Darkarbiter Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 But statistically there is a relationship between time spent and quality of result. If you want to say that certain people defy this general trend, then go for it, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time "debating" trivial points. Oh, and the quality of result is not as "subjective" as people like to think. We are all hearing close to the exact same thing (our ears and their workings are very similar). The difference arises somewhere in the mind. I'd guess intelligence, awareness, previous things we've heard account for most of the variation in why one person likes 1 thing and doesn't like another. This would be an infinitely more smart thing to discuss than argue about time taken to make a track BTW. This is actually all pretty true. A decent post by bwhale, wow. But statistically there is a relationship between time spent and quality of result. Yes, to an extent, but at the same time, there are some genres that are harder to produce, but take less time, or are easier to produce but take more time. Basically: Quality: has some correlation with time spent Quality: has no correleation with minimalness/maximalsness Length of track: Definitely has a strong correlation with quality though. People add to the second half of the track, but to do so continually refine the first half so it ends up with things generally being better. Over 10 minutes tends to be excessive though. Maximalness: Has a medium correlation with time spent(i.e. if something is more maximal it will generally take longer) So I disagree, there are definitely some genres that are harder to produce then others. With the example of minimal, well exactly, that's something that is harder to produce! With fewer elements each one has to count. Rather then just throwing quite a few meh sortof melodies at you and it not being boring, but not interesting either. People have said goa takes a long time to produce just because of the number of melodies in it. Maybe the musicians got burnt out and wanted to do something more minimal? Where they can get a finished feeling and the feeling across in half or a quarter of the time. You have to balance Minimalness: Saying as much as possible with as little as possible Maximalness: Adding as much as possible while still having each part contribute and maintaining general cohesiveness. Anyway: suffice to say, there are some genres(or subgenres) that are easier to produce than others most definitely. However, definitely can't look just at how much stuff is going on in the track. A more detailed analysis for why a genre is easy/hard to produce is necassary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphythecat Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 How can you say that? Maybe the artist get tired of the track, forgets about it, and open it up 1 month later to finish it. Doesn't have anything with complexity or how much an artist think about a track imo. well, this wasnt what I meant,and you assument about something here. theres artist that doesnt move from one songs to another, that work on their songs 3-4-5-6 weeks. you say: maybe the artist... DUDE! maybe this, maybe that, my point was clear i tought. if an artist takes 4 month to do a songs, well yes, its going to be more complex probably, 75% of the times, IF he stick to this only songs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphythecat Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 This is actually all pretty true. A decent post by bwhale, wow. Yes, to an extent, but at the same time, there are some genres that are harder to produce, but take less time, or are easier to produce but take more time. Basically: Quality: has some correlation with time spent Quality: has no correleation with minimalness/maximalsness Length of track: Definitely has a strong correlation with quality though. People add to the second half of the track, but to do so continually refine the first half so it ends up with things generally being better. Over 10 minutes tends to be excessive though. Maximalness: Has a medium correlation with time spent(i.e. if something is more maximal it will generally take longer) So I disagree, there are definitely some genres that are harder to produce then others. With the example of minimal, well exactly, that's something that is harder to produce! With fewer elements each one has to count. Rather then just throwing quite a few meh sortof melodies at you and it not being boring, but not interesting either. People have said goa takes a long time to produce just because of the number of melodies in it. Maybe the musicians got burnt out and wanted to do something more minimal? Where they can get a finished feeling and the feeling across in half or a quarter of the time. You have to balance Minimalness: Saying as much as possible with as little as possible Maximalness: Adding as much as possible while still having each part contribute and maintaining general cohesiveness. Anyway: suffice to say, there are some genres(or subgenres) that are easier to produce than others most definitely. However, definitely can't look just at how much stuff is going on in the track. A more detailed analysis for why a genre is easy/hard to produce is necassary. +10 for everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanMeIfMarsAndAnoebisRGays Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Anyway: suffice to say, there are some genres(or subgenres) that are easier to produce than others most definitely. However, definitely can't look just at how much stuff is going on in the track. A more detailed analysis for why a genre is easy/hard to produce is necassary. I'm not sure this is true. At any stage in a track the question is, Can you add more layers to it and make the result sound better rather than worse? It definitely takes to skills to layer more sounds in your arrangement. That said, it's conceivable that some music doesn't need to have more layers, and the artists can focus on using what they have as best they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkarbiter Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I'm not sure this is true. At any stage in a track the question is, Can you add more layers to it and make the result sound better rather than worse? It definitely takes to skills to layer more sounds in your arrangement. That said, it's conceivable that some music doesn't need to have more layers, and the artists can focus on using what they have as best they can. Well and there's also the kind've music you want to make. The feeling you get from a track isn't just it's general atmosphere and mood, it's also to do with structure as well. Sad trance is very different from sad minimal techno. There are some feelings you can't do if your music isn't maximal enough and there are some you can't do if it's not minimal enough. So I guess it has to do with what the producer is aiming for. Anyway, as I said, maybe they just wanted something different, or maybe it's just easier to get their point accross (as opposed to just plain old easier to produce). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supergroover Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 It definitely takes to skills to layer more sounds in your arrangement. I don't think it necessarily takes more skills to layer more sounds in your arrangement. A little maybe if you totally cram it full of sounds. But What is most difficult is to create something interesting to listen to with the sounds you have. And if you have a few they need to be absolutely perfect. While if it is fuller you can get away with less perfect sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuisBSF Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I don't think it necessarily takes more skills to layer more sounds in your arrangement. A little maybe if you totally cram it full of sounds. But What is most difficult is to create something interesting to listen to with the sounds you have. And if you have a few they need to be absolutely perfect. While if it is fuller you can get away with less perfect sounds. I don't think either way (going minimal or maximal) it's more difficult than the other. If you use a load of sounds, from a production point of view it's difficult to still keep k&b and perc punchy enough so they keep driving the track, among many other things including lead definition and whatnot. Going minimal has its own challenges, eg you have to be much more careful on defining the sounds as they will have plenty of space on the mix and as such any imperfections will be very noticeable. On the actual music writing there are also more than enough challenges going both ways. Each type of music always have their own merits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qa2pir Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I don't really see the point in this. Good music comes from a talent, intuition, most of the time. It's very difficult to make interesting music without "feeling it" for yourself. And beyond that it's a matter of how long you can keep going without getting bored. Whether "keep going" means polishing the sounds and phrases you have or adding complementing sounds is not important. It's different styles of making music. You can make a lazy minimal house track and you can make a lazy forest psytrance track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karan129 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I just remembered, if you've seen Human Traffic there's this part where two freaks come back from Goa and say "The bassline was so loud, you could hear it in Jamaica" released in mid '99 so basslines were big by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(OM)Open_Mind Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I just remembered, if you've seen Human Traffic there's this part where two freaks come back from Goa and say "The bassline was so loud, you could hear it in Jamaica" released in mid '99 so basslines were big by then. Rastamans came back from Amsterdam, and chatted about deepness of reggae bass-lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karan129 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Rastamans came back from Amsterdam, and chatted about deepness of reggae bass-lines. oops ! my mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.