come to daddy & windowlicker ~ how?

Step 1: Aphex

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Cowbell

Step 4: Profit

  On 3/24/2015 at 4:55 PM, psn said:

 

How the fuck do people get their DSP fuckery like this? I used effectrix turnado for a while, but lost the license with my last computer.

 

(don't post a picture of DBglitch you cheeky cunts)

  On 3/24/2015 at 7:51 PM, Audioblysk said:

 

  On 3/24/2015 at 4:55 PM, psn said:

 

How the fuck do people get their DSP fuckery like this? I used effectrix turnado for a while, but lost the license with my last computer.

 

(don't post a picture of DBglitch you cheeky cunts)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<3

Lots and lots of tedious manual edits

Yeah, the only time I managed to pull off such tight glitching was when I loaded the wav into soundforge and painstakingly went through and cut it up. I never got that good though!

  On 3/24/2015 at 9:00 PM, Gocab said:

Lots and lots of tedious manual edits

 

  On 3/24/2015 at 7:51 PM, Audioblysk said:

 

How the fuck do people get their DSP fuckery like this? I used effectrix turnado for a while, but lost the license with my last computer.

 

(don't post a picture of DBglitch you cheeky cunts)

 

 

A few of those effects sound like CDP. Which means offline rendering and lots of manual edits.

Compare the Windowlicker demo with the final version. It's a lot of time and effort painstakingly improving it bit by bit. Quite a bit is creative destruction. For example, I swear there's two bars in Windowlicker where it's run through an MP3 encoder at a very low bitrate as a fun effect, which makes sense for the era.

Yeah there were also a few vst plugins that did the same mp3 compression/FFT smoothing thing in the early 2000s, I had a bunch but I can't find any of them anymore!

 

edit: I think one was called Neptune in Buzz.

Edited March 24, 2015 by modey

Luxury! I vaguely remember getting excited when LAME could encode files in real time. It's easy to forget, but back the late nineties, it took a lot longer to encode MP3s than to play them back... and I needed an MPEG2 card to watch a DVD on my computer. Before that, the CD-R drive I excitedly bought to burn demo CDs with couldn't record a whole album's worth of music... because my hard drive was only 500-odd MB. :) That's the kind of era of these late 90s tracks, to put them into perspective.

  On 3/24/2015 at 10:26 PM, psn said:

 

  On 3/24/2015 at 7:51 PM, Audioblysk said:

 

How the fuck do people get their DSP fuckery like this? I used effectrix turnado for a while, but lost the license with my last computer.

 

(don't post a picture of DBglitch you cheeky cunts)

 

 

A few of those effects sound like CDP. Which means offline rendering and lots of manual edits.

 

 

Thank you, I've never seen CDP before. I love what I'm reading and am going to give a shot at that.

  On 3/24/2015 at 11:17 PM, ZoeB said:

Luxury! I vaguely remember getting excited when LAME could encode files in real time. It's easy to forget, but back the late nineties, it took a lot longer to encode MP3s than to play them back... and I needed an MPEG2 card to watch a DVD on my computer. Before that, the CD-R drive I excitedly bought to burn demo CDs with couldn't record a whole album's worth of music... because my hard drive was only 500-odd MB. :) That's the kind of era of these late 90s tracks, to put them into perspective.

Haha yeah I remember burning my first few releases on to CDR from 128kbps MP3s :/

I actually never had wav versions because I'd render straight to MP3 from Buzz haha

lol, this CPD thing is a beast. My limited coding experience is not going to cut this without quite some time.

  On 3/24/2015 at 10:38 PM, ZoeB said:

Compare the Windowlicker demo with the final version. It's a lot of time and effort painstakingly improving it bit by bit. Quite a bit is creative destruction. For example, I swear there's two bars in Windowlicker where it's run through an MP3 encoder at a very low bitrate as a fun effect, which makes sense for the era.

The plugin is as buggy as anything, but this oldie does that spectral smearing stuff that sounds like low bit rate mp3 files:

 

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20100128063902/http://www.freewebs.com/st3pan0va/sp3ctr3.htm

the fm at the end of iz us is supercollider

 

noyzelab interview

the fm at the end of iz us is supercollider

 

noyzelab interview

  On 3/24/2015 at 10:38 PM, ZoeB said:

For example, I swear there's two bars in Windowlicker where it's run through an MP3 encoder at a very low bitrate as a fun effect, which makes sense for the era.

 

 

This could be done with CDP also

Yeah lots of revisions. So many, i always assume Ziggomatic V17 means the 17th revision. Thats some decent insight i think.. windowlicker is great production wise but good samples, great songwriting... There isnt too much that sounds totally unbelievable to make. spend time experimenting, aprrox 15 years and youll be right

Edited March 25, 2015 by sun drugs

I'm interested in the production of a lot of tracks before come to daddy/windowlicker. But Flim is pretty freaking cool production. Otherwise I think it sounds a little bland for afx, the other tracks. Like a little too polished/afraid to make a nasty sound. Analord's production is really interestin in places but in a different way. I think I mentioned I played it to my brother and he was like how does it sit in the mix so well???!?

I imagine that with most of the tracks we end up hearing on an album, 100s of hours were spent in production... that also seems to be a level of patience he gained over time since the first 8 years or so he seemed to make tracks very fast. I really wonder what his turnover rate is today. I doubt he could make 10 tracks he's satisfied with in a month today, verses his "4 every day" around 1995 or so.

His productions methods used to mystify me, but I find that as time goes on, less and less does. The tunes don't get any less better though!

  On 3/24/2015 at 11:17 PM, ZoeB said:

Luxury! I vaguely remember getting excited when LAME could encode files in real time. It's easy to forget, but back the late nineties, it took a lot longer to encode MP3s than to play them back... and I needed an MPEG2 card to watch a DVD on my computer. Before that, the CD-R drive I excitedly bought to burn demo CDs with couldn't record a whole album's worth of music... because my hard drive was only 500-odd MB. :) That's the kind of era of these late 90s tracks, to put them into perspective.

Yah, really, yo. My computer that I bought in 1997 took 10 minutes of mp3 encode time per 1 minute of music. But the early mp2/mp3 days were really quite something, where the quality really felt "so high quality". Because before that, net music was like Real Audio or whatever groggly sounding shit (and high quality video before nice mpeg2 was like, 320x240 Cinepak). I still have "vintage mp3s" with original creation dates intact. That's the kind priceless relics that you can't really do anything with.

 

As for complex sequencing, the late 90's and early 00's were mostly about manual sequencing (or writing your own code), until programmers thought they were smart by releasing retarded "glitch stuff up" plugins. So lame, and so somewhat useable with patience. Are we coming to an age where da kidz will no longer realize the amount of hard work required for any kind of refinement? "Oh, man- anyone know where I can find the Photoshop plugin tutorial to get those realistic skin tones like William Bouguereau?" "Dude, he painted that shit with brushes and oil paint on canvas." "You mean I have to use my hands?! That's like a baby's toy."

 

p.s. hoverboards are coming... soon.

I think what's still mystifying to me is the little intricate glitches. I know they are done by hand and not just one 'glitch cool' knob on some GUI from a vst - but when I hear dozens of artists using a lot of the same sounds and glitches, it make me wonder if there are tools to make the process easier or they all just figured out the same thing in many different ways. My money is on a little of both, but more that they share knowledge of how to use certain tools with their friends/lablemates. Something that rarely happens on WATMM as the EKT section seems to be a ghost-town for actually learning anything IMO.

 

And about 'glitch up stuff' plugins, they are still what you make them. I made some rather cool patches in Turnado that were very close to ones I'd wanted to make, but still, I couldn't make the sound I hear my favorite artists making, so while yes, I'm learning and putting in time, I would also like to put in time on some of the same programs/vsts/techniques that are so pleasing to my ear. I get really tired of the whole 'It's just manually done and takes time' statement. Everything takes time and most all music-making - from VST's to just sequencing midi notes, it all takes time and experience - it's just that some knowledge is more common than others.

  On 3/26/2015 at 11:38 PM, Audioblysk said:

I get really tired of the whole 'It's just manually done and takes time' statement. Everything takes time and most all music-making - from VST's to just sequencing midi notes, it all takes time and experience - it's just that some knowledge is more common than others.

I'm not sure what to say really. By 'manually done and takes time', I meant for example, loading the audio file into soundforge, grabbing little bits, looping/cutting/pasting, timestretching, flanging, filtering, reversing, etc. You could also apply different VST effects (for example) to multiple versions of the entire file, and cut parts in/out or mix them together in places (easier to do in a multitrack editor). Like I said, I never really got very good at it—this is about as far as I took it before I got sick of the sound:

https://archive.org/download/Modex-SingEyeToLight/03TipForLights.mp3

(I glitched the drum track only, skip to around 1:50)

 

It's pretty basic and crude but you really just need to experiment. There's no youtube tutorial to watch in order to get the perfect come to daddy glitch sound!

Edited March 27, 2015 by modey

I wasn't specifically referring to you my man, I understand there is no 'make easy' button and that was possibly one of the most thorough explanations of how you got those sounds. Thanks

"What kind of technique was used for dis glitchy whatevz ting" can usually be figured out- or at least superficially reproduced- by recognizing tonal qualities of the sample. Like if you learnt what a "chorus" effect sounds like, then you might have a basic understanding of the filtering, freq modulation, phase shifting, sample delay, and how that related to perception of the effect-- then if you wanted to reproduce it, you could simply use the "chorus" effect from recognizing it or manually achieve the effect by destructive editing and applying filters/plugins one after the other.

 

So to get a massive sonic vocabulary for different processing techniques, you basically have to fuck with audio a lot, and when it comes to "unconventional sounds", a lot of the effects can be reproduced by the filters/plugins in dedicated software for audio editing (not a sequencer) or software that's made to achieve specific effects, like sound morphing, image to sound, etc.

 

Somewhat possibly related to this thread-- it's weird how many good experimental audio apps existed in the late 90's and early 00's. Later on it seemed like programmers were more interested in developing full packages or work in a realtime non-destructive manner. A lot of the apps I'm talking about were like: "It can only do a few things, and it doesn't do it very well. Pain in the ass to use and slow, but output can be interesting." One thing I used to do when I used glitchy squargly type of samples in my music- I'd use these various softwares and output several minutes of audio, and from that, I would listen for interesting bits to use. So basically it was like splattering paint on a massive canvas, then cropping tiny areas that looked good.

He put a donk on it