from the problematic position of “I’m right, you’re wrong.” They’ll tell you what they think is good or not, based on their point of view. Sometimes people are not totally open to giving real feedback and will be biased. When most people are given the opportunity to criticize, they’ll find something wrong. It might not always be useful, but sometimes with music, particularly concerning technical aspects of production, there’s value in receiving good feedback.

When Should You Take Someone’s Feedback Seriously?

It’s up to you, but it’s heavily dependent on your ability and accuracy in evaluating your own work beforehand. Here are a few tips for evaluating your own work before seeking external feedback:

1. If your track creates emotion in you, never doubt it, even if it never reaches anyone. Not all tracks need to be released, heard publicly, or shared. You can make a song for yourself and perhaps a few friends—this is a totally valid way of making music. The “need” to release all your music is really a misconception that you’re entitled to be heard because you made a song. Honestly, you aren’t.

2. Listen to your song in different contexts to see what it feels like. For example, listen to it while commuting, in your living room, in your car, in front of a friend (in person!) or in the middle of your favourite playlist. This can reveal flaws in your work. If something feels off and you are limited technically, then you know that asking someone for feedback with a precise request should provide value to your work.

3. Use a reference tool such as Reference from Plugin Boutique which, if you compare your work with a song you like, you can easily see what is missing (tone or loudness). Fixing issues might be a roadblock for some artists, and that’s another reason it might be useful to get feedback.

Once you’ve done these three things, I’d upload a snippet to Soundcloud to get a reaction or share it privately with a few friends. I would never post music in forums without knowing what regular users are like in the first place. I also don’t share with close friends; they never get it and sometimes it can make the friendship awkward. I prefer having two circles of friends: music-related and non-music.

Never forget that it’s important to age a song for a few weeks or months, just like a wine, then come back to it afterwards—this trick reveals incredible details you can’t initially see or hear.

When is Feedback Disposable and Not Worth Taking Seriously?

  • When someone implies that you should change something in the arrangement or sound design based on their tastes.
  • When someone discusses some so-called “unwritten rules” about how music “should” be made (ex. you have to make all your sounds from scratch, you can’t use samples, etc).
  • When their technical feedback is questionable. For example, some people might comment on bass without having access to a sub.
  • When someone who lacks empathy can’t understand the vision of the track and tries instead to see it from their own point of view. For example, my ex never understood that music I made at home would translate differently in a club.
  • When someone tags your music with buzzwords. Sometimes people would listen to a song and say “oh, it’s chill” but not understanding that on a large system, it might groove.
  • When you receive comments such as “X is good” or “X is bad“. As if the person had the universal understanding of some permanent elements in music—such comments don’t mean anything at all. We all know that if person X finds it bad, person Y might think it’s genius.

I hope this helps you understand what type of feedback is worth taking seriously!

SEE ALSO : Common mindsets of musicians who have writer’s block and how to solve them

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: Some Organizational Tips

/in , /by

We are constantly bombarded by information and it can be difficult to focus on anything properly. Making good music requires slowing down and a high level of focus—often people rush when making music and it comes out poorly. How can you make music faster while still giving the process the attention it deserves?

In terms of file and project organization, there are a number of things you can do to speed up your workflow.

Backup, Backup, Backup

I’ll never say this enough, and I’m sure you might shrug at this first tip, but you have no idea how many clients come to me telling me their computer crashed and they lost everything, hoping I saved their projects! Luckily, many times I have been able to help them with my own backups. After many of my own crashes, I’ve learned to have a number of external hard drives for all my projects, and I have an online backup for my main system that syncs multiple times a day, and I also use Time Machine (from Apple). Generally, I have to use one of these back ups at least a few times per year, because of corrupted data or other issues. Clients email me about issues of their own about once a week! No joke, if you do just one thing to improve your pace-of-output, make sure it’s taking backups of your work.

On backup drives, I keep everything organized by year, label, and project name. Having organized files and folders helps me find things quickly.

Personally, some brands I trust for reliable hard-drives are Western Digital, Samsung, and Seagate. If you can get an SSD, it’s a huge plus—you can work directly from it, without any noticeable decrease in speed. When it comes to online backups, I like iCloud (I personally hate Google Drive), but I recently discovered iDrive and find it pretty impressive and affordable, too. If you don’t have an account with Splice, it’s a good idea to back up all your projects online. Having multiple back ups on different systems can be quite useful.

File-Naming Conventions

All my song files have a title, but they also have a bit more information. On OSX you can use tags—I like to tag files as released/not released, and finished/not finished, for the most part. Avoid project titles like “new song” or “1”. As time progresses, chances are you’ll have many new songs, and titles like those are counter-productive.

I keep very few things on my primary computer hard-drive; I love to discard projects that I’m done with or that I haven’t touched in a while, so I can make room for new material. If you aren’t familiar with my creative process (see my series of videos on Youtube), I create a lot of source material to work with, but it takes up a lot of space on my hard-drive. I don’t like to re-use the same material twice, so cleaning up my hard-drive on a regular basis becomes a safety net against redundancy in sample usage.

When it comes to samples, I buy multiple loops and one-shots, as well as packs, and like to keep them organized in a sample-focused folder. Nothing too complicated, as I use multiple other tools to organize those in my DAWs, so I don’t spend much time on organizing samples into folders. I simply backup the sample folder and that does the trick.

Project Organization

Many producers work in an awkward way when it comes to managing their project(s)—their creative process is often irregular and they are easily distracted. It’s very hard to be completely organized when making music and balancing creativity with efficiency, but there are some approaches you can take to make things flow more easily. When it comes to making music, I work with “motherships“, which is a technique I covered in a past post and often refer to to make things productive again when I lack ideas. It’s basically one big Ableton Live session, where I drop-in all my current ideas. Recently, I found that I like to create multiple ideas in a single column in this project file. For example, I make all kind of grooves and percussion sequences in a column called “groove ideas.” If my mothership has multiple, well-separated content types, I can import an entire column from the mothership into another project and improve upon it. So let’s say I’m working on a dub project and feel like I’m lacking groove, I can simply go dig up whatever I have in the mothership by importing a full column filled with numerous grooves into my current project.

I think that working in a modular way (not in terms of using modular synths)—saving ideas by category—helps to import them faster later on, when they’re needed.

Leftovers & Going to the Store

Finished a new track? Create a new column called “leftovers” and place any unused ideas in it. Import that column into a project named “leftovers” and you’ll have all the leftovers from all your songs, which can easily be recycled in the future.

“Going to the grocery store“, is a phrase I use for days I spend recording noise, sounds, bleeps, and random jams from gear to my computer. I’m not a gear guy in general; I find using a lot of gear multiplies the risk of running into technical issues, which limits creative time. I usually record tons of sounds, or “audio produce”. I then work with that material for weeks or months, or even years. These types of sessions are super useful, but need to be organized as well. I cut down recordings to “moments”, which I identify as specific ideas or concepts. I also slice sections down to one-shot ideas, for percussion elements. Additionally, I like to have tons of low-end material with analog saturation, and analog transients I can use in digital percussion. Both add a very simple twist that can make a world of difference. I also like to use the mothership concept with the grocery store. I’ll create one template project with all my recordings and then slice them, then put them in different columns that I can use to import in any ongoing projects that need something.

Time

Time is precious. If you have a family, it’s even more difficult to find time to make music. How does one organize time given the obligations of social relationships, work, partners, hobbies, and Netflix binging?

My solution to not having enough time to work on my own music is to dedicate blocks of 30 minutes to work on music and try to get the most of them. Your brain can produce high-quality work for about that amount of time. This fact is liberating for parents—you have a human need to create, so you feed it what you can, and then move on. In the early years of being a dad, I thought that having a way to save ideas for music by leaving myself audio notes was the best way to calm my brain down from the restlessness of not making music as much as I wanted to. Sometimes I would have the computer nearby and I’d leave a loop playing and adjust as I could, between changing diapers. Part of who I was a musician changed in those years. The music I wanted to make was completely different, mostly because I was using music in a different ways.

Limiting your time to periods of intense focus is something I learned from the Pomodoro technique. I would make sure to listen to music for 10 to 30 minutes before working. Ideally, I would also exercise or stretch to have my body “activated.”

Since time is crucial, I recommend you eliminate any hindrances of the mind that can disrupt the flow: hunger, need to check phone, energy, thirst, discomfort, etc. A good studio has the phone at the entrance with minimum check-ins on whatever alerts it can send you. Have a water bottle and snacks on hand, a quality chair…make things comfortable.

I also encourage new students to create precise goals and deadlines. For instance, “next Saturday I will dedicate a moment to video tutorials on compression, then do some tests on kicks.”

References

If you want to make music without losing your sense of direction, you need references on hand. I’ve covered references in many past posts, but this is a reminder that having a Spotify playlist is a great idea to give yourself drive. Speaking of drive, it’s not a bad idea to leave your house before making music—go for a walk, jog, or drive around. Have you ever noticed how moving along with music stimulates creativity? If this doesn’t do it for you, try to find an external activity that involves music and that inspires you.

A self-education activity that is also essential is to have a personal YouTube playlist of videos that are reference tracks, mixed with tutorials of techniques you can try. I have a to-do list of videos that I go to for experiments.

That said, references should be archived eventually, too. I like to keep some for a while but change them regularly. It’s a good idea to have a folder on your backup drive for all the references you’ve used.

Plugins

It’s easy to get lost in the sea of plugins out there, and if you’re a collector like I am, once you have many installed, it’s also easy to forget about older ones. Ableton Live 10 has a classification for plugins where you can put them a category with a color—I use it all the time. In my case, I have these categories: Sound design, Compression, EQ, Saturation.

I have a rule that I don’t buy anything new unless I’ve already used what I have bought previously. I don’t mean just having played with it, but actually used it in a project—this also applies to gear and any gizmos I could potentially use. The crave to get something new happens every day, as I’m constantly under fire by ads and emails that promote something.

Networking

If you want projects to get finished, you will have to do some networking at some point, and it can be pretty hectic out there as everyone has an agenda of their own. I’ve discussed the importance of networking before, but here are some basic reminders about how to do so efficiently:

  • Never take any conversation personally, as well as any pauses, silences, or delayed conversations. This is something I sort of have to remind myself daily, as sometimes I get triggered by certain things. Think of networking like you’re chasing someone for something, and he or she is doing the same thing with someone else. Everyone’s chasing each other and yet, we don’t pay much energy to people who are there for us.
  • If you send demos or if you are collaborating with someone, expect no communication or long silences. The music business world attracts people who are full of anxiety and often change their mind. Finding the right moment to poke someone takes time to master.
  • Use an agenda to keep reminders of who to follow-up with.

SEE ALSO : How Long Does it Take to Make Professional Sounding Music?

How Long Does it Take to Make Professional Sounding Music?

/in , , /by

For people who are just getting started with production and recording their own music, many wonder how much practice is involved before they can create professional sounding music that they are happy with. I often get asked questions like this:

“I’ve been making music non-stop for 6 months. Why am I not happy with how it sounds yet?“

In terms of life experience making music, 6 months is nothing. You’re basically a toddler in the world of music, but being a toddler is also a once-in-a-lifetime experience and has some advantages as well. In comparing yourself with people who have many more years of experience, it’s normal that it might feel like you’re still far behind. You’re not really being fair to yourself; you can’t expect to squeeze in so much knowledge in such a short time. Most people who make music for a long time usually have also worked in the company of other experienced artists, learned some valuable tips from their experiences, and many have also spent a lot of time at events or working with live sound. All these details are often overlooked by newcomers who often have the misconception that making professional sounding music is something that’s relatively easy to do. Making quality music takes a lot of time—it usually takes many years. However, the difficulty in being satisfied about what you do doesn’t decrease as you gain experience.

Each time I learn something new or that I understand that a type of detail is actually a mistake, I start hearing it everywhere in my past music and it drives me crazy. If you think that with over 20 years of production I might be more easily satisfied with what I make, then I have bad news for you—I still get frustrated, get writer’s block, and most of the time, I’m not entirely happy with how my songs sound. The difference between myself and someone new to making music is that in 20 years, I’ve learned something you’ll learn too: imperfection is a part of the process.

I met a DJ once who told me:

“All quality producers I love are full of self-doubt, but the ones that sound like crap are so full of themselves.”

Not being satisfied with your own work also means you’re willing to learn. So, what are the options available for someone just starting out? Is it just a matter of time?

There are a lot of paths one can take, and unfortunately, sometimes friends or other music producers send new artists down the wrong one. Generally, people will advise others to take a direction that worked for them, but this might not necessarily work for anyone but themselves. I say this before I get into more detail about how long I think it takes for a new artist to make art he or she is satisfied with; the advice below is what has worked for me and what I have seen work for others.

Understanding a sound

If you’re not happy with your sound, you should first ask yourself what sound you’re after. There are a few things to really grasp to understant what’s “wrong” in how you perceive this sound.

Sound monitoring: What monitors are you using? Are you using KRKs? Genelecs? Yamahas? Some people have poor equipment and it’s a handicap in how you’ll “understand” your sound. The clearer and more reliable your tools, the easier it will be. Before buying anything else for your studio, monitoring should be where you invest the most of your budget. You can buy very expensive gear, but if you can’t hear it properly, you’ll always be on step behind.

People will recommend certain speakers or headphones, but monitoring is extremely personal—I encourage you to go to a store and spend a good amount of time comparing different brands and models. I swear, when you hear your favorite track on a specific system and it triggers goosebumps, you’ll know that system is for you. Prepare to invest in good speakers—there’s nothing professional about buying cheap monitors just to save a bit of cash.

A/B referencing: Cross-validating is one of the most important things to do when you make music, and though a lot of people seem to have reservations about it, this is how professionals and people who want meaningful results will work. This goes for not only audio, but in pretty much any craft; you need a model, a reference, and something to guide your vision, or to keep track of your progress. As you work, you need to constantly check what’s going on. You might hate it at first, but that’s how it’s done. In terms of audio, having good headphones and other output systems to cross-reference with is very beneficial.

There are many tools out there that can help make doing A/B checks easier and more pleasant. For instance, Reference is a great tool to see if your levels are right. Magic A/B is also great, but doesn’t have the precision of Reference. Levels is also another great tool to analyze the technical requirements of your song. But more importantly, I recommend a good FFT such as SPAN by Voxengo (free) or Izotope’s recently released Ozone 9, which is a good overall bundle of tools to have that can really help make a difference in what you do. Ozone comes with an “assistant” that listens to your music and can propose fixes, enhancements, and overall adjustments, while comparing your work to a preloaded reference track—it can be a big investment, but it will be a tool you’ll use every time you work on music.

Listening volume. The worst way to listen to music when you want to understand it is at high volume (eg. 85dB+). I try to keep my listening levels low so I can easily hear what’s wrong. You’ll be able to tell that the highs are too sharp or that the low end is too low at lower volumes (something that’s barely possible to do at high volume due to the Fletcher Munson Curve which says that after a certain volume level is reached, the human hear stops perceiving things in a neutral way). Make sure you keep the volume low and don’t touch the knob as you work. Take pauses every 20 minutes too—you’ll notice problems more easily.

Sound preparation and “mental jogging”. When you actually sit down to make music, you shouldn’t just start right away; you need to do some “mental jogging” first. Forget shortcuts like smoking spliffs or drinking beer. Just sit there and listen to music at around 65dB (I use my apple watch to monitor decibel levels). Listen to music for a good 30 minutes to an hour, then make music. Never touch the volume knob. Your ears need to adjust to the right levels of highs, mids, and lows. If you touch that master volume knob, you’ll screw up the exercise.

Learning

To get better at anything, you need to educate yourself. Perhaps you love to learn by yourself (like me), but I swear, it only takes one video or a bit of reading to feel like you’re improving, and you’ll feel silly you didn’t look for that information before. I’m personally always on the hunt for tutorials, even on matters that I know a lot about already, because I want to make sure I know as much as I can about each subject. You’ll often realize that a problem has many ways it can be solved, and it’s important to learn multiple different approaches to achieve a certain result. Why? Sometimes, a certain approach will reach its limits and another one might be a better fit. This also applies to plugins and gear. You might have 3 different compressors, but they all have their own persona and might work better than one another in different contexts.

However, I wouldn’t worry much about tools to start. It’s more important to create conditions where you can properly understand sound, develop healthy habits towards your work, and constantly allow for time and resources to dedicate towards self-improvement.

Tools come and go—what really makes a difference in going from an amateur to a professional is how you understand and use them. Understanding how audio engineering works and how you perceive sound is hugely important.

Good Quality Schools and Learning Hubs

Point Blank Online Music School. I only hear good things about Point Blank, and their tutorials on YouTube always are quality.

Noisegate. I’m currently testing it and got a few tips from there but it’s mostly for new comers.

Puremix. For advanced users and mostly oriented towards Protools. Even so, I’ve learned a lot from them.

Loopmasters. They sell classes and they’re very good; a favourable ratio of get-what-you-pay-for.

SEE ALSO : Make Music Faster: Some Organizational Tips

The benefits and risks of using a reference track when mixing

/in , , , /by

In the group I run on Facebook when we discuss using a reference track when mixing, I often ask people what sort of tracks they have been using as a reference—I ask so regularly that people find my predictability funny. There are so many reasons why I encourage people to use a reference track when mixing, but for me personally to give someone feedback, I find it critical that I provide commentary based on the artist’s views. In the early days of the Facebook group, someone posted a song and everyone was criticizing its kick, but after a bunch of people commented on it, we all realized that the song creator was trying to mimic the low end of a very lofi song where the kick was intentionally “ugly”. From the perspective of people who love highly-produced techno, this particular kick was “wrong”, but only from this point of view. There’s no one-size-fits-all kick.

I encourage people to be super careful with feedback they give to artists in the event one may not totally understand what that artist is trying to do. I’ve developed this habit as a mastering engineer—if you’re too technical and detached from what the person is actually trying to do, it will be hard to really achieve mastering results that will please them, while respecting the artistic direction he or she is trying to achieve.

Think about using a reference track in the same way as how a painter might draw someone—it would be easier for the painter if he/she had an image of the person to use as a reference. Of course, the painter could try to “freehand” the drawing from memory, but it would probably end up less accurate.

The main concerns people seem to have with respect to using a reference track is that it might be too much of an “influence” on what they’re working on, and that they’re trying to find their own original sound. Many people think using a reference track would sort of corrupt their vision.

The problem is, if you’re trying to “sound like no one”, you’ll get a lot of confusing feedback about your work because most people won’t understand it. People always have something already in mind when they listen to something new. They’ll compare and try to make sense of it, but if it’s totally unsettling, they might feel a bit lost. If you refer to something they know, then there’s link that can be made by the listener.

A reference track can only be used for certain portions of a song and not all of it, which to me is the reason why it can’t totally corrupt your vision. Plus, if you use the same reference a few times, you’ll introduce new habits into your workflow, and this will ensure that your tracks are on the right path.

How can a reference track benefit your mix?

  • Tone: This is mostly what I use references for, myself. The longer I work on a track, the more fatigued my ears get, and I lose sense of the lows and highs. If I can quickly A/B another track, I’ll know if I’m on the right path.
  • Arrangements: If you know a track is really successful at, let’s say, creating a tension, or really nailing it with the timing of the drums in a timeline, you might want to study its structure to understand it.
  • Mix levels: Very useful if you want to know if one element of your sounds is loud enough in a mix, then you can see what kind of relation the reference has. People are often confused with the mids which is the part I always fix in clients’ works; I can fix it because I can check my references that have very clear, present mids. Mids are critical to have right on a big sound system.
  • Loudness: You can also check if you’re matching the power of your reference—but keep in mind that your reference has probably already been mastered by someone with experience!

How can a reference track harm your mix?

Despite having many benefits, using a reference can have pitfalls as well. The most common error in using a reference track is using a song that’s actually poorly mixed or mastering and trying to emulate it. If your reference isn’t great from a production point of view, you risk messing up your whole perspective on music production and mixing up what’s “good” with what’s “bad”.

How should you find a good quality reference track?

If you’re in doubt, to me there are two main ways to find a reliable reference track:

  1. Ask a reliable source to validate something you’ve chosen, or to provide you with one that’s similar to your selection. The source can be someone in the industry, a record store owner, a DJ, a fellow producer, etc. Make sure your source is someone you trust.
  2. If you go out in a club and hear something that sounds really great, ask what it is. There are a lot of people who want to know what’s playing so if the DJ is unable to tell you, perhaps someone else can.

Once you have your reference track chosen, you can compare anything to it to see if it’s in the same “ballpark”. Try to get a 24-bit WAV or AIF version of the reference track. Once you have a high-quality version of the reference track, I recommend “audio jogging” everyday—listen to the reference on your sound system, not too loud but at a comfortable level, and then don’t change the volume for the whole duration of the session. Now your reference track has been set up as a guide for you to work from; cross-check your own project with the reference as you work!

SEE ALSO : How to balance a mix

Music Goals: Using Signposts instead of Goals

/in , /by

You often hear about setting music goals to keep your drive going and to get you pointed in the right direction. I’ve previously discussed the best ways to set goals and reach them, but as time has gone on, I’m not totally sure if setting goals is still the most efficient way to get yourself going.

However, some goals on your bucket list still might be relevant; but this depends on how you set them. For instance, whenever I have people in coaching, we discuss that setting goals should be done in a way where you can actually quantify the success of your work. For instance, people often try to set a goal of “becoming a known artist”, which, in a way, doesn’t make sense at all compared to “finishing an album.”  The problem with the first goal involves two important things:

  • You can’t control your circle of influence. What does “becoming an known artist” mean exactly? That you’re appearing in charts or that 1,000 people have your tracks on their Spotify playlists? You can’t control that at all and being vague in your objectives will lead you to failure.
  • Becoming a known artist may or may not, happen. If it does, you might not even be aware of your reputation and some people think they’re known, when that’s actually not the case (for example, buying “likes” on Facebook doesn’t mean anything).

In the second goal, “finishing an album”, you’re in total control of that goal – you can clearly make a “definition of done.”  If this definition is reached, then you’re done, and the goal has been achieved. Working in this way can be useful, but I would also highly recommend that you also put an end date on your goal.

Now there’s another alternative to setting goals, which, for lack of better terminology, I’ll define as setting a signpost.  Why? Signposts are signs you see when you’re driving that help you be aware of the direction to go, to get you where you want, and also to reliably re-guide you when you’re lost. I like the term in French for “repères” – it’s sort of like “landmark” but not necessarily for physical places.

What is a signpost in your musical journey?

They are something you can rely on from a community you want to be part of, or a specific sound that you want to immerse your life with. I’ll give you the best examples as of how I applied the community approach to my life and why I use them in parallel to the type of goal-setting we described above.

In Montréal in the late 90s, we were really lucky to have a solid core of people and producers that gathered around the MUTEK festival which was our community but also a sort of signpost; a direction. It was a place where we could perform the music we all appreciated (arranged based on our personal tastes) and where we could also discuss music production. So back then, a goal for me was to play at MUTEK, but at the same time, it was that community that dictated how we had to sound to achieve it.

Another signpost I’ve used was a sort of music “target” I set through Ricardo Villalobos. I’d study his music, his sets, and a recurring question I had was “will he play this track of mine?” There wouldn’t be any goals attached to this besides, perhaps, having him play my music, but it was more as a reference point of how my music could be made or adapted,

I often do mixing and mastering for artists and labels, or do coaching, and one thing I often see is how people are a bit lost on determining who their music is for. Who do you want to reach exactly? Who inspires you? Which community would support and encourage you? This is the type of question to seriously consider, as I often work with people who are far from the physical community they’d like to be part of and rely heavily on the internet to be in touch. For instance, I have in mind some guys from South America who love Romanian artists – that’s quite a distance!

In past articles, I’ve about the importance of networking. Here are a few ways to help you find your own set of signposts:

  • Locally. Is there a club, a venue, or promoter that is booking and playing the music you love? Where is the closest place to you that could be your local reference? This is very important as you can get to meet people who have the same tastes as you. Perhaps it’s a festival that you can attend in another city, like MUTEK (this reminds me of a huge community from Colorado used to visit MUTEK in a group of 20! They would forge bonds and networks on their trips).
  • Online. I find it’s important to find a crew that make good podcasts, DJ sets, or music that gives you goosebumps. A trap however, would be if you aim too high, at very big artists and organizations (ex. Time Warp in Germany) where it is so big that becoming part of organization might become a huge puzzle and is very difficult. There are many smaller festivals that exist that have the same kind of music but on a smaller scale, you can grow with them. That said, try to downscale your target, or follow the bigger names but try to connect with the other, smaller guys who like that same music but are also emerging.
  • Aesthetic, genre, mood, direction. Try to find artists you like that are emerging and look stable and serious about their craft. You don’t need to contact them; it’s more about following their production and supporting them. Be a fan, someone who encourages and gives, while not expecting anything in return. Feeding people that inspire you is a good way to invest in yourself as well. I’ve supported and encouraged artists that started to go well but then have disappeared; it’s a disappointment, and sometimes I wonder what else I could have done to help. Seeing someone you love perform and do well is a great motivation for your own art!

I’d love to hear what you consider to be your own signposts!