Developing A "Sound" on the Album/Body Of Work Level

[ZeroZeroZero]

Something that's been turning around in my head for a while.  

what kind of parameters are addressed when trying to keep cohesion on an album level.  

Some examples

 

So I take it as naturally occurring (from experience) that inside of any musical (or any artistic) form an artist chooses to work in, their idiosyncrasies will naturally present themselves in terms of their "voice" or what have you.  

 

But, I can't help wondering what kinds of considerations are going into keeping the tracks that one writes in some sort of stylistic bounds enough to constitute cohesion on the album or larger level.   The above albums as examples due to their distinctness and contrast.  Also as using the aforementioned as opposed  to some of Richards stuff as I think Tom's is much more rooted in traditional musical orthodoxy and this is why it's so easy to get the "sounds like Aphex" feedback the further you go from the more maybe standard forms. 

 

People who have accomplished or are working on this would you mind sharing? How can or does one consider this?  

Strict rules about timbre, song form, and mixing? Perhaps people use other albums as templates to apply their visions of music over?

Or perhaps for you it happens naturally through sheer quantity of output and recognition of patterns?  

I'd love to hear from some of the more experienced members.  Suggestions for possible reading on this topic?

Edited December 9, 2022 by Golden Rolli

[TubularCorporation]

No matter what you do, the music (or whatever else) you make will reflect the external and internal circumstances under which it was created.  Developing a "sound" happens organically whether you try to or not (and if you try, the "sound" you end up with probably won't be the "sound" you were trying for - unless you're very unlucky, at any rate).  

[exitonly]

i agree with tubular but also on the album level, having a deliberate choice of composition methods and tools that are used will help contribute to a cohesive sound. squarepusher is a great example given that he has had several different eras where his style changed slightly-

* early jazz breaks style. this included a minimal set of tools, i think mostly his bass, an ssh 101, a tape deck, 909, 303 and a sampler.  big loada, hard normal daddy and other albums of this era have a consistent sound and approach to how the drums are sequenced and the overall mix.

* the go-plastic era included more up to date hardware and an increasing reliance on digital processing. the breaks are lot faster, tighter and there is a general synthetic vibe

* the jazz-fusion era with music is rotted one note, and i also lump in selection 16 and budakhan mindphone into this group. the interesting part there is that they playing styles are all actually quite different but there is a lot of sonic overlap in the use of spring reverb etc that brings them all together in my head

* the kitchen-sink albums such as hello everything are almost a summary of all the styles that came before that

for me personally, i've found that a style can be built up by taking the same approach to starting and building up a track. i used to be really into just throwing everything out and starting completely from scratch in approach for each track but i've come to value having some consistency. similar to how a song itself needs to have some overall themes, but also variations to keep it interesting. you can write a song one way, and if it worked take the same approach but then at some point try something new in your approach. even if you took the exact same approach you will end up with something new, though you risk getting yourself into a formula over time. 

listening to artists with this in mind, i think you can find the best ones balance some consistency, which is also going to increase their overall artistic output, with variation and experimentation both within albums and then across their work.  autechre is an amazing example of this because they managed to give this almost linear approach to the change in their style over time. the style changes from incunabula to gantz graf are as interesting as the individual songs which makes their output work in a micro and macro level.

 

[chim]

Restricting the time-frame of production is most important. Tools too maybe. Style isn't something you can hide easily.

Edited December 8, 2022 by chim

[mcbpete]

My technique is to stick the entire album in Reaper on one timeline and play around with the track order and just see if anything really sticks out volume-wise, eq wise, dynamics wise.

Possible add a global mastering compressor and/or limiter so everything gels together, maybe put a tilt-EQ type effect on tracks that sound too-mismatched. If you're feeling fancy add a pre-amp and/or console emulation and/or tape-mastering type plugin on the master channel so the whole thing sounds like it's come from the same device

Likewise disregard all the above if creatively it doesn't matter if everything jumps from track to track sound wise !

[Rubin Farr]

I’d say Tom pretty much changes his studio set up from album to album, and maybe what bass guitars he is using, as opposed to someone like Brian Dougans, who keeps the same home set up all the time. I try to keep a constant aesthetic using the same DAW tools, and sample approach, ymmv.

[ZeroZeroZero]

8 hours ago, exitonly said:

i used to be really into just throwing everything out and starting completely from scratch in approach for each track but i've come to value having some consistency.

This is what I have been doing and my results are so disparate.

 

Thus now I'm thinking maybe with intention I can try to identify some quantifiable boundaries (in musical form, equipment, methods) that would be helpful.   

Maybe I'm balking at the length of such a path as having to experiment my way through it can seem daunting.    

I'm considering how it might be fortuitous to discuss why and how people consciously choose (or otherwise) to set up those boundaries.  

8 hours ago, TubularCorporation said:

No matter what you do, the music (or whatever else) you make will reflect the external and internal circumstances under which it was created.  Developing a "sound" happens organically whether you try to or not (and if you try, the "sound" you end up with probably won't be the "sound" you were trying for - unless you're very unlucky, at any rate).  

Although this ^ is also true and I'm thankful for your sharing.  

 

7 hours ago, chim said:

Restricting the time-frame of production is most important.

Would you elaborate on this?

[Wunderbar]

I feell ike these guys just make a bunch of music and select something they think fits together for an album afterwards?

[TubularCorporation]

Sometimes if I'm in a rut I try to "work in a genre"nbut don't worry too much about actually sounding like that genre, I just limit myself to techniques that are associated with it. For me it works better if it's a genre that I'm either not that familiar with, or even one I actively dislike. I don't worry about actually sounding like that genre, but I limit myself pretty strictly to only using production techniques that would be appropriate for it.

 

 

Maybe do something extreme like trying to make an album entirely with software released before the year 2000, or only using a stereo, destructive audio editor like Goldwave or Samplewrench, with no plugins or mixer or anything.  I've been working on a project like that to break myself out of the rut that multitracking everyhting for the past few years put me in, and it has worked really well for that so far (regardless of the quality of the actual music). Plus, it still sounds like me even though it uses mostly different techniques and equipment, and has completely different goals and reference points, than anything else I've done.

 

Making yourself do things you wouldn't normally choose to do and then discovering that the end result is still your music is definitely educational.  Also, if you're anything like me you don't REALLY know how something you did sounds until you let it sit for a couple of years and then come abck to it after you don't remember how or why you made it sound the way it does.

Edited December 9, 2022 by TubularCorporation

[Bubba69]

I feel like the answer is just putting in a lot of time in a shorter period of time, not in the specific pieces themselves, (which helps to some extent) but in making track after track, learning from them and continuing on the same path in the same studio. I think naturally a collection can start to form of tracks that make sense together. Sometimes it means throwing out ones you like, or remixing them.

[ignatius]

4 hours ago, Wunderbar said:

I feell ike these guys just make a bunch of music and select something they think fits together for an album afterwards?

true.. i'm sure that happens.. but sometimes gear changes and a bunch of tracks are made w/a certain set up.. then gear changes again and a bunch of tracks are made w/that set up.. and so on.. so there are tracks of a time period that all seem to have the same dialect or whatever.  Go Plastic is a good example of that.. it was the first things he did w/the eventide orvilles and i think S6000 right? or maybe he had that already.. also the different sequencers he's used have a thing too.. boss dr-660 or yamaha qy series stuff. 

Go Plastic still stands alone for me. that album is my fav.. but i love selection 16 and all the acidy stuff.. venus no.17 etc..  although.. w/few a exceptions i like all his work. 

i think w/autechre.. hearing sean talk about whatever he's into and building in Max and how that effects the output... seems like the same is true based on whatever they're into. sean mentioned building a lot of phys/mod stuff and being way into MC for a bit.. but then Rob is doing other stuff so... 

overall i think the main thing is just to have a work ethic and always be doing the thing and don't try to make it perfect all the time because you'll get hung up on all kinds of small shit and not move on to the next track/challenge etc... 

but i don't know shit really. i've moved on to using bongos and patchouli 

[chim]

15 hours ago, Golden Rolli said:

Would you elaborate on this?

What I mean is that it's easier to keep things under the same spiritual umbrella if they're all made fairly close to eachother within a specific time period. That's my experience anyway, it comes naturally. Conversely, it's harder to go back after a year or longer and conjure up the same thought processes, methods and moods that inspired the earlier stuff. If that means doing a Project 168 type of thing with a super-tight deadline or just continually making a bunch of stuff and gathering it up afterwards, well that's up to the artist. 

[zero]

environmental factors should also not be overlooked if your goal is to try and keep some sort of cohesion to what you want to produce. I sit in front of a big window, and know things like is it sunny outside, cloudy, summertime, winter, etc. all play into whatever sounds I come up with. think this is why bands sometime rent a house or studio in some different location, in order to feed off of the change in environment...hope to hammer out an album unique to that experience. Josh Homme from QOTSA has these desert sessions where he brings random musicians out to an old house in the desert to record on vintage equipment. that's definitely gonna be something that will change a person's headspace, and their creative output. from wiki:

Quote

In 2019, the first time new Desert Sessions were released in sixteen years, Homme commented on the delay: "Because Desert Sessions works best at a certain time of the year, when everything slows and everyone takes a deep breath out. At the end of the year, in that December-January timeframe, everyone has exhaled. And post-exhale is the time to do something like that. So if I miss that window… I miss that window."

and p sure it's very common for musicians to be night owls, make/record stuff all in the late PM - early AM hours. would say that can definitely have an effect on your music, and may play into the cohesion factor. I know I've read some people say they only work best in the twilight hours, can't be as creative during the waking hours. I know this definitely has a sub conscious level effect on whatever musical sounds will naturally flow out of a person. 

[ZeroZeroZero]

On 12/8/2022 at 8:47 PM, ignatius said:

i've moved on to using bongos and patchouli 

right on 

There must be something about the cultural movement pictured that people find value in.  I keep seeing it crop up around me. 

Also I appreciate the thoughtful responses in this thread.  

Quality.  

Edited December 10, 2022 by Golden Rolli

[ZeroZeroZero]

On 12/8/2022 at 8:36 PM, Bubba69 said:

I feel like the answer is just putting in a lot of time in a shorter period of time, not in the specific pieces themselves, (which helps to some extent) but in making track after track, learning from them and continuing on the same path in the same studio. I think naturally a collection can start to form of tracks that make sense together. 

 

I like the "just do it" attitude this answer embodies.  I really think there's something to that.  

This is why I ask experienced members to chime in though(not that you're not, just that's my line of thinking). There must be real practical aspects of the craft at play and I'm wondering how much the pro's are cogitating on that level.  Or is what I'm looking at purely byproduct, and a waste of time to develop personal theories towards this aspect.  

I'm an INTP and can't seem to escape the need to theorize about almost every such thing.  

Edited December 10, 2022 by Golden Rolli

[thawkins]

You can do a practical exercise where you pick your favorite presets and make tracks using only those sounds. Viola, you have a consistent sound now which will tie your stuff together as a whole even if the tracks themselves have a different arrangement or mood. In the old days, you had "bands" where each member was playing a single instrument so it's not even cheating or something.

And it's always always OK to break this rule to introduce a new synth or element when your gut feeling says so.

 

But in the end, I think I'll echo some of the stuff others have said in this thread: as you write music and produce more material - be it finished/unfinished - there *will be* something that ties it all together purely because it's all *your* music.

And I also think it's OK to theorize and think about your music making, it's nothing special, everyone does it. A normal part of the creative process. The only rule is that in the end you also have to create something as a finished result.

[TubularCorporation]

After you've spent a few years it's a lot harder to NOT have your own sound, really.

 

I can listen to stuf I recorded when I was 13 and it's as recognizably my stuff as anything I do now, but maybe I'm just stunted.

 

EDIT: for some actual practical advice, try keeping quantize turned off on everything by default, and only turn it on deliberately when you have a specific reason to quantize a specific part (maybe you need a very stable, metronomic kick drum so DJs don't get annoyed with you, for example). You personal sense of timing is a big part of why your music sounds like your music. Whenever you decide to quantize something, stop and ask yourself why and if it's really necessary.

Edited January 4, 2023 by TubularCorporation

[ZeroZeroZero]

On 1/4/2023 at 4:50 AM, TubularCorporation said:

EDIT: for some actual practical advice, try keeping quantize turned off on everything by default, and only turn it on deliberately when you have a specific reason to quantize a specific part (maybe you need a very stable, metronomic kick drum so DJs don't get annoyed with you, for example). You personal sense of timing is a big part of why your music sounds like your music. Whenever you decide to quantize something, stop and ask yourself why and if it's really necessary.

I've set a few conditions for myself like this.  Such as exactly what you described above.    

Then also certain hardware choices etc.   

 

My Interest is really in compositional choices and restraints.  Musical forms and any other number of musical variables one might assign to oneself as parameters.  For those of us with experience and who find value in such a methodology.

As technology doesn't restrict us the way it used to I've noticed a tendency to think that "this makes anything possible" yet in practice there are actually only a handful of identifiable compositional  approaches I end up taking (unconsciously) when working without formal intention.  

So my thoughts have turned back to the music that inspires me and I wonder how much intention was being put into it upfront (sans gear and method based restrictions) and if there was perhaps however many sub layers of logic to it and how they interact to bring about cohesive musical playgrounds as opposed to idiosyncratic pieces.  Or if not, also.

For instance 

*for the next 3 months I'll use rhythms and song forms lifted from seventies funk

*I'll use the harmonic language of Debussy how and where I can 

*Use conciously restricted pallet of sounds or instruments

*I'll use a mix approach from 60's psyc rock 

 

Then track the results like a chemist or researcher.  Hopefully synthesizing something with breadth greater than the "song".  

Maybe in some years I could find territory that I could uniquely occupy.  

Or maybe I'm lost in my mentations wasting precious creative energy.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Golden Rolli

[TubularCorporation]

Another good thing to do from time to time is choose a type of music youdon't particulrly like (or at best don't care about) and produce in that style.  Don't worry about actually making that kind of music, but as much as possible limit yourself to techniques that are associated with that type of music.

 

It's fun, you learn new techniques, because you're doing something you "don't like" you're less likely to compare yourself toestablished artists, and if you're lucky it will help you ge tover the idea that there are genres of musicyou like or don't like, or that genres are even a useful concept outside of marketing (they aren't, unless maybe you're a musicologist or historian but even then "genre"isn;'t really a very meaningful construct). It's a doorway to a bigger world where there is no kind of music that's bad (except pop-punk).

Edited January 8, 2023 by TubularCorporation

[ZeroZeroZero]

I like your music.  Thanks for sharing!

On 2/3/2023 at 2:32 PM, Summon Dot E X E said:

I usually don't go into music making with a plan. Instead, I mess around with ideas and ride the wave of creativity. In this way, I think I am able to avoid making music which is excessively derivative or contrived. (I hope).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ZeroZeroZero]

On 12/9/2022 at 7:26 AM, chim said:

What I mean is that it's easier to keep things under the same spiritual umbrella if they're all made fairly close to eachother within a specific time period. That's my experience anyway, it comes naturally. Conversely, it's harder to go back after a year or longer and conjure up the same thought processes, methods and moods that inspired the earlier stuff.

Upon reflection I'm really seeing the Truth in this.  I was reviewing some quick phone recordings of tracks I did during the quarantine and I was amazed at how quickly and distinctly my life energies were made present.  Like all these subtle parts of me from that time (feelings, expectations, etc) were in the music and I had forgotten about them until I saw the video.  It was striking.  

 

It makes me consider if one can really decide what one puts into their music?  

I assume that putting together an album (like the above first post) must have SOME type of road map, but that is an assumption on my part.   

Those albums are a high bar in my opinion and it's easy to think that when falling short in the pursuit of making art at such a  level that I might be "missing something".  But this can start to sound like whining to me and I don't go there. 

I'm just really curious to hear from composers with top level experience (especially the ones using tools like computers that are basically infinitely abled, like you find in electronic music)  what all they do to to keep things sounding cohesive enough to be called an album.  

I would honestly be amazed if it was secondary to the song creation process itself and more of a byproduct.  

 

Anyway, I hope this conversation more fertile than futile.   

 

 

 

 

 

  

[TubularCorporation]

 

[thawkins]

On 2/11/2023 at 1:49 AM, Golden Rolli said:

I assume that putting together an album (like the above first post) must have SOME type of road map, but that is an assumption on my part.

And on the other hand there are so many famous albums in the history of music where the thing was put together by different producers, parts of it recorded by different people in different studios months, or even years apart; things getting delayed or reworked completely because of some unplanned thing happening.. yet on listening you do not realise this, because the end result seems a coherent whole.

Of course for every famous album that went through production hell, there were probably many more of albums that failed in production because they lacked a plan and no amount of effort could salvage the result.

[TubularCorporation]

18 hours ago, thawkins said:

albums that failed in production because they lacked a plan and no amount of effort could salvage the result.

Weird, I posted a couple hours ago that this category includes most of my favorite albums, but the post disappeared.

[thawkins]

On 3/7/2023 at 4:16 PM, TubularCorporation said:

Weird, I posted a couple hours ago that this category includes most of my favorite albums, but the post disappeared.

I guess it depends on whether the album's authors considered it a success or not. Or whether it turned out to be a success after decades of sitting in boxes somewhere like that Gigi Masin album.