presenting...LimpyLoo's TIP DU JOUR!

  On 1/19/2013 at 8:42 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Does anybody on this forum care about this stuff?

 

I'm starting to think 'no'.

if you post some more soundbytes it would be more interesting for sure

I like it all. All the theory; all the production.

  On 1/20/2013 at 12:58 AM, Salvatorin said:

  On 1/19/2013 at 8:42 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Does anybody on this forum care about this stuff?

 

I'm starting to think 'no'.

if you post some more soundbytes it would be more interesting for sure

Duly noted.

I find it interesting but I forgot this thread was here.

  On 1/23/2013 at 2:19 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I find it interesting but I forgot this thread was here.

It's been taking a nap for a month or so.

The theory stuff is way over my head but I enjoyed reading this thread very much. Thanks Limpy!

I enjoy the sounddesign and production stuff more, all this composition stuff, i don't care for, since i'm pretty good at that

I love the production/mixing tips. As basic as it may sound, my songs have improved dramatically with some of your tips and tricks on EQing, HPF-ing and general mixing.

serious thumbs up!

  On 1/29/2013 at 6:31 PM, Audioblysk said:

I love the production/mixing tips. As basic as it may sound, my songs have improved dramatically with some of your tips and tricks on EQing, HPF-ing and general mixing.

 

serious thumbs up!

Cool.

Okay, gimme an hour and we'll have some new content.

i feel sad cause i can't follow most of the theory, well, i almost can, but there's also the language barrier... :(

i can understand your song analysis but i can't do it by myself methinks...

i now have about 4 or 5 years of music theory in my bag but i can't seem to grasp the fundamentals of song analysis... e.g: i can distinguish between a major and a minor chord if someone plays it solo on a piano but in the middle of a song it's impossibru

well, now that i think about it, maybe i never really gave it enough time, only time i spent doing it was analyzing some simple blues songs that the teacher asked us to...

Sounds like Ear Training is next on your To-Do List.

presenting: LimpyLoo's

TIP DE JOUR #6: RDJ TECHNIQUES (part one)

Recently I remixed a rad Zoe Blade track (called "Twilight") using as many (early) RDJ sounds and techniques I could think of off the top of my head. (It's possible that you were one of the lucky 10 or 11 people that opened the thread ).

Anyway, recently I've been experimenting with classic 90's Warp techniques/sounds (like trying to achieve the FM-ish 8-bit Autechre bass a la the Amber opener "Montreal"). Personally, I think learning to copy stuff you like is extremely important for developing a musical vocabulary. This is common practice for painters and poets and jazz musicians, but mostly it seems to be kind of rare outside of academic settings.

I suppose it may seem a bit ironic that learning to copy--learning to write an Elizabethan sonnet or to play a Charlie Parker solo--is a strong path to self-expression. But if one considers the opposite--hearing something you like and having no idea how to replicate it--then I think it this whole copying business makes perfect sense.

#1 "Come to Daddy" Bass

Can you guess what the effect is of (arguably) the most recognizable intro in the history of electronic music? Distortion? Some sort of fuzzbox? Is it a DX7 preset?

Nah.

https://soundcloud.com/limpyloo/ctd-bass

Bitcrusher, yo.

In this case, my Casio SK-5 did the duty of reducing the bass to 8-bits, and then in a DAW I used a bitcrusher to reduce the sample-rate to 2009Khz. And it's nice--if possible--to have a bitcrusher that has controls for fine-tuning the aliasing, which can be used to reintroduce brightness after the sample-reduction has sucked out all of the high-end. Normal EQ probably won't suffice as there will barely be any high-end to boost.

As far as the pre-bitcrushed source not goes, almost anything will do. I think I used a string patch on a synth (with a fast attack).

Also, if you listen to "Come To Daddy" with bit-reduction on the brain you'll very easily hear that the whole song is one big bitcrusher orgy.

#2 Flangers and Phasers on ICBYD Drums

RDJ loves to put flangers and phasers on his drums. Listen to the tambourine break in "Avid Acrid Jam Shred" or that weird-sounding drum in "The Waxen Pith" or the whole beat on "Wax the Nip" or that greasy "snare" in "Wet Tip Hen Ax" (though that one appears to be a sample as the effect remains static), or...

I've been listening to and pondering the "Mookid" drums (the wet legato ones, not the bright staccato ones), and I am now convinced I know what s going on....

And the secret to the "Mookid" drums (I think) is....*snare rush*...........

They are pitched up, bit-reduced, and phased (I think)

https://soundcloud.com/limpyloo/mookit

Anyway, time to watch X-Files and go to bed. To be continued.

LL

I'm quite interested in the chord theory stuff - but I think I need audio examples to really understand the differences. I worry if I know too much theory it'll stop me playing around and having 'happy accidents' as Bob Ross calls them.

  On 2/1/2013 at 10:11 AM, westhead said:

I'm quite interested in the chord theory stuff - but I think I need audio examples to really understand the differences. I worry if I know too much theory it'll stop me playing around and having 'happy accidents' as Bob Ross calls them.

First of all, what differences are you referring to?

Secondly, theory will only stifle you if you see it as a set of rules. Some people think that's exactly what theory is, and for that reason they think it's bullshit. Like I've said before, music theory isn't meant to be prescriptive, but rather descriptive. That is, music came first and theory came second as a way to describe and organize the music.

I think the optimal approach in regards to theory is to learn every lick of it you can stomach, and then just sit down and follow your instincts and make music exactly the way you did before you learned it. Only this time you will have the entire history of music at your disposal, loaded in your fingertips.

Indeed, having a list of things you must do would be constricting, but having a list of good suggestions you can do is quite helpful, in much the same way as having other music to influence your own is quite helpful, as a starting point, not something to slavishly emulate. You can still make something quirky and unique at the same time as being well informed about good ideas other people have worked out before you.

Point taken. I guess that with theory I've assumed there's a 'proper' way of doing things, which results in you churning out something very familiar and cliched. I suppose I mean I don't really want to be thinking about anything when I'm having fun making music, whether its to do with the technology, software it even theory - its all extra colours on your palette I suppose.

I meant the differences with chord voicings, inversions, diminished chords, major 5ths and all that other stuff that baffles me.

  On 2/1/2013 at 9:51 AM, LimpyLoo said:

presenting: LimpyLoo's

 

TIP DE JOUR #6: RDJ TECHNIQUES (part one)

 

 

Recently I remixed a rad Zoe Blade track (called "Twilight") using as many (early) RDJ sounds and techniques I could think of off the top of my head. (It's possible that you were one of the lucky 10 or 11 people that opened the thread ).

 

 

Anyway, recently I've been experimenting with classic 90's Warp techniques/sounds (like trying to achieve the FM-ish 8-bit Autechre bass a la the Amber opener "Montreal"). Personally, I think learning to copy stuff you like is extremely important for developing a musical vocabulary. This is common practice for painters and poets and jazz musicians, but mostly it seems to be kind of rare outside of academic settings.

 

I suppose it may seem a bit ironic that learning to copy--learning to write an Elizabethan sonnet or to play a Charlie Parker solo--is a strong path to self-expression. But if one considers the opposite--hearing something you like and having no idea how to replicate it--then I think it this whole copying business makes perfect sense.

 

#1 "Come to Daddy" Bass

 

Can you guess what the effect is of (arguably) the most recognizable intro in the history of electronic music? Distortion? Some sort of fuzzbox? Is it a DX7 preset?

 

Nah.

 

https://soundcloud.com/limpyloo/ctd-bass

 

 

Bitcrusher, yo.

 

In this case, my Casio SK-5 did the duty of reducing the bass to 8-bits, and then in a DAW I used a bitcrusher to reduce the sample-rate to 2009Khz. And it's nice--if possible--to have a bitcrusher that has controls for fine-tuning the aliasing, which can be used to reintroduce brightness after the sample-reduction has sucked out all of the high-end. Normal EQ probably won't suffice as there will barely be any high-end to boost.

 

As far as the pre-bitcrushed source not goes, almost anything will do. I think I used a string patch on a synth (with a fast attack).

 

Also, if you listen to "Come To Daddy" with bit-reduction on the brain you'll very easily hear that the whole song is one big bitcrusher orgy.

 

 

#2 Flangers and Phasers on ICBYD Drums

 

RDJ loves to put flangers and phasers on his drums. Listen to the tambourine break in "Avid Acrid Jam Shred" or that weird-sounding drum in "The Waxen Pith" or the whole beat on "Wax the Nip" or that greasy "snare" in "Wet Tip Hen Ax" (though that one appears to be a sample as the effect remains static), or...

 

I've been listening to and pondering the "Mookid" drums (the wet legato ones, not the bright staccato ones), and I am now convinced I know what s going on....

 

 

And the secret to the "Mookid" drums (I think) is....*snare rush*...........

 

 

They are pitched up, bit-reduced, and phased (I think)

 

 

https://soundcloud.com/limpyloo/mookit

 

 

Anyway, time to watch X-Files and go to bed. To be continued.

 

 

 

LL

haha, great stuff!

now, could you reproduce the last minute of death fuck by the tuss? haha that would make a good challenge to test a producer's skills. i bet it's distorsion, weird sequencing, triggering, chorus and stuff. i could ask a zillion specific questions about the tuss anyway

  On 2/1/2013 at 8:33 PM, westhead said:

Point taken. I guess that with theory I've assumed there's a 'proper' way of doing things, which results in you churning out something very familiar and cliched. I suppose I mean I don't really want to be thinking about anything when I'm having fun making music, whether its to do with the technology, software it even theory - its all extra colours on your palette I suppose.

 

I meant the differences with chord voicings, inversions, diminished chords, major 5ths and all that other stuff that baffles me.

There isn't a proper way of doing things, and anyone who suggests there is is misguided.

Once again, if having a knowledge of theory results in making familiar or cliched stuff, that is not theory's fault.

In fact, I will go as far as to say that--all things being equal--not learning theory is more likely to result in familiar or cliched stuff. For instance, whatever theory and ear training chops I have enable me to identify why things are familiar and cliched and thus (hopefully) avoid them (when I want to avoid them).

Furthermore, it enables one to take the familiar and twist it in order to make something new (which historically has been a big part of the evolution of art, music, literature, etc). If you wanted a tune to have the harmonic palette of Thelonious Monk with the synth tones of Vangelis and Burial's clicks and clacks playing West African rhythms, then theory will get you there. You don't necessarily need theory--it's possible your ears will get you where you wanna go with trial and error--but if you have the theory then you will immediately know how to get that sound.

99.9% of the time Original Things are simply an arrangement of Lots of Tiny Familiar Things. You know, buildings and bricks and all that. Ironically, (possibly) the most important thing I ever learned about making music was to treat it like a craft, like building a chair or sculpting a bowl. Yes music is spiritual and transcendent (like, say, Ulysses) but at the core of it is something very mundane and essentially technical (like language).

Anyway, I could blather on forever but I'll stop here.

good stuff, Limpy. Personally, I've tried to get started in theory a bunch of times (in an admittedly half-hearted way) but I find that my brain just shuts down very early on, like it just doesn't want to know. So I pretty much stopped trying to push it and now just have as much fun as I can messing around by ear.

Anyway, always interesting reading other people's perspectives. Thanks again!

  On 2/1/2013 at 8:59 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/1/2013 at 9:51 AM, LimpyLoo said:

presenting: LimpyLoo's

 

TIP DE JOUR #6: RDJ TECHNIQUES (part one)

 

 

Recently I remixed a rad Zoe Blade track (called "Twilight") using as many (early) RDJ sounds and techniques I could think of off the top of my head. (It's possible that you were one of the lucky 10 or 11 people that opened the thread ).

 

 

Anyway, recently I've been experimenting with classic 90's Warp techniques/sounds (like trying to achieve the FM-ish 8-bit Autechre bass a la the Amber opener "Montreal"). Personally, I think learning to copy stuff you like is extremely important for developing a musical vocabulary. This is common practice for painters and poets and jazz musicians, but mostly it seems to be kind of rare outside of academic settings.

 

I suppose it may seem a bit ironic that learning to copy--learning to write an Elizabethan sonnet or to play a Charlie Parker solo--is a strong path to self-expression. But if one considers the opposite--hearing something you like and having no idea how to replicate it--then I think it this whole copying business makes perfect sense.

 

#1 "Come to Daddy" Bass

 

Can you guess what the effect is of (arguably) the most recognizable intro in the history of electronic music? Distortion? Some sort of fuzzbox? Is it a DX7 preset?

 

Nah.

 

https://soundcloud.com/limpyloo/ctd-bass

 

 

Bitcrusher, yo.

 

In this case, my Casio SK-5 did the duty of reducing the bass to 8-bits, and then in a DAW I used a bitcrusher to reduce the sample-rate to 2009Khz. And it's nice--if possible--to have a bitcrusher that has controls for fine-tuning the aliasing, which can be used to reintroduce brightness after the sample-reduction has sucked out all of the high-end. Normal EQ probably won't suffice as there will barely be any high-end to boost.

 

As far as the pre-bitcrushed source not goes, almost anything will do. I think I used a string patch on a synth (with a fast attack).

 

Also, if you listen to "Come To Daddy" with bit-reduction on the brain you'll very easily hear that the whole song is one big bitcrusher orgy.

 

 

#2 Flangers and Phasers on ICBYD Drums

 

RDJ loves to put flangers and phasers on his drums. Listen to the tambourine break in "Avid Acrid Jam Shred" or that weird-sounding drum in "The Waxen Pith" or the whole beat on "Wax the Nip" or that greasy "snare" in "Wet Tip Hen Ax" (though that one appears to be a sample as the effect remains static), or...

 

I've been listening to and pondering the "Mookid" drums (the wet legato ones, not the bright staccato ones), and I am now convinced I know what s going on....

 

 

And the secret to the "Mookid" drums (I think) is....*snare rush*...........

 

 

They are pitched up, bit-reduced, and phased (I think)

 

 

https://soundcloud.com/limpyloo/mookit

 

 

Anyway, time to watch X-Files and go to bed. To be continued.

 

 

 

LL

 

haha, great stuff!

 

now, could you reproduce the last minute of death fuck by the tuss? haha that would make a good challenge to test a producer's skills. i bet it's distorsion, weird sequencing, triggering, chorus and stuff. i could ask a zillion specific questions about the tuss anyway

Are you talking about the growl?

i like this thread too!

  On 2/3/2013 at 4:26 AM, Hanratty said:

i like this thread too!

I appreciate it.

P.S. if anyone has any requests I'm happy to (try to) entertain them...

I would love to know more about compression and final mix-down routines. Because your tips about EQing already gave my tracks so much more room, but somehow they are still a bit muddy.

yeh and maybe an opinion on limiting.