How do you record your hardware into the computer?

[Guest Chesney]

For me at least, the track governs what happens and every process is different. Everything starts with an idea born on a piece of gear, I either record it quickly to mess with later and re-jam or if I have time I bring in other pieces and build a jam. I usually jam for a good amount of time just to capture a good range of eventualities. Sometimes the jam can work out good and minimal needs to be done but some are cut up and rearranged heavily and then once a structure presents itself I jam over top with other stuff and really build it up.

 

I agree with Jev that most artists just do not have what it takes to make complicated sounding stuff happen in a complete jam. if they do they have meticulously set it up for them to perform it. I also think that if you plan enough that it probably would surprise you how easy the performance side is, much like playing live, you only have two hands and alot of the time playing live with this stuff is fader jockying and queuing up.

Although I think that not everyone is looking for the technical side of music. Alot of people are looking for flow and repetition, People like the best bit to be never ending, like a mantra. I personally like technicality and traversing ideas, details that keep me on my toes.

 

Each to their own, no one is right or wrong if the result is listenable. I can appreciate it all.

[xox]

I see myself to be more of a composer than a musician.

[sweepstakes]

I, for one, would not be able to achieve my artistic vision without editing and a DAW. And I have this strong feeling that if it wasn't for extensive pre-programming, editing and/or rehearsing (to whatever extent), some of the best tracks by AE or AFX wouldn't exist today and some ground-breaking stuff would not be heard.

I think you're right, but I also think a lot of that is down to the limits of what was available to them at the time. Are you sure you couldn't achieve your vision without a DAW?

 

That said, there are ways of working that combine the functionality of a daw with the energy of live hardware, and these are good skills to have.

This is what I was trying to get at. Break down exactly what it is that a DAW is giving you and figure out how to do that spontaneously and voila, you don't need a DAW.

 

It is an instrument but with such a huge amount of controls and possibilities that it is impossible to jam it all out in real-time unless you are into minimal or you pre-program your sequences and then tweak them within the limits of your real-time capabilities.

 

And because some electronic styles need extensive amount of stuff happening at once they usually need lots of programming and editing and that is not exactly what I consider jamming from scratch.

 

I believe editing or extensive pre-programming is absolutely essential for anything complex and sophisticated to happen in electronic music. You simply cannot control everything at once.

Pre-programming is the other part of what I was getting at. If you can set things up so that you can be spontaneous within a range of parameters, I think that's preferable to meticulous editing. And this way you can control everything at once, depending on what your definition of control is, e.g. is an LFO opening and closing a filter you controlling it, or is it the LFO controlling it?

 

You can post examples if you wish. I would be interested. But it has to be a completely post-production-free jam. I think you are not going to find anything tbh but feel free to correct me.

https://autechre.bleepstores.com/

 

How many people have said now that they prefer this to Exai?

[Guest Chesney]

I prefer the live stuff mainly for the Timbre rather than the content. It's so different that it was almost a shock. Ae have got a good game, they can blow our minds with minimal effort as they have been doing for so long and have time to do it. They can create a world that they can manipulate and we never know how they are doing it. It could be days of programming or could be knocked up quickly, we just don't know. We do know that it does not matter because the result is what we want, forever head scratching future music.

[psn]

Minimal effort? SB spent a year straight prigramming gen~ in preparation of those live sets.

[Guest Chesney]

Hypothetically.

 

He may have done it one night a week around spending time with the family and procrastinating or he might spend every waking hour on it? we don't know but I personally don't care, he/they have earned the right to do it however they want if they carry on producing what they do.

Just to make it clear, these are the outside limits of assumption, I feel it's somewhere in between obviously. I can only assume that they know their shit and keep pushing limits and ideas to keep it interesting which takes love and time.

[sweepstakes]

They developed a system that can do things in real time that they couldn't before. Now they can change parameters and get immediate feedback. And if they want to try something different based on that feedback, they can rewire modules to do it. Maybe even make that rewiring controllable by other modules. I think this is the future of electronic music, not pushing shit around by hand in Ableton. Train the machines to do the grunt work and gain perspective.

[purlieu]

 

For the longest time I was thinking of getting a really nice multi-input external sound unit so I could have everything run into my computer separately.

Then I realised that in the early '90s Orbital, FSOL, Aphex etc. were all recording stuff live to tape and as these are all my favourite artists, decided I just need to learn to up my game and get good enough to do that. If I want to do something really detailed I'll do it in-box; if I'm doing something with hardware I'll just whack it as a stereo track into my 4-track so I can add a bit of improv on top if necessary and then do a stereo mix into my laptop. It's really quite liberating thinking like that.

 

If I am not mistaken, those artists were doing edits or prepared their sequences meticulously beforehand and then just recorded it. Or can you give an example of a truly spontaneous jam without editing which feels finished and does not need editing? And I am not even talking about mixing yet.

 

I think you're reading more into what I posted than was there. I never said anything about truly spontaneous jams, just that I find the 'live take' 2-track stereo approach more enjoyable than multi-tracking in a DAW. Preparation and editing are usually required, yes.

[flacid]

For the longest time I was thinking of getting a really nice multi-input external sound unit so I could have everything run into my computer separately.

Then I realised that in the early '90s Orbital, FSOL, Aphex etc. were all recording stuff live to tape and as these are all my favourite artists, decided I just need to learn to up my game and get good enough to do that. If I want to do something really detailed I'll do it in-box; if I'm doing something with hardware I'll just whack it as a stereo track into my 4-track so I can add a bit of improv on top if necessary and then do a stereo mix into my laptop. It's really quite liberating thinking like that.

 

+1 - This is how I enjoy working. Work on sounds, loops, layers and combine/record live. I seem to make different music this way and more energetic than when I make it in Ableton.

[TubularCorporation]

 

If you can set things up so that you can be spontaneous within a range of parameters, I think that's preferable to meticulous editing.

 

 

This is a fantastic point, for music in general. Finding the level of detail where you let spontaneous composition happen within a larger precomposed framework is an absolutely crucial part of making compelling music as far as I'm concerned (whether I achieve that myself is up for debate).

 

Even completely free improvisation has predetermined constraints - the instrumentation, the group of people performing (if any), where and how long to play, etc.

[Guest Chesney]

yeah, I guess it's the way I work. I'm definitely too lazy to do proper edits. Any complicated sounding glitches or whatever are done in a jam while experimenting and affecting standard ideas.

[Guest WNS000]

 

I, for one, would not be able to achieve my artistic vision without editing and a DAW. And I have this strong feeling that if it wasn't for extensive pre-programming, editing and/or rehearsing (to whatever extent), some of the best tracks by AE or AFX wouldn't exist today and some ground-breaking stuff would not be heard.

 

I think you're right, but I also think a lot of that is down to the limits of what was available to them at the time. Are you sure you couldn't achieve your vision without a DAW?

 

Yes, I am pretty sure I would not be able to do it in practice without going mad and without spending incredible amount of money on HW.

 

I mean, the frustration it would bring would most definitely make me abandon it. I am into sophisticated minute details a lot and I am very peculiar about how those minute details sound so my workflow is mouse-heavy with a lot of things moving around. I can spent a whole day on 10 seconds of a song if needed (hopefully I can get those stuff done quickly with more skills in the future). I also love spot-on mixing if a track needs it.

 

Now, I jam a lot too but I then take those raw bits and sculpt it until satisfied. I can get very nice jams from my PD sessions but still have to edit a lot. I also own MPC 1000 and Blofeld so I sometimes make sketches with them too.

 

I cannot imagine AFX's 54 Cymru Beats being done exclusively on HW. Too precise, too detailed, too thought-out. I hear tons of delicate editing in that track and the mix is absolutely stunning.

 

Also, when doing high BPM music with a big track count, it is very difficult to concentrate on all that is happening and having all those editing features in a DAW is really essential for my workflow. Chasing a few ms long bit that I want to edit out in HW is so difficult for me without a DAW. Some HW does not even allow you to go that micro. I hate those limitations when precision really matters and therefore use a DAW.

 

 

Pre-programming is the other part of what I was getting at. If you can set things up so that you can be spontaneous within a range of parameters, I think that's preferable to meticulous editing. And this way you can control everything at once, depending on what your definition of control is, e.g. is an LFO opening and closing a filter you controlling it, or is it the LFO controlling it.

 

But I never know what I might want to do with the music. A limited set of params is sometimes not enough. I can go anywhere in a DAW and more quickly and it keeps me going and stay excited. A different workflow really. I can do stuff in seconds that would take minutes on a piece of HW. Meanwhile losing inspiration and drive.

 

You can post examples if you wish. I would be interested. But it has to be a completely post-production-free jam. I think you are not going to find anything tbh but feel free to correct me.

https://autechre.bleepstores.com/

 

How many people have said now that they prefer this to Exai?

 

 

I surely don't. There are amazing moments in those sets an I listen to them a lot but there are tons and tons of dull and empty moments that needs editing badly if they are going to be those kind of AE tracks I love. Sure, if somebody prefers those raw jams with all their "mistakes" to meticulously composed Exai, then fair enough. I prefer obsessively perfect compositions such as 1 1 is, Fleure, Tilapia, Osla for n, Simmm, 6IE.CR, Tapr, IV VV IV VV VIII etc. You see, I used to be a prog-rock kid so I guess this is something that stayed with me to these days.

 

I am more into Talk Talk - Laughing Stock approach, where they recorded hundreds of hours of jams and then edit them all into the album. See:

 

The record was "only complete" when Hollis felt each guest musician had "expressed their character and refined their contribution to the purest, most truthful essence." The guest musicians were brought in to improvise on sections without hearing the full track. With just a basic chord structure at most, they were encouraged to "try out anything their hearts encouraged them to, and then, thanks to the emerging digital technology, any results felt appropriate were employed, sometimes in places for which they had never originally been envisioned." Most of it never made the cut, with Brown commenting "it takes a strong discipline to erase 80% of the music you record. Few have the discipline to get rid of ‘stuff’.

 

And that is exactly my approach. Collect as many cool ideas as you can get and edit and edit and edit until it is really worth it and there is a not a single bit at a given time that you would like to get rid off. I dislike needless extra notes and bits in music and I dislike under-produced music so I have really no choice with my limited skill-set. I want to create music that has longevity and that is rarely achieved by just jamming IMO.

 

 

 

 

For the longest time I was thinking of getting a really nice multi-input external sound unit so I could have everything run into my computer separately.

Then I realised that in the early '90s Orbital, FSOL, Aphex etc. were all recording stuff live to tape and as these are all my favourite artists, decided I just need to learn to up my game and get good enough to do that. If I want to do something really detailed I'll do it in-box; if I'm doing something with hardware I'll just whack it as a stereo track into my 4-track so I can add a bit of improv on top if necessary and then do a stereo mix into my laptop. It's really quite liberating thinking like that.

 

If I am not mistaken, those artists were doing edits or prepared their sequences meticulously beforehand and then just recorded it. Or can you give an example of a truly spontaneous jam without editing which feels finished and does not need editing? And I am not even talking about mixing yet.

 

I think you're reading more into what I posted than was there. I never said anything about truly spontaneous jams, just that I find the 'live take' 2-track stereo approach more enjoyable than multi-tracking in a DAW. Preparation and editing are usually required, yes.

 

 

I see, thanks.

[sheatheman]

 

many of my most successful tracks have been live jams

 

Sure. But if we talk electronic music they are either in simplistic genres/styles or heavily pre-programmed - conditioned. You simply cannot control everything at once in the same way you cannot play guitar and trumpet and drums and sing at the same moment.

 

You can post examples if you wish. I would be interested. But it has to be a completely post-production-free jam. I think you are not going to find anything tbh but feel free to correct me.

 

 

you have your drum patterns ready, and you either have faders/mutes on the drum machine or individual outs into a mixer and control fades/mutes from there. you have a few synths and a way of sequencing them, some prepared in advance and some improvised on the spot. you have a couple aux effects on your mixer.

 

with this simple set up, you can literally go for hours. you can do beat repeat effects, mute a kick while changing the cutoff of a synth, turn up the delay send on a hihat while leading into a new pattern, change the pitch of a snare, go from dry to wet and back.

 

just because you have pre-prepared patterns doesn't mean it isn't a live take. a few LFOs on a synth means you really don't have to do that much to it to keep it interesting. to me, a live take is a live collage of elements with improvised manipulations/additions to those elements. i eq/compress the final product but that's it a lot of times. i haven't always worked this way and it's not the only way i work, but it's very satisfying when i do.

 

http://picosong.com/Nk3a/

 

this is a live take i did after a bit of practicing. it's all on the Tempest. at 3 minutes you hear me make a mistake because i'm recording that lead sequence. it could be mixed better (stereo mixer out into audacity with compression/EQ added), but it's just an okish take, and one of many. i've only been working this way for a few months, i think i'll be a lot better in a year or so. i'm not claiming it's great, but i'm not afraid of sharing...

[Guest WNS000]

yeah, I guess it's the way I work. I'm definitely too lazy to do proper edits. Any complicated sounding glitches or whatever are done in a jam while experimenting and affecting standard ideas.

 

And that is why I do the edits... (now, I might fail terribly but we will see...)

[Guest WNS000]

 

 

many of my most successful tracks have been live jams

 

Sure. But if we talk electronic music they are either in simplistic genres/styles or heavily pre-programmed - conditioned. You simply cannot control everything at once in the same way you cannot play guitar and trumpet and drums and sing at the same moment.

 

You can post examples if you wish. I would be interested. But it has to be a completely post-production-free jam. I think you are not going to find anything tbh but feel free to correct me.

 

 

you have your drum patterns ready, and you either have faders/mutes on the drum machine or individual outs into a mixer and control fades/mutes from there. you have a few synths and a way of sequencing them, some prepared in advance and some improvised on the spot. you have a couple aux effects on your mixer.

 

with this simple set up, you can literally go for hours. you can do beat repeat effects, mute a kick while changing the cutoff of a synth, turn up the delay send on a hihat while leading into a new pattern, change the pitch of a snare, go from dry to wet and back.

 

just because you have pre-prepared patterns doesn't mean it isn't a live take. a few LFOs on a synth means you really don't have to do that much to it to keep it interesting. to me, a live take is a live collage of elements with improvised manipulations/additions to those elements. i eq/compress the final product but that's it a lot of times. i haven't always worked this way and it's not the only way i work, but it's very satisfying when i do.

 

http://picosong.com/Nk3a/

 

this is a live take i did after a bit of practicing. it's all on the Tempest. at 3 minutes you hear me make a mistake because i'm recording that lead sequence. it could be mixed better (stereo mixer out into audacity with compression/EQ added), but it's just an okish take, and one of many. i've only been working this way for a few months, i think i'll be a lot better in a year or so. i'm not claiming it's great, but i'm not afraid of sharing...

 

 

I listened to the track and to be absolutely honest, I would edit the shit out of it. There are tons of things I would polish or erased in that track. The glitches and transitions are not what I would consider spot-on and that is precisely the area where I concentrate my effort the most. Creating masterful glitch compositions and elegant transitions is not just a matter of activating an FX or activating a next sequence. Every event, every single bit has to be considered individually. That is why AE and AFX has such a huge name in the electronic music scene. They care about these stuff and they deliver quality not only on macro level but also on micro level. That is where the longevity is IMO.

 

It is also a fairly simple style of music. Please, don't consider "simple" as "bad", I am a big fan of some of Plastikman's work. It's just that this kind of music is much more easier to do live than some other more complex styles of music.

 

I am pretty sure this track would work live for many people and even I would probably be OK with it on a gig but as a concentrated headphone experience? No way.

 

I also understand this is just an OK-ish take, as you said but to me this isn't even OK-ish. There are some nice moments and bits with a potential but there is lot of work I would have to do with it in order to be satisfied.

 

I am really sorry if my critics are too harsh but I take no compromises in music. Please, don't take it personally and do whatever you love. Remember that I am just an individual with a highly subjective set of preferences merely expressing my opinion.

[sheatheman]

10/10 jev post

[xox]

yeah shea go kill your self. yo suck

 

 

jk i liked the track

 

[sheatheman]

omw

[sheatheman]

 

imo it's more just showing what you can do with the tempest by itself, but i'm not tryna say that the process justifies the product, like how people upload modular stuff that isn't very good but say: "it's all modular!!!". then again, i haven't found very many people making whole "tracks" just on the T, and it's been an exercise these past few months. i'm not happy with it at all as a finished track, tho...

 

 

also i feel like jev hadn't made a classic post in a while and was happy to sacrifice myself to produce one

 

 

 

[Guest WNS000]

imo it's more just showing what you can do with the tempest by itself, but i'm not tryna say that the process justifies the product, like how people upload modular stuff that isn't very good but say: "it's all modular!!!". then again, i haven't found very many people making whole "tracks" just on the T, and it's been an exercise these past few months. i'm not happy with it at all as a finished track, tho...

 

Good to know.

 

Yes, you can do all those stuff with Tempest, which is nice, but why does it matter if the final production quality isn't really there yet? In the end one would still have to edit it which means that the HW was just a sketchbook. And that was my point from the beginning. That is where editing and post-production take their places and deliver the quality we are accustomed to get from the best producers.

 

Or do you believe you can really nail it live without having to touch it in post production at all?

 

Could you describe what would be your next steps to improve the ideas in the jam? What is you workflow from there? It is really interesting to compare the different mindsets and workflows. I would love to jam more and be more spontaneous sometimes so I would gladly get inspired.

[Guest Chesney]

 

yeah, I guess it's the way I work. I'm definitely too lazy to do proper edits. Any complicated sounding glitches or whatever are done in a jam while experimenting and affecting standard ideas.

 

And that is why I do the edits... (now, I might fail terribly but we will see...)

 

 

Ha indeed ;)

[sweepstakes]

 

imo it's more just showing what you can do with the tempest by itself, but i'm not tryna say that the process justifies the product, like how people upload modular stuff that isn't very good but say: "it's all modular!!!". then again, i haven't found very many people making whole "tracks" just on the T, and it's been an exercise these past few months. i'm not happy with it at all as a finished track, tho...

 

 

also i feel like jev hadn't made a classic post in a while and was happy to sacrifice myself to produce one

 

 

 

Thanks for taking one for the team lol

[Guest Chesney]

You been Jev'd!

 

I do agree though, in order to make a highly successful glitched track this would need heavy working as cool as it is.

But I guess Jev is basing his opinion on his taste. You could leave it as is and plenty of people would be satisfied.

[Guest WNS000]

Yes, I am definitely basing my opinion on my taste only. That should be taken as a matter of course.

[auxien]

 

 

many of my most successful tracks have been live jams

Sure. But if we talk electronic music they are either in simplistic genres/styles or heavily pre-programmed - conditioned. You simply cannot control everything at once in the same way you cannot play guitar and trumpet and drums and sing at the same moment.

 

You can post examples if you wish. I would be interested. But it has to be a completely post-production-free jam. I think you are not going to find anything tbh but feel free to correct me.

you have your drum patterns ready, and you either have faders/mutes on the drum machine or individual outs into a mixer and control fades/mutes from there. you have a few synths and a way of sequencing them, some prepared in advance and some improvised on the spot. you have a couple aux effects on your mixer.

 

with this simple set up, you can literally go for hours. you can do beat repeat effects, mute a kick while changing the cutoff of a synth, turn up the delay send on a hihat while leading into a new pattern, change the pitch of a snare, go from dry to wet and back.

 

just because you have pre-prepared patterns doesn't mean it isn't a live take. a few LFOs on a synth means you really don't have to do that much to it to keep it interesting. to me, a live take is a live collage of elements with improvised manipulations/additions to those elements. i eq/compress the final product but that's it a lot of times. i haven't always worked this way and it's not the only way i work, but it's very satisfying when i do.

 

http://picosong.com/Nk3a/

 

this is a live take i did after a bit of practicing. it's all on the Tempest. at 3 minutes you hear me make a mistake because i'm recording that lead sequence. it could be mixed better (stereo mixer out into audacity with compression/EQ added), but it's just an okish take, and one of many. i've only been working this way for a few months, i think i'll be a lot better in a year or so. i'm not claiming it's great, but i'm not afraid of sharing...

That's a really good track. The lo-fi-ness of it hurts it more than helps it imo (I love lo-fi electronic stuff but not so much here) but it really is a good solid track.

 

sent using magic space waves