Mastering

[suneel]

lol ds i think your in a reminiscing loop there...yeah age catches up and technology changes. people change, lifestyles and so does music. thats a fact.

you said "I think it's diminished greatly now in place of rythem, sonic quality". i dont agree to that esp sonic quality. could you elaborate on that? the other ingredients you talk about are relative too.

btw i have a nord modular

[Dungeon Studio]

Ahhh! There we go! You DO have a Nord now... Is it recent, or old?

As to rythem and sonic quality now - I think that's just it. So much emphasis on drums and 'stereo width' and all. Which is good, to a degree. I put on PiL's 'Flowers Of Romance during all this reminiscing, and still blown away by drummer Martin Atlins playing, and sound of his drums. And might be the first album where so much effort was given to simply drums and rythem? Bands like Depeche Mode and Human League before made their beatboxes sound good - but then again they were predominately mono or stereo outputs still. Possisbly with the appearence of the Linn Drum, only then one could have individual channels and inserts et al added. So it's questionable did Talking Heads and PiL inspire Roger Linn, or was it Depeche and Yaz?
And even still, when the Eurythemic's featured it on Right By Your Side - I still think they went with the Stereo out option? But certainly since with House music, techno and all that - much more emphasis has been put on individual drum sounds with effects and inserts.
And I think music has been slow to catch up really. In the case of industrial, house, and techno - the drums got better, but was still backed by Solina Strings, 8bit Emu's, Boss distortion and delay pedals.
Even when 'workstations' like the Korg Triton and Yamaha SY's hit the scene - they were primarily emulating the same things still, and in worse fashion. I liked Yamaha's SY's when they said 'Solina Strings' it wasn't anything like the real thing - but damn nice sounding strings to me still. And I think ever since then when people saw preset names saying 'Moog' or 'Roland' or 'Korg', it was all about how to get this Yamaha to REALLY sound like a Roland, or a Roland to sound like a Korg, and so on. Totally missing the fact it's a nice bass still, or a nice organ, whatever. This drive for 'realism' suddenly entered, and focus on VL and Z1 'physical modelling' began. Or as I call it 'controllable chaos'. I wasted A LOT of time with VL synthesis trying to get that ultimate realistic sax, or that distinctive SH-101 bass and all. When really all that was needed was a 'decent sax' and/or a 'good bass'.
Did my VL mucking improve my music? Not really. Was it better than spending a few minutes with a Yamaha CS synth and turning a few knobs? No. Did it really sound like Stan Getz or Kenny G. sat in on the session - not unless the were drunk and robotic at the time.

So now the push is on for 'physically modelled VSTs' and all. Some are very good - some need a little work still. Are we getting the proper response and playing styles from them? Questionable. And if they don't suffice, there's HUGE romplers and what all to get one that 'virtual Steinway' and 'Vienna Orchestras' at up to 75% of ones HD. Personally, I still like and use MDA's pianos - they're quick to load, easy to use, and sound like a 'piano' to me. Maybe not a Steinway Grand, maybe not a Fender Rhodes exactly. But in the process of making music, I don't want to even think about that. If the song takes shape and wish it was a 'lucious concert grand', I'll try putting a lot of effects on it. I might add or opt for a better SF2 for it.
And put it up somewhere, to which half the people say 'nice song, beautiful piano' and the other half are 'Ugh! That piano's so cheap. So drenched in reverb it makes me sick! Get a better grand man!' And for a point - yeah, I was intimidated to look and try these piano's. Some were nice, some were just like MDA's IMHO. Humongously expensive to cheap and complicated. And then I thought 'How often do I use a piano anyways? And I'm making weird music as it is... Why am I looking at these!!!'

So that's my worry for the younger generation now. Are they gullable to criticism and/or outright bullying? Are they content with just using OP's synths and drums to get a dance song out that might rival Daft Punk and others. Do they feel satisfied and overwhelmed with all that OP and say Audacity as an editor has to offer? Call me a pessimist - but I don't think so. They'll get Ableton too, Cubase, Reason, Reaper, TC Electonics outboard gear, all the udates to Amplitube - and still feel inferior to the likes of Daft Punk or Aqua (I wish I knew more modern names. Or do I?)

So it's getting to this ultimate comfort zone of proffesionality... Which looks good on paper, sure. But the main reason we're all here is for expression and emotion. I get more excited by one just using Wasp and MonoBass and the XR-909 and a happy tune called 'I Love My Doggy' as opposed to some studied knock off artist spending hundreds of hours and dollars for a dated dance tune called 'The World Is Daft'. And not sure if the compression could be bettered, or a little more spectral influence on the kick still... I somewhat know what they're talking about. But at the same time it's WTF? It's thump, thump, with cool arps and zaps that will get people bouncing and looking sexy at the party. More compression isn't going to get anyone a extra BJ at the end of the night. Just pray the members from Daft Punk don't arrive - they'd be due for two. Not because they sound so awesome. It's because they're Daft Punk! :rolleyes:

[HYPNAGOGIA]

Good God, Steven, you should be writing articles not forum posts :hihi:

I wouldn't say sound is quite the neccesity Hypna.

It is if you're hoping for to release it. Of course the idea/theme of the song comes first, but the quality of recording follows quite tightly.
And if you look at some of the listings, like for movie and TV placements, you'll see almost all of them say "Broadcast quality required. Excellent home recordings are OK". But what ALL of them require is the idea and performance.

Sure, it's great we can do what we do with OP and all. And some will be better than others at it. As has been for centuries making music, writing scores, recording, playing live. But does OP and Cubase and WaveLab and Audacity make for bigger expectations now? Whereas before, one could stick a cheap cassette into a jet=pack envelope, send it to Virgin, wait a few months and no doubt get a form letter back saying 'Thanks, but no thanks at this time. Please try again.' And from that one would practice more, save for a new synth, consider going to a recording studio, dye their hair black - make a commitment to improving. Today, that commitment comes from the comfort of ones chair. Download a better synth, read a online tutorial, upload to 10 music sites free or charge a $1 whatever. PhotoShop to change the pic. Fantastic in a way, yes.

I honestly think I can say that whoever has bigger expectations is pretty much a fool.
New tools replaced the old ones. Tapes and envelopes got replaced by CDs in envelopes over night and then emails and file sharing sites replaced that. Big expensive synths and live instruments got replaced by Digital Workstations and VSTs. But regarding the ways how things are being done, nothing has changed.
You can still upload your track on a site and send an email to Virgin, wait a few weeks, maybe months, and still get an email back saying "Thanks, but no thanks at this time. Please try again".

But what are listeners actually judging on now? The fundamentals had been rythem, melody, lyrics, hook. Songs that people had fun with, could relate to, get insight from. I think it's diminished greatly now in place of rythem, sonic quality, technique, and lifestyle. Is that good or bad on the evolutionary music scale? I don't know - and not sure if I want to know?

Steven, it's a progress of things, or at least what one could call a progress. What you would call music these days might be just a lot of noise for someone who listens to 70s or 80s music still. Yes, there are people among us who are still in that era. I know a guy, play him a psytrance track - it's too repetitive and boring, but play him an Italo House track that he's hooked on, you might even see him jump.
Anyway... is that good or bad? I think globally it's bad the sound quality replaced originality, but that's completelly irrelevant from one's point of view.
Who knows, maybe in some of the future music all you'll be hearing is a dull tom sound going out of tune with each hit. Someone will call that music then.

And it would be fine if the whole skew was going that way. Pink and Kelly Clarkson got Cubase or preferably OP in their homes for their future albums. They or the like probably do now. But chances are would be horrible to the worst cassette demo's still. Just something to get some rough ideas in, a vocal track, some chorus maybe, and off to the studio they go. All to be totally replaced and enhanced. So does that cheapen OP or Cubase, or Pink and Kelly Clarkson?

Neither, as the two groups are completelly uncomparable.
Orion and Cubase are just tools, same as if you used a huge analog mixer in the 80s and racks full of effects and whatnot, while Pink and Kelly would probably still be Pink and Kelly, no matter if they used a dictaphone or computers for their demos. Although, computers today, all with Orions and Cubases in them, do allow for better sounding demos. If you look at the paradigm that Pink and Kelly would still be Pink and Kelly no matter what, why not then have better sounding demo or a scetch-up, off to the studio and pay less for enhancements? That's technological advancement for you. It allows you today, in the comfort of your home, to do 90% of the things you needed to go to a full-blown studio 15 or 20 or more years ago.

I just find it so interesting that from the 40's to the 90's - 50 years; success was based on a piece of vinyl with a nice jacket, published music, quality live perfomances, and promotion. If an aspiring person like Arlo Guthrie or Rosemary Clooney wanted to send a demo, they'd be lucky if they could find a 'Make Your Own Record' booth in a big city. Beg a radio station, send out sloppy written sheet music, and hope. But a HUGE difference between that cheap acetate disc, pieces of paper, and a RCA record and radio broadcasts. Music publishers, labels, radio stations, television broadcasters could listen to gritty records or tapes, look at a tarnished photo of Elvis beside a truck and say 'that guys got it!' Today, and using Daft Punk as an example - why do they 'got it'? Though I think they make great music - it was gimmick all the way. Brilliant to not ever 'see' the band members, to get Spike Jonez to do a video with a human like dog character with a broken leg wandering the streets. Slick packaging and 'credit cards' to boot. Total gimmick, that sadly got tired fast. And without the gimmicks, what do they have? Beat, sound, samples. The same that we all have today.

But then to use Novakill as an example, the 'gimmick' carries on. It's become a lifestyle for them and their audience. As long as Bones and Sik look the part, play the part and don't deviate from it greatly, they're fine and successful - and for years to come I'd say. Bones likes the music, is good at making it and instruments for it, putting out slick product and promotion for it, and has a loyal fan base that support and hopefully perpetuate Novakills creativity.

All true, but I don't get what you were trying to say.

Now here's the rub... If Novakill, or myself suddenly wanted to go 'old school' seriously. Record on 24 track tape, use nothing but real analog gear and hardware, AND come out with a album that sounds inferior to previous recordings. It wouldn't do any harm in the least. In fact, it's probably the only thing that could resurrect Daft Punk for one last hurrah at attention and fame. More so than The Chemical Brothers.

See, I've heard about both, don't listen to either, and I'm still more familiar with the works of Chemical Brothers than Daft Punk... or at least I can name one song of CB. Personaly, I think that DP hoorah would be more like a yelling from the bottom of the well, but what do I know.

And what would users of OP and Cubase et al do then? Would Suneel go out and buy an expensive Nord? Filofax buy a secondhand Moog?
Just to be in some way that 'old school' revival? To enhance and further goa music, to beat Daft Punk at their own game? And in turn, would sound suffer or be more excited by it? To hear the hum again, the dirt on the pots, the distorted level into OP. I myself would let it go, and I don't think Bones would be too concerned about it either - he knows the score with those things. But Suneel? Filofax? Even our beloved overlord and gear junkie extrondinaire Rich?

"Old schoold" revival doesn't neccessary mean bringing the old tools back. It can be just bringing the old concepts and ideas back, while perhaps working with more modern tools. Why not. I'm working with the guy who's setup even today is mostly hardware analog or VA synths, on a big-ass 32ch analog mixer, using Cubase for sequencing only. All of his effects are outboards too, yet his sound doesn't suffer.
So, you see, what's quality for one is crap for the other. It's all debatable... what's good and what's not. Analog purists will debate that the DAW sound is too "surgically clean" in comparison, new-age teen producers will just scoff and say "who wants to bother with a stone age gear". So, there you go. The answer to the question "what would users of OP and Cubase et al do then", is... They'll do whatever they want to.

So that's my worry for the younger generation now. Are they gullable to criticism and/or outright bullying? Are they content with just using OP's synths and drums to get a dance song out that might rival Daft Punk and others. Do they feel satisfied and overwhelmed with all that OP and say Audacity as an editor has to offer? Call me a pessimist - but I don't think so. They'll get Ableton too, Cubase, Reason, Reaper, TC Electonics outboard gear, all the udates to Amplitube - and still feel inferior to the likes of Daft Punk or Aqua (I wish I knew more modern names. Or do I?)

So it's getting to this ultimate comfort zone of proffesionality... Which looks good on paper, sure. But the main reason we're all here is for expression and emotion. I get more excited by one just using Wasp and MonoBass and the XR-909 and a happy tune called 'I Love My Doggy' as opposed to some studied knock off artist spending hundreds of hours and dollars for a dated dance tune called 'The World Is Daft'. And not sure if the compression could be bettered, or a little more spectral influence on the kick still... I somewhat know what they're talking about. But at the same time it's WTF? It's thump, thump, with cool arps and zaps that will get people bouncing and looking sexy at the party. More compression isn't going to get anyone a extra BJ at the end of the night. Just pray the members from Daft Punk don't arrive - they'd be due for two. Not because they sound so awesome. It's because they're Daft Punk! :rolleyes:

So, all this is to express worries that someday, some kid, who has never even seen a analog synth, never pressed a key on a keyboard or turned a knob, never pulled a string on a guitar, or plopped once the stick on the drum... that he or she, so little and inferior to ones such as Daft Punk might actually come up with a song that could wipe out a decade of Daft Punk fame? :rage: :rage: :rage:
I think it's quite possible. But seriously, Steven, have a candy bar. Stop worrying about other people.
As long as there are people like you who make music because they like what they do, there will be good music to go around.

[Dungeon Studio]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Hypna. I'd like to see a 'revolution' soon. Be it some expensive proffesional doing 'Switched On Mozart' with phyiscally modelled VSTs on OP or something. Or like you say - someone just jacking in a guitar wrong and getting this horrid sound - but make something catchy with it. I like all the music here and abroad, but just lacks that certain daringness. But one that blew me away recently is Ketilie. Got a great vocalist, and did this wonderful pop number. Really impressed and excited by his sudden fortune.
So maybe there's hope for us all still.

[crimsonwarlock]

Dungeon, there is still an incredible amount of experimentation and pioneering going on in music, I think you are just looking into the wrong direction. All those kids with warezed copies of Cubase and Reason and their bit-torrented Waves-plugins are just pumping out templated dance trash. But look at the ambient scene for example, with guys like Autechre, Erik Wollo et all there's the real experimentation going on. It's still happening, has always been and always will

[Dungeon Studio]

But to me it sounds like experimenting on dated material still? For me, the last time I heard anything 'new' was Boards Of Canada. Taking distinctive NFB and government funded 'synth sounds' for use in Science Center narrations and station announcements, and composing this new, yet old style - with these incredible hip hop drums and weird continuity and vocal snippets. Blew my socks off! Geogaddi, I didn't like at all. Campfire Headphase, they brought in guitars and used them effectively - without effects. So that won me back again.
So it's those little things I really like about a band or artist. And many, including myself are still hoping for that 'breakthrough'. That weird pairing of Moog and kazoo, slow down polka music to 68bpm and add a 136bpm garage beat over it. And maybe some will be 'Brilliant! This guy or band just blew me away!' And others will be 'It's just Weird Al slowed down with a boring house beat overtop...' Maybe it's because of my age and exposure to so much music? But for me, and what I call 'landmark albums' - there's been nothing to diffuse or demerit them I've discovered? A band in the 60's did almost the same thing as PiL's Flowers Of Romance, an unsing guy in Brooklyn was doing industrial music long before Throbbing Gristle and Front 242. Some band did MBV's 'Loveless' in 1979, so what's all the stink about?

And yes, I admit - I'm inspired by or 'channeling' a lot of my influences in my stuff. But when someone says 'Hey, Bass Drum/Snare Drum sounds a lot like Kraftwerk' I tell them what they can suck. But then someone will say Aphex Twin... I heard that name? Did the weird industrial tune and that video with these weird faces in some factory area? And I go check out Window Licker and Drukg's or whatever it's called and think 'Oh oh... Basterd beat me to it.' So whether I think I sound 'that good' or 'not even halfway there', it pushes me to try my hand at reggae music, at a country tune, a ballad. How much can I do Barry Manillow music and keep a straight face? But then the cycle starts all over again... Maybe if I put a better hip hop beat with it? A mangled guitar in the background? A big synth bass right up front?
Hey, I think I've got a new sound here? A breakthrough! 'Nice, sounds just like Autchre' :rage:

It's worse than playing the lottery sometimes.

[crimsonwarlock]

Well, something that caught me lately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFlnG3AKOW8

Also, impressive mix/production

You could say that with all the industrial influences it isn't new but I would say that the combination of influences is quite impressive in this track.

[Dungeon Studio]

Okay, got to say the intro was quite long - and thought it was going to be some kinda E.A.R. ambient/textural thing. And then the bass and drums fired up and all. Good sound, good performances... But boom - NIN comes right to mind, and Soundgarden too. Kept waiting for the singer to belt out 'Jesus Christ pose...' Just sounds 13 years old to me still?

[crimsonwarlock]

Somehow I expect you to say something along these lines. But I don't agree with you

[Dungeon Studio]

That's cool, and you like them. But you expect to hear those parallels from people, right? Me, Bones, a goth kid in Poughkeepsie. A Chapman Stick and a Synclavier does not equate a 'original band with new sound' to me. Good band still, and use the gear well. Aside from a trippy long intro, the rock stuff is still 'rock stuff' to me. Nothing wrong with 'rock stuff', but nothing new or groundbreaking either.

[crimsonwarlock]

A Chapman Stick and a Synclavier does not equate a 'original band with new sound' to me.

I agree on that... but the mix of industrial influences with jazz-based structures and progressive rock stuff is quite refreshing to me.

[Dungeon Studio]

It's good. They're talented guys for sure. But also somewhat reminiscent of King Crimson and The Stranglers. This arty serious fusion thing. Take off the distortion and reduce the screaming - Dave Matthews Band. Again, another good band I do like - but can't help but think of Greatful Dead listening to him. And I'm sure 'Deadheads' would have me drawn and quartered for saying that - as they wouldn't see the similarities what so ever. And probably quite different at that. Just when I hear both, I immediately smell pot for some reason.

[crimsonwarlock]

I think for every track you can find something else that sounds a bit like it. There's nothing wrong with inspiration from other's music Having said that, within the current prog-scene UKZ is quite a fresh sound that tmo isn't quickly categorized into the usual genres. It has a lot of everything but isn't exactly like anything. Just my perspective of course

Just to let you know, I'm a proud member of the old buggers club here too, I grew up on the same influences that you did I guess

[Dungeon Studio]

Now for me, this gal excites me musically. http://www.reverbnation.com/stevenwest#/precillap Now many will say Missy Elliot or Lady Gaga et al. But she's doing things just that little differently. She knows good hip pop music and has a unique style. But if you listen to her 'Just The Two Of Us' - that's the most creepy and new sounding thing I've heard in a long time. Maybe not the best done 'technically' - but it's a sound and style that just hit me over the head. And one of those things if improved upon, would loose it's essence and spark. Busta Ryhmes did it a bit on his debut, but I think P's taken it to a whole new level on her track. Immature and silly in one way. But creepy and creative in the other. A definate 'new sound' right there IMHO.