Modular sickness

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

Yup yup Hautle

doing your own sampling and using sample libraries i think are 2 very different things though. Especially if the library in question you use is very distinct sounding and just say a BFD drum kit patch (which is designed to sound very bread and butter utilitarian)

 

99.99% of the time when I end up using a small sector of a sample library, preset, patch or even something distinct that I personally decided to sample myself of my own or something bizarre on the internet, I'm not even close to completely happy with it. I usually end up spending at least a total of 6 hours of work tweaking it to how I want it sound or layering 6 other things on top of it.

 

I'm all for brilliant, personal, distinct, creative sound design and I end up spending all of time on it. But, I think really the focus should be creating a piece of music that's is relatively timeless and expressive based a lot on the vibe, melody, structural progression and personalized patterns you manifest (not as much on creating a really weird unique sound all on your lonesome with MAX/MSP, Csound, Reaktor etc. etc.

 

If you worry more about your sound design than the music as piece of actual music than you will end up getting the same complaints that people give Richard Devine.

[TechDiff]

you're absolutely right of course. There is a fine line between spending a lot of time making sounds and spending too much time making sounds. Can quite easily result in a DSP circle jerk with no musical merit.

 

I think my stance on it comes from many years of making breakcore/drill type nonsense. Stuff that very much revolves around Amen spammery. The amount of time spent working with breaks. Cleaning them up, EQing, compressing, applying emplitude envelopes and such, just to get something usable. I guess about 2 years back I just got sick of trying to shape one thing into something else. I find it far easier to start from scratch.

 

Like Awepittance said, there is a massive difference between using sample libraries and building your own. There are loads of musicians who have a very recognisable musical identity yet who work primarily with samples. Its down to what makes your ears stand up, a very personal thing.

[soundwave]

I think if the sample is recognizable from another source its either a tribute from another album or shameful from sample pack

[Guest hahathhat]

I think if the sample is recognizable from another source its either a tribute from another album or shameful from sample pack

i think grammar sentence is opinion.

[kcinsu]

I hardly ever use samples (meaning that in addition to not using presets, I hardly ever use cut up audio either... I do have a small library of sounds I recorded in college with reqly nice mics, and sometimes I'll use them to give a juxtaposition to synths) but mostly I like using mainly synthesizers, because whenever I am working, I always come to a point where I want the sound to shift, or have more subtleties that change organically. It's far mire intuitive to me, to setup a synth patch that I can morph parameters, than to edit audio, even in a sampler instrument. Also, it sounds cleaner to me... No unwanted frequencies, odd EQs or room noise to have to hassle with fixing. I just hate editing audio, especially when trying to compose.. It slows the creative process down. Now, at a certain point I'll render my synths to audio, and do edits... But they are far far less than what I'd be doing if all my sounds were sample based. To me, using samples is like working with photoshop. Using synthesizers is like using vectors. I prefer that latter.

 

So, to me, the idea of using sample libraries is a huge put off... Not only are the unique sound not mine at all, they are limited in what you can do with them ( well you can do alot, but it requires so much Fiddling, it drives me crazy. Now, this is all in regards to weird sounds... If I want a piano or some other real instrument, then yeah, sampler instruments are needed... But for any type of electronic sound, I want to craft it from the ground up... It's personalized... I know what it is capable of, and I can design it to be playable and musical. That's why I love synths so much!

 

I don't think I'd enjoy making sample packs either... If a sound was good enough to release for profit, I'd rather just use it in my own track. RD really does just love making sounds though. He has the energy and passion for it like an obsessed kid... For all of people's complaining about his commercial work... It's hard to criticize someone who so obviously is passionate about it. Sure I wish he made more music, but I know that he probably enjoys his professional work as much as, if not more than his music... He is a sound designer... And he gets paid amazingly well to do what he loves. How can you fault that?

[awepittance]

 

If you worry more about your sound design than the music as piece of actual music than you will end up getting the same complaints that people give Richard Devine.

 

i don't make that distinction between the two, sound design and music are inseparable for me. This is why i think music like SND, Oval and Autechre works on such a unique level for so many people, that it's almost a perfect balance between composition in a normal musical sense and sound crafting. I think the duality mindset of thinking of them as two totally different aspects of music is a trap that doesn't allow one to think outside the box as easily.

[awepittance]

I hardly ever use samples (meaning that in addition to not using presets, I hardly ever use cut up audio either... I do have a small library of sounds I recorded in college with reqly nice mics, and sometimes I'll use them to give a juxtaposition to synths) but mostly I like using mainly synthesizers, because whenever I am working, I always come to a point where I want the sound to shift, or have more subtleties that change organically. It's far mire intuitive to me, to setup a synth patch that I can morph parameters, than to edit audio, even in a sampler instrument. Also, it sounds cleaner to me... No unwanted frequencies, odd EQs or room noise to have to hassle with fixing. I just hate editing audio, especially when trying to compose.. It slows the creative process down. Now, at a certain point I'll render my synths to audio, and do edits... But they are far far less than what I'd be doing if all my sounds were sample based. To me, using samples is like working with photoshop. Using synthesizers is like using vectors. I prefer that latter.

 

that's an interesting way to look at it, i remember when i described a lot of my music techniques to you i was actually surprised that

you described me as a musique concrete' musician. I guess in a sense i am, where i do feel that the editing/chopping process is a very basic core of my workflow. Do you find that shutting yourself off from this kind of music making approach forces you to be more creative?

[Guest hahathhat]

http://soundcloud.com/nevenen/acid-stalker

 

the noise loop that kicks in around 2:10 is actually a sample of bad trance music from an episode of the jersey shore. i've mashed it around loads, obviously. where does this fall on the Artist Integrity Spectrum, WATMM?

[kcinsu]

I hardly ever use samples (meaning that in addition to not using presets, I hardly ever use cut up audio either... I do have a small library of sounds I recorded in college with reqly nice mics, and sometimes I'll use them to give a juxtaposition to synths) but mostly I like using mainly synthesizers, because whenever I am working, I always come to a point where I want the sound to shift, or have more subtleties that change organically. It's far mire intuitive to me, to setup a synth patch that I can morph parameters, than to edit audio, even in a sampler instrument. Also, it sounds cleaner to me... No unwanted frequencies, odd EQs or room noise to have to hassle with fixing. I just hate editing audio, especially when trying to compose.. It slows the creative process down. Now, at a certain point I'll render my synths to audio, and do edits... But they are far far less than what I'd be doing if all my sounds were sample based. To me, using samples is like working with photoshop. Using synthesizers is like using vectors. I prefer that latter.

 

that's an interesting way to look at it, i remember when i described a lot of my music techniques to you i was actually surprised that

you described me as a musique concrete' musician. I guess in a sense i am, where i do feel that the editing/chopping process is a very basic core of my workflow. Do you find that shutting yourself off from this kind of music making approach forces you to be more creative?

 

More creative in a certain way, and less creative on other ways... I mean, I LOVE Amon Tobin, and think he is extremely creative with his use of samples and how he edits/uses them. To me though, that's a sound collage approach. It's not the medium I am comfortable with (I could never make stuff like he does, with samples... its just not my forte). You can use collage to make a portrait of someone, or you could use paint. I bet you could get very similar end results with both (for example, artists who use trash to recreate famous paintings, that when viewed from afar, look identical, but as you get closer, you see the trash). Same end result, with the exception of the approach. Then it matters to how you look at it, right? Do you like to walk up close, or take in from afar? Similar mindset for me... I often hear samples used without subtle changes, and to me, it just stands out as being this static sound bite... it is almost abrasive to me, when there doesn't sound like dynamic changes are happening. It's the first thing that stands out to me in amateur mixes, the extremely static nature of the sounds (and of course, this can be used to great effect, when desired... but a constant use of it, shows lack of imagination, to me). I think you are right about Autechre etc... they strike the balance between attention to production, and music, and they dance between the two as if they were the same. That's what I aspire for!

 

A huge part of it for me, is just that my workflow involves a lot of going back and tweaking things... my compositions grow together, and when I use audio, I feel trapped with what I've done. This can be good, as it makes me move forward, but in the end, I don't think I'd get the same results as I would, using synths in real time. I eventually get to the point where I bounce it all down, and I'll make edits, and grab nice phrases to repeat, if needed. I often do go through all my bounced tracks, and at the very least, tighten up the timing, to make it feel more solid and clean. I really do enjoy keeping the audio editing as its own step towards the end of the process though.

[soundwave]

 

If you worry more about your sound design than the music as piece of actual music than you will end up getting the same complaints that people give Richard Devine.

 

i don't make that distinction between the two, sound design and music are inseparable for me. This is why i think music like SND, Oval and Autechre works on such a unique level for so many people, that it's almost a perfect balance between composition in a normal musical sense and sound crafting. I think the duality mindset of thinking of them as two totally different aspects of music is a trap that doesn't allow one to think outside the box as easily.

 

its more dependent on what you can relate too like masterful guitar technique or intricate programming may just be wild noise to those who don't initially understand it

 

I thought Untilted was shit when I first heard it then I finally got it two years later and appreciate it even more after getting my Elektrons

[awepittance]

I hardly ever use samples (meaning that in addition to not using presets, I hardly ever use cut up audio either... I do have a small library of sounds I recorded in college with reqly nice mics, and sometimes I'll use them to give a juxtaposition to synths) but mostly I like using mainly synthesizers, because whenever I am working, I always come to a point where I want the sound to shift, or have more subtleties that change organically. It's far mire intuitive to me, to setup a synth patch that I can morph parameters, than to edit audio, even in a sampler instrument. Also, it sounds cleaner to me... No unwanted frequencies, odd EQs or room noise to have to hassle with fixing. I just hate editing audio, especially when trying to compose.. It slows the creative process down. Now, at a certain point I'll render my synths to audio, and do edits... But they are far far less than what I'd be doing if all my sounds were sample based. To me, using samples is like working with photoshop. Using synthesizers is like using vectors. I prefer that latter.

 

that's an interesting way to look at it, i remember when i described a lot of my music techniques to you i was actually surprised that

you described me as a musique concrete' musician. I guess in a sense i am, where i do feel that the editing/chopping process is a very basic core of my workflow. Do you find that shutting yourself off from this kind of music making approach forces you to be more creative?

 

More creative in a certain way, and less creative on other ways... I mean, I LOVE Amon Tobin, and think he is extremely creative with his use of samples and how he edits/uses them. To me though, that's a sound collage approach. It's not the medium I am comfortable with (I could never make stuff like he does, with samples... its just not my forte). You can use collage to make a portrait of someone, or you could use paint. I bet you could get very similar end results with both (for example, artists who use trash to recreate famous paintings, that when viewed from afar, look identical, but as you get closer, you see the trash). Same end result, with the exception of the approach. Then it matters to how you look at it, right? Do you like to walk up close, or take in from afar? Similar mindset for me... I often hear samples used without subtle changes, and to me, it just stands out as being this static sound bite... it is almost abrasive to me, when there doesn't sound like dynamic changes are happening. It's the first thing that stands out to me in amateur mixes, the extremely static nature of the sounds (and of course, this can be used to great effect, when desired... but a constant use of it, shows lack of imagination, to me). I think you are right about Autechre etc... they strike the balance between attention to production, and music, and they dance between the two as if they were the same. That's what I aspire for!

 

A huge part of it for me, is just that my workflow involves a lot of going back and tweaking things... my compositions grow together, and when I use audio, I feel trapped with what I've done. This can be good, as it makes me move forward, but in the end, I don't think I'd get the same results as I would, using synths in real time. I eventually get to the point where I bounce it all down, and I'll make edits, and grab nice phrases to repeat, if needed. I often do go through all my bounced tracks, and at the very least, tighten up the timing, to make it feel more solid and clean. I really do enjoy keeping the audio editing as its own step towards the end of the process though.

 

let me put another question to you, at what point does something go from simple editing for time to 'sound collage' ? Do you ever record a long version of your track and then have to edit parts of it out?

 

your comparison of vectors and photoshop is interesting, because with vectors you can't do a lot of things, you are limited in a certain paradigm, ie you can't make something look realistically photographic with vectors, just like you wouldn't be able to emulate a real drum set with synthesis (yet)

[Entorwellian]

That Richard Devine video was pretty awesome. Looks like a mad crazy setup but pretty creative at the same time.

 

For the sample argument: Some guy sneezing into a microphone and putting it on a sample library CD is no different to selecting a triangle shape on an oscillator. Sample editing and libraries are just a tool, no more than a synthesizer or any electronic instrument, that converts a bunch of numbers or frequencies into some analog output to make a bunch of vibrations in the air that hit our eardrums. It all comes down to what kind of tool you prefer to work with, and that is more of an idiosyncratic decision based on experience and personal preference. Arguing that sample libraries are cheating is like saying that building a house frame by using a nailgun is cheating when you should be using a hammer: in the end you're just trying to drive a nail into a piece of 2x4.

[brian trageskin]

That Richard Devine video was pretty awesome. Looks like a mad crazy setup but pretty creative at the same time.

 

For the sample argument: Some guy sneezing into a microphone and putting it on a sample library CD is no different to selecting a triangle shape on an oscillator. Sample editing and libraries are just a tool, no more than a synthesizer or any electronic instrument, that converts a bunch of numbers or frequencies into some analog output to make a bunch of vibrations in the air that hit our eardrums. It all comes down to what kind of tool you prefer to work with, and that is more of an idiosyncratic decision based on experience and personal preference. Arguing that sample libraries are cheating is like saying that building a house frame by using a nailgun is cheating when you should be using a hammer: in the end you're just trying to drive a nail into a piece of 2x4.

 

agreed.

personnally, i don't care about the process, i only care about the result (what i get to hear at the end). there are so many people out there who design interesting sounds but who at the end, make boring or generic music. music only has relevance on a "conceptual" level to me, i mean on the theorical side (tonality, rhythm, balance, etc.). arguing about the legitimacy of sampling doesn't seem relevant to me. if you make interesting music by using sample libraries or presets, that's fine! and the same goes if you design your own stuff by yourself. in that case, the end justifies the means.

 

on a related note, what's the point of designing and building your own stuff if it is to make music that isn't original? it all really comes down to what you actually build and not what tool you used to build it. to me anyway.

[Guest hahathhat]

perhaps the point is to make it informationally dense, choc full of new information? presets have a stigma of being "old data" and the brain tunes old data out. a waste of bandwidth unless you're doing something clever, reframing it, etc.

[soundwave]

the one thing I will say about sampling vs synthesis debate is that you have a wider scope of sound manipulate using synthesis on a live realtime scenario than using samples imho

 

ok you have shit like Liveslice and the Elektrons but these are still limited to some degree

[kcinsu]

let me put another question to you, at what point does something go from simple editing for time to 'sound collage' ? Do you ever record a long version of your track and then have to edit parts of it out?

 

your comparison of vectors and photoshop is interesting, because with vectors you can't do a lot of things, you are limited in a certain paradigm, ie you can't make something look realistically photographic with vectors, just like you wouldn't be able to emulate a real drum set with synthesis (yet)

 

For me, it's sound collage if the general basis of your material is prerecorded sounds... if you are working mainly with audio files that you are putting together, its sound collage. Doing edits to stuff that you've recorded, to me, is just edits and FX. But if you are starting a track by dragging in audio files that you have made before beginning the track, to me that is more sound collage. If I were to write a bunch of synth lines, cut those up, and rearrange them, sure there is a level of sound collage to that, but in my workflow, that comes after I've already began the track, and have an idea of where it will go. The audio editing comes in when needed, but not from the start. Make sense? And then sometimes I just have to record and cut audio... if you have a kind of random synth patch going on, which is 10% brilliant, and 90% crap, you have to just record it, cut out the gems, and throw away the rest... but its certainly not how I prefer to do it.

 

Thats true about vectors etc... but that's the style I like to work with. I don't want to make drum sounds that sound like a real drum kit... I want to make new drums... not groundbreaking... but just made from scratch, so that I can tweak them to be what I want them to be, without worry of it it sounds like something else... if it works in the context of the piece, then I am happy... and that context always changes. I dont know, I just really enjoy the idea of working from the ground up... creating all of my sounds with synths... I like the aesthetic... its what I've focused my sound around.