Stereo to Mono question

[kcinsu]

I don't see how what you said makes sense.

 

You just said music is something done most usually for pleasure to the ears.

 

Some people find stereo imaging to be pleasureable to the ear.

[Guest boo]

stereo chorus, stereo delay, stereo reverb, unison spread, etc etc

 

PLEASURE TO MY EARS.

 

and i agree that's what matters...

[Guest 死んでく]

stereo chorus, stereo delay, stereo reverb, unison spread, etc etc

 

PLEASURE TO MY EARS.

 

and i agree that's what matters...

 

That's cool. If you like that, it's cool. Do it. Go ahead. It's your song. I'm never going to tell you how to make your song. If you love it, how can I tell you that you don't love it? I can't. They're your feelings, and your sense of pleasure. Enjoy it.

 

stereo chorus, stereo delay, stereo reverb, unison spread, etc etc

 

These stereo versions of things are gimmicks. If you like gimmicks in your music, fine. They're still gimmicks though, and they're not necessary for making our kind of music. If you like using it in your song, fine, enjoy!

[modey]

I think most people in general can agree that a stereo reverb sounds better than a mono one, and considering natural reverb is 'stereo' anyway, I wouldn't call it a gimmick.

[Guest 死んでく]

I think most people in general can agree that a stereo reverb sounds better than a mono one, and considering natural reverb is 'stereo' anyway, I wouldn't call it a gimmick.

 

Natural reverb is not a gimmick, that stereo reverb plugin on your computer is a gimmick.

[kcinsu]

you don't like to explain your point of view much do you? Just like to repeat words?

[Guest 死んでく]

you don't like to explain your point of view much do you? Just like to repeat words?

 

If you enjoy using stereo in your own music for whatever reason, go ahead. You can do whatever you want in your own music and that's fine.

 

Stereo is a wonderful way for talented recording engineers to record rock bands and live music. When done right it can more accurately represent live music in record form, even though it is impossible to do exactly, it's a tiny little step closer.

 

Stereo as a component of making dance music is just a gimmick. If you're making this kind of music, all you can do with stereo is gimmicky things like autopanning. If you like these gimmicks then fine. Enjoy the gimmicks. Love them. Hold them. Cuddle them.

 

With dance music, you are not using stereo microphone recording techniques. You are panning things to various random places. Why random? Because they are not meant to reflect where the instruments are being played in the room, because there is no fuckin' room!

 

If autopanning makes you hard, enjoy. If stereo VST reverb makes you hard, good for you.

 

If you want me to explain my point of view further then keep asking specific questions. I think my points are made obvious though, it's just that you guys disagree with them.

[kcinsu]

you just kept saying "its a gimmick". thats not explaining.

 

Ok, so you think because its not real, its gimmicky.

 

What about the rest of electronic music? None of it is real. Its synthesized. Is it all a gimmick then? Is keyscaling a filter cutoff on a synth gimmicky, because it is trying to make the sound more dynamic? How about adding slight LFO on the pitch to get the subtle detuning that happens with acoustic instruments? These are things that sound natural to us. Theres nothing gimmicky about applying characteristics of one setting, to another (acoustic -> electronic) because in the end, its all sound that makes up music. There is no rules. One way of doing things is not better or worse, gimmicky or legit.

 

We are used to listening to sounds in a 3D environment. Just because we are using synthesized sounds, doesn't mean we have to totally change our listening experience.

 

Also, there is much more you can do with stereo then autopanning. The placement is not random. Random implies no thought or intent. When using stereo positioning with electronic sounds, you are painting a picture. You are constructing your own environment. An orchestra is set up a certain way. It has to be panned to some extent, because players cant all occupy the same space. With electronic music, you have the power to control placement, according to your artistic judgement, just like you have the power to create new timbres that cannot be found in acoustic settings. This does not make either of them gimmicks.

[Guest 死んでく]

Only people like Stockhausen can do things like that. I agree with what you say but especially the bottom part applies to electronic music of the kind done on tape years and years ago.

 

For us people it's just click the VST stereo reverb and put it on the keyboard sound, which is just a really weird artifical and novel way of making music. I feel like putting auto panning on yer 303 VST is gimmicky, and there is no brilliant use for stereo in our trivial little world. If you feel like you're painting a picture with stereo then great, enjoy. Keep painting. I feel like all the uses of stereo in the dance music world is purely gimmicky. Auto panning etc. It is pretty cool to listen to stereo Tod Dockstader stuff, but not Aphex Twin stuff. Aphex Twin paints a picture with his choons, but rarely paints a picture with stereo. If you put Tod Dockstader in mono then you are losing something, if you put most Aphex Twin in mono you are not missing out on much.

[kcinsu]

Ill agree just doing a back and forth hard pan on a 303 can be gimmicky, but I'm talking just about the general use of stereo.

 

This might be more of a discussion about, do you think dance music is or can be a serious art form? If the answer is yes, then you will look at stereo as a means to broaden your artistic vision. if the answer is no, then you are only looking for certain requirments of your definition of the genre, and think anything above and beyond those definitions are just gimmicks, and not what the core function of the genre is.

 

I actually listen to more stuff thats like Tod Dockstader (hadn't heard of him before, I just checked him out on itunes, sounds cool! Ill look more into him) but I dont think that this style of music should be held to different standards from electronic music/dance. You could agrue about academics and "serious" art, but to say either popular music or "serious" music can't borrow ideas from each other without being gimmicky, well, I just don't agree.

[Guest 死んでく]

Ok.

[Guest boo]

you lose

[Guest 死んでく]

Dance music is dumb. It is not an art form. It is retarded. People take drugs and go out and dance and they listen to dance music. They are retards. This is not an art form. This is a retard form.

 

I don't think stereo is a way to broaden artistic vision, but Kcinsu does. I respect his position because it's clear that he's experienced in what he does and has deep thoughts about it, that's why there's not much point continuing the discussion. We just disagree.

 

but to say either popular music or "serious" music can't borrow ideas from each other without being gimmicky, well, I just don't agree.

 

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that. I don't understand what you mean. It's saying something I didn't say then saying you disagree with it. Captain Cooper did that in another thread...

 

We both disagree so there's not much point continuing the discussion, because how can I tell you what to do with your music? I can't, it's none of my business.

 

Hope you can check out Todd Dockstader. Hope Tauboo doesn't say any more retarded things.

 

Can anyone name some dance songs that benefited from being mixed in stereo?

[kcinsu]

yeah, I kind of just went off on a rant

 

sorry

[Guest taxman]

my music would be missing something if i made it all mono even though it is pretty subtle most of the time. i've actually been thinking about it a lot more recently. a friend and i have been recording together and we both play the bass guitar so i use panning on parts that aren't too bassy to sort of seperate them when i'm mixing it all. not only does it sound better but it makes the song more interesting overall i think.

[xy_politics]

I didn't really mean to open a pandora's box on the wisdom of stereo recording, sorry.. My point about stereo being a "gimmick" was only philosophical, in that stereo isn't musical expression in itself, but rather a way to enhance that expression, thus it can be relegated to a secondary concern when making or appreciating music. Everyone has made valid points, and of course we're talking about personal viewpoints on an abstract artform, so there is really no argument to be had.

 

To me, stereo is artificial, a compromise. Same for 7.1 sound or any other multi-channel format, like octophonic. The closest thing I've heard to a true representation of sound in a free space is Binaural, or Dummy Head recording, where 2 microphones are placed in the ear cavities of a synthetic head. It gives you fully directional sound on a standard pair of headphones - the downsides are that it sounds poor on speakers, and there is no easy way to do this in a synthetic, electronic environment.

 

I would like add that I don't think dance music is "dumb", nor is it there purely to serve as a functional backdrop for drug taking - and though many people making and appreciating dance music never have any higher aspiration for it than that, I would argue that dance music can be just as broad a palette for expression as any other music. People have danced to music since music first came about, so it is nothing new; the sound has changed, and society has changed, but it's essentially the same thing. Not that I support the notion of "electronic music", which is a really bad name for a really wonderful type of music.

 

If you put Tod Dockstader in mono then you are losing something, if you put most Aphex Twin in mono you are not missing out on much.

 

Top marks for Tod Dockstader.. If you want a good example of his work, try and find the reissue of his "Electronic Music" library album he did for Boosey & Hawkes, later period, but amazing stuff.

 

As for Aphex Twin, there may be more examples, but try doing an inverted channel blend on "54 Cymru Beats" - except for the occasional sound effect, the whole track is virtually 100% mono.

[Guest boo]

I hope 死んでください says something about VSTs again!

[Guest ReActor]

The word 'gimmick' seems totally wrong when talking about something like stereo. It's an effect.

 

Stereo is useful for live music, but for our kind of music, it's just a gimmick.

If I am mixing a band's recording, I don't really think about what the actual placement of the instruments might have been. The bassist in a band is rarely standing in the middle of the stage (unless s/he is also the lead singer) but bass is always in the middle on recordings, right? With guitars, I usually have two different takes or two different mic recordings panned equally left and right. Instead of placing the guitarist in a realistic position, I'm placing the guitar sound across the stereo spectrum to make it sound bigger and wider.

 

The point is, it's an effect, regardless of the type of music it's being used for, and it has a specific purpose - to create width, in the same way that reverb creates distance and volume and EQ create height and depth. It's about environmental placement, and the principles are the same in all types of music. Just because electronic sounds aren't 'real', that doesn't make the point of using stereo any different. Mixing isn't about taking some kind of sonic photograph of the musicians.