Using the same instruments & sounds throughout an album

I slowly built a project in Reaper over the course of 2 or so years for jamming completely live with a relatively complex setup. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time tweaking the melodic instruments but mostly on layering, bouncing, rebouncing, eqing tweaking the balance on the percussion layers etc. etc. specifically on a few drum kits.

 

So anyway, I've grown to really feel like I've put really personal level of tweaking on these instruments over time, getting them to sound right while jamming, getting them to sound really dynamic etc. So when I go to record our album through a separate computer strictly for recording, it was only natural that I felt like I had spent enough time on most of the instruments and found what works together really well.

 

I thought about how most rock albums use one kit that is produced completely the same the whole LP. Real drum kits inherently have enough dynamics they don't get old after listening to that same album dozens and dozens of times. Neither does the fact that the guitar, bass vocal tone, the same piano etc. etc. on some of my favorite albums isn't exactly changing it up very much on the whole record.

 

I think spending a really good amount of time tweaking instruments to be very dynamic, tailored your personal taste and then forcing yourself to not spend countless more hours tweaking them before you can really work on a song can be a great idea that I don't most electronically centered producers don't seem to think is even an option.

 

It makes you put more focus on the music, instead of changing the snare to make the beat sound different, you focus on the patterns and the groove. Instead of spending hours making a synth patch, you slightly tweak the most relevant one you love and focus on the melodies, the structure, the progressions etc. etc.

 

It also can also bring a cohesive sound to a record that can give it more of an identity. Not to mention the struggles of polishing the mixing and mastering on an album with 5 different drum kits on every track, that never repeats the same melodic instruments etc. etc.

 

Really didn't think I would rant it out more than 2 sentences. I guess realized it needed a detailed explanation, as much of a struggle as I had to be okay with the idea. From what I've heard a lot of albums the electronically centered albums, it's a relatively uncommon thought process.

it worked for Stock, Aitken, Waterman.

 

So you're onto something.

  On 3/27/2012 at 5:20 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

It makes you put more focus on the music

I dunno, people seemed to lose their shit when Squarepusher did it with every track on d'Demonstrator containing 909 and vocoder.

It probably can only work really well for an entire album when each of the instruments are created with a good amount of layering & at least sound dynamic in tonality and velocity. The other thing that probably helps a lot is when the instruments are actually being played and not sequenced or heavily quantized.

I think it's a great way to tie an album together. I did something pretty similar on an EP I somehow managed never to release LOL.

 

Fat Pack

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/731647/fat%20pack-def.mp3

 

Foamy

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/731647/foamy-def.mp3

 

I build a nice drum kit in Ultrabeat which I used in every track. Other instruments change, but the kit and 303 are there I think on all the tracks.

Edited March 27, 2012 by slightlydrybeans

that's a pretty chill concept that i should think more about. been switching gear around too much.

same instruments is definitely ok, same sounds not so much.

 

imo.

I've tried doing this with a few tracks; I would take the sound palette of an old project file, save as a new file and clear out all the patterns. It definitely makes me think more about how I'm arranging things, and makes me break out of my usual patterns if I actually want to make the new track sound different.

I would love to do this if I wasn't so damn fickle. Maybe if I stop being such a wanker and make some actual tunes.

 

Also being a Reaper user I would like to see how this works & what it looks like, i.e. screenshots.

do it blanket, like you said, i don't get tired of the drum sound from 70's psy rock, if i had a a kit of that, i'd be using it the whole time...

 

  On 3/27/2012 at 6:40 AM, modey said:

I dunno, people seemed to lose their shit when Squarepusher did it with every track on d'Demonstrator containing 909 and vocoder.

it's not the fact that he used it during the whole album, it's the fact that they don't sound that worked out or tweaked as blanket is saying, they sound right out of the 909... oh and rhythmically speaking demonstrator one drums sounds like he just used the original presets that come with the 909... Edited March 27, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

i don't think the concept of a rock band using the same instrumentation can be applied to an electronic music setup. In theory you are onto something, but right now in music production unless you severely customize your setup to a a ridiculous degree (like most people dont) the expressiveness you are going to get out of your virtual instruments is far less than you would out of real instruments. Using the same 'real life' instrument for a whole doesn't get boring in the same way using the same sampled snare or bass drum would.

 

There are ways to get away with using some of the really nice new drum sampling libraries to trick the listener into thinking they aren't hearing samples or using physical modeling like you would a real guitar, so it sounds different each time you strike it. I think about doing this kind of stuff a lot, but then i just do other things instead

  On 3/27/2012 at 7:33 PM, Awepittance said:

unless you severely customize your setup to a a ridiculous degree (like most people dont) the expressiveness you are going to get out of your virtual instruments is far less than you would out of real instruments

 

There are ways to get away with using some of the really nice new drum sampling libraries to trick the listener into thinking they aren't hearing samples or using physical modeling like you would a real guitar, so it sounds different each time you strike it. I think about doing this kind of stuff a lot, but then i just do other things instead

 

Well, I guess that is pretty crucial to the idea, attaining dynamics, that's what I'm doing. My melodic instruments are mostly all a combination of 3 or more heavily tweaked layers of different VSTinstruments. To get dynamics, I usually have a layer of multi sampled stuff in Shortcircuit, or physical modeling VSTis like the Applied Acoustics stuff, String Studio (which can make a lot of dynamically modeled sounds) their others, True Pianos, PianoTeq or whatever I think has life to it.

 

I use different multi sampled drum libraries under or as the focus of most of all my drums these days, every drum kit I create even if it's based off a breakbeat, every one of the 16 MPD pads I'm playing through Poise VST has at least 3 separate layers and at least 5 different multisamples for each layer. I will mix the layers of Poise with my different Superior Drummer 2 expansion libraries or Abbey Road, or just a really good multi sampled pack that I will throw into Poise. Then I've got all these multi sampled layers that are all each separately randomly hitting different tonalities, timbres, velocities etc.

 

Again, everything is going to have less of a repetitive sound when it's being played with full velocity sensitivity and not sequenced or quantized strictly to the grid. Since I've got good at MPD drumming and thinking about great unedited, great drum breaks it's really opened my ears up to how much groove is in natural un-quantized playing. It also helps to have real non electronic based instruments going on in the mix, real guitars, real bass, a real drum kit quietly layered in a tambourine, shakers, junk yard percussion etc. etc. You also can manipulate the sound of your instruments really dramatically, but still keeping their personality, with really high quality effects that try to make them more personalized, relevant and cleverly tweaked to fit a progression better all while not having to spend hours and hours making new instruments for every section.

Whoa, that seems like a TON of layers. Does this ever feel kind of crowded, like the different sounds are clashing?

Sometimes it's really intuitive combining sounds that much but sometimes it takes a lot of careful tweaking, smart EQing, pairing the right sounds together, the right volume combinations, big room reverb on the layer you want more distant, good quality highly driven compression on the whole mix to get to sound cohesive together etc. etc. I suppose the collage definitely does sound really cluttered and busy at moments while I'm working on a drum kit or a melodic instrument combination but taking care of that crowded problem isn't usually what takes the most time to tune in.

would you have example tracks from this setup ? I'm very interested to hear how similar they could sound (or not).

 

I think it's defintely a very good way too work. I don't feel to do it that way right now because I still want to experiment a lot, but as you said it allows you to spend more time on the composition and I'd like to experiment with that as well one day.

 

Someone mentioned Squarepusher, I think he works that way for pretty much every of his albums. I was listening to Go Plastic! the other day (it's been a real while since I didn't!) and I thought it sounds really homogeneous. Precisely for that reason.

I totally agree with the OP.

 

This is something I've struggled with for a while, finding the balance between exploration and mastery.

 

I have spent ridiculous amounts of time creating patches and sounds, that to me, have so much broad potential for use. They are my children, and to use them once, and never again seems like a waste of their potential. A violin can be used in so many ways, and offers a certain sonic characteristic to work with. The same holds true to patches you create... if you put time and care into creating a patch, and build in modulation and expression options, you can create extremely versatile sounds that are worth exploring in depth, in many perspectives (tracks).

 

And then there is the concept of mastery. I am always trying to find a balance between exploration and mastery. Exploration can lead to new ideas, but mastering something, can lead to expressive ideas. To get the most out of an instrument, you have to spend TIME with it, and learn it inside and out... explore the possibilities of that finite instrument. Once you are familiar with your tools, you can stop thinking, and emote! This is my constant battle, living in both of these worlds. Electronic music drew me in, because of the limitless range of possibilities, but fundamentally, I like music that feels complete, and that was made with intent, and structure, and self exploration... controlling elements instead of reacting to elements. It's a fundamental philosophical approach I have developed, and I know others have very different views on this, but it is what works for me.

 

And ideally, the music that comes from my sounds is more important than the sounds. My goal is to transcend the details for a higher message that speaks through the sounds. My job is done if no one even really notices it's the same patches being used, because the composition is so compelling, that THAT is what the listener is focusing on. If I achieve that or not, is up to debate, but that is my goal.

 

At the end of the day, I enjoy pretty fundamental synthesizer sounds. For example, a sine wave with a pitch envelope makes for a great kick drum when the settings are right, and I will never get tired of that sound. My interest is how to use that kick drum sound musically and in a way that the listener isn't even all that concerned with the kick drum sound, but the kick drum pattern. Of course the sound factors in... the expressiveness, and it's role in the composition (and I DO spend maddening amounts of time focusing on sound design, but it is sound design AS composition) but at the end of the day, it's all about composition.

 

So yeah, my album is full of similar sounds, and it may or may not be obvious, but I honestly think the compositions are unique enough that it acts as a binding glue, and not as a limiting sonic palette.

 

Most likely, I will limit my sounds to albums, instead of tracks, for the reason that it does glue tracks together to form an album. And I enjoy the exploration of creating sounds, so the logical thing to do is to create sounds, master them, write pieces with them, make those pieces into an album, and then repeat that process for each album.

 

But this isn't a dogma, there are exceptions to this (I DO use unique sounds in each track) and I'll never stop myself from doing something that a composition calls for, based on an arbitrary rule.

 

That actually kind of reminds me of a story about Schoenberg. (Honestly, I think this story is just an instance of him talking out of his ass to cover for a mistake, but what he said makes sense to me). He was rehearsing a twelve tone piece, and one of the players noticed that he broke one of his own very strict rules. The player said "I noticed you have a B flat here, but according to the structure of your tone-row, it should be a B natural." to which Schoenberg replied "this is because I write twelve tone MUSIC, not TWELVE TONE music" implying that at the end of the day, rules should be broken when it makes sense musically. Now, I kind of think he was just covering for a mistake (I could be wrong), but when I heard that story, it stuck with me, and I keep it in mind, to remind myself that at the end of the day, it's the emotion of music that wins, not the structure or rules. Sorry for the side rant. This whole topic just inspired me to rant, as these are things I think about a lot, so it's nice to see others having similar thoughts!

an example of an album of electronic music that uses mostly stock sounds from things like a 707

 

 

I like it

consider monolake: he has a pretty consistent approach to sound design. his sound design is solid, but not flashy. his allure is in his mastery of his elements. with the most bare bone structure, he can really suck you in. I ranted about this in the Ghosts album topic in music discussion already... but it fits perfectly here. oh, and burial. etc....

I don't do this intentionally but I do tend to get caught up on certain sounds/approaches for long periods of time so it does kinda show up on my albums. Compare:

 

2011 album, mostly chopped string recordings & lots of filtering/delay: 1 2 3

2010 album, mostly acoustic guitar & analog synths: 1 (this is my blacksheep album so it only gets one link)

2009 album, mostly korg wavestation & animal noises: 1 2 3

 

The album I'm currently almost done is entirely sourced from chopped up Korg MS-10 blips with digital processing, so naturally it sounds very synthy & slightly more melodic than the microtuned string stuff.

Pan Sonic / Mike Vaino is a good example of someone who does this really well using only electronic instruments and synthesis.

I think it's perfectly fine.

 

When I get my SQ-80, I'm thinking of doing an EP of nothing but.

I've been digging some tracks that have come out lately that are done strictly with one piece of gear.

 

Arp 2600

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebjXsc0UjdQ

 

Andy Meecham aka Emperor Machine did a whole album using one synth per song for all the sounds.

 

http://www.discogs.c...release/3485047

 

Sh-101

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEALM09ZVbc

 

A good way to force yourself to be creative.

Benge's recent output too - 20 Systems and an EP made with only a Buchla system.

i find i like using real instrument samples, when i had them... like strings, piano, choral sounds etc. you can tweak them but people still know what they are, and i think that's fine.