/prod/ - Music Production

I'm gonna try it again if version 3 gets cracked

I took a look at Omnisphere but the size of it seemed ridiculous so I passed. Same with Nexus. I wonder if there is any real difference between the two.

Zebra 2, Serum and Curve 2

Just the NI synths, Massive, Absynth and FM8. Used to use Battery 3 but Battery 4 sucks balls. Looking for an alternative atm.

Omnisphere is worth buying an external drive for, there's no way you could come up with those sounds on your own, particularly extension packs

Yes is seems that when you have omnisphere, that is all you need. I couldn't imagine buying anything else after that.

Guess

Attached: wh.jpg (265x545, 38K)

Operator. Good synth low CPU usage, great for stacking. Sucks that it can't be used outside of Ableton.

>(((Steinberg))) no longer supports VST2 and urge everyone to follow in the name of (((progress)))

NATIVE INSTRUMENTS USERS ON SUICIDE WATCH.

Synthmaster 2.9
The Mangle and Ribs for granular stuff
Microbrute
Casio CTK-601 (if that counts)

Can't wait for Synthmaster 3.0 to drop.

Massive, FM8, Diva, Logic's ES2, Zebra 2

>Synthmaster
I've heard about synthmaster, How good of a all purpose synth is it? I haven't yet come across a synth that can fill all my needs. Most synths fit into a specific type of sound and I find myself drifting from synth to synth too much.

How often do you use it?

>Logic's ES2

I don't know why but I have always found Logics synths to be some of the ugliest looking things I've ever seen. Just looking at it makes me feel repulsed. Some people seem to really like them though I personally don't understand.

>Diva

Great synth but uses way too much CPU. I downgraded to layered TAL synths. They nail the retro sound pretty well.

I mean, its understandable. The ES2, a basic subtractive synth, is probably old enough to have birthed some of the zoomers on this board. Its ancient, but has a proper mod matrix, your basic FM functionality (nothing even remotely as complex as FM8, just the 1 osc with FM), some weirdo harmonic waveforms to accompany the basic faire. Simple subtractive synth. But for most basic sounds its pretty good.

Diva is of course a novelty synth. Its for that rare time when you "have to have that analog pad or so and so bass sound". I think its main selling points are its oscillator drift to emulate analog bullshit, and the analog filter emulation. A few of the filters can be placed into self oscillation like a analog filter would, which is neat. Not that you use self oscillating filters all the time, it just shows that they did rigorously emulate the thing. Oh, the alpha juno-esque oscillator mod, I forget which one- has PWM saws, which are pretty cool. Not something you find in many synths, and a must have if you are into hoover sounds. I think Diva really shines for PWM centric patches. If you have a fetishism for 80s stuff it would be a must have.

Attached: Screen shot 2012-01-27 at 12.06.32 PM.png (1077x731, 644K)

I should add- I do think that diva represents clinging to the 'muh analog' a bit too rigidly. While I do think some of the mod matrix stuff is cool, and really a throwback (multiply, lag, quantize, etc as modulation sources)- I would have rather had a regular modulation matrix with like 20 slots along the lines of the ES2, serum, etc.

Polysix
PX7
Europa
ES01

No synths for me (yet), but I run Garritan CFX for my piano sound and Miroslav Philharmonik 2 + Orchestral percussion

Here's a clip of something I'm working on. I'm new to the whole DAW/production side of things and know literally nothing of mixing mastering using effects etc aside from putting a limiter on the master track

instaud.io/3RhK

For this I have literally no fx or anything else running, just each instrument layered on top of each other. When it comes to orchestral things what would you do, if anything, on the production side?

Yea I agree, that was what initially got my attention about Diva. it really is purely 'muh analogue'. Explains why the processing memory is so high with such a strong dedication to analogue.

A common technique is to apply your own reverb to place dry instruments (read: recorded close to the mic, lacking room reflections and natural reverb) in a space of your choosing. This is very common in the orchestral mockup world. An example of this would be, you use a FX send that has the reverb on it, and send a % of every single instrument to it. So maybe some instruments need a bit more reverb than others. Think about it like this, maybe the instruments very far away from the listener (if you consider an orchestral hall and seating, that might be the brass and percussion) get a bit more reverb than the others that are close, like the violins. This is a very basic example but you can see where I'm going. Reverb can be used to place your dry instruments in a space. Typically in a orchestral scoring stage or hall, you are going to be dealing with reverbs that have a tail length of around 1-2 seconds. With exceptions.

Some libraries for orchestral instruments have a bit of ''natural reverb' build into them. You may decide that you want to apply more reverb the drier libraries than the "already containing some room sound" libraries so you can sort of make them blend together. That's another common technique.

Beyond this sorta basic stuff, the really complex and involved templates might actually break up the different parts of room reflections (reverb) into different effects sends. One important concept is the early reflection. This is a total abstraction created by plugins, but it has a utility when thinking about this stuff. The early reflections represent the first reflections to leave the instruments, bounce off a wall, and return to the listener. The furthest instruments' early reflections will take longer to reach the listener in the (virtual room) than the close instruments. Sounds counter intuitive. If you have noticed the parameter "predelay" in a reverb plugin, thats the sort of delay its referring to. part1....

part 2...
So, a major part of orchestral realism, beyond the obvious like the orchestration, and the sounds themselves, is the panning (think: seating on the stage), levels, and the localization you derive from things like the predelay on early reflections bouncing around the room (and finally, the bulk room reflections, you might consider this to be the reverb tail).

Some people that make orchestral mockups will actually emulate separate rows of instruments, and separate out their reverbs into early reflections (with appropriate predelay) and tails (rest of the room reflections).

You don't have to do this, just telling you this is a thing. This can be a way to achieve depth in a mix, alongside panning and mixing.

One of the best ways to test your mix for realism is to feed a chunk of score into your daw, form say, holst - the planets or something that represents the sound you are after, and then mix your template until it sounds relatively close in both volume of instruments, dynamics, and room sound (unique to each recording in a different room you might find, remember). This is a good way to put your mockup to the test.

I like to do this to tune my orchestral templates. I will feed in a few chunks of a few diff scores, and try to make sure that "cello ffff, and flutes ppp" are actually the right volume.

This is really only scratching the surface but may give you some ideas to try.

Altiverb's presets are specific concert halls amongst others

Woah that's really cool for no production at all.

I'm not experience with orchestral personally, so maybe other /prod/ucers could contribute more than I.

Generally you would want surround sound, that would be my first criticism, all your instruments are occupying the same frequency range and the same position in the stereo field. If you have two instruments occupying the same frequencies, it is always a good idea to pan them left and right, it also makes the music more interesting to listen to imo.

Make sure you EQ the instruments and especially remove low end frequencies from the strings (unless its an instrument playing a low melody). Typically compression is applied to music to increase the loudness, but with orchestral (or anything that emulates performance), it is typically better to have less compression applied, and no clipping also, so try to stay away from limiters as this causes distortion to be added to the signal if you are not careful.

Create a return track that has a reverb attached with low end cut off, send all your instruments to the return by varying degrees. Keep in mind, the more you send an instrument to the reverb return track, the more distant that instrument will sound in the mix, so refrain from having low end instruments or lead instruments sent to the return too much. So basically all your instruments are sent in parallel through the same reverb effect, with lead and bass reduced.

Always make sure dynamic range is preserved, the rare exception I would say is if you are making music for tv ads, it is typically about captivating attention so if you were making trailer music you could get away with lower dynamic range a bit more.

And as a final followup, If you have halfway decent, dynamic, and playable orchestral instrument libraries, you are going to be set to do the mixing of your template (to represent a real orchestra in a room), with just panning, volume per instrument, reverb, EQ (maybe further instruments have some low or high frequency rolloff, etc), delays, and not much other crazy shit unless you are trying to do something nuts like emulate a 1950s orchestra recorded to tape or something (then maybe you start going nuts with the fancy pants plugins).

A good template will be premixed, where every instrument, every cello, flute, soprano solo vocal instrument, harp, etc are all placed in the room accurately, at teh right level when played via midi and dynamics, etc. A good template you can just get in there and write without the fakery getting in the way and distracting you. That may not be a problem anyway, if you are going to have the thing performed by a real orchestra, this level of rigor applied to the mockup may not even make sense. It might help your orchestration though, so you don't accidentally have flutes blasting over top of contrabass in a unrealistic manner. I think listening to scores and reading along the sheet music, and testing this experimentally in your daw's orchestral template is the most powerful asset you have to rise to this challenge. Be sure to troll through imslp.org

Albino 3.

Old is gold.

Yep, and one cool thing about altiverb is they will have recorded those same orchestral halls (Todd-AO scoring stage, for instance, is great) from many different positions in the room. So you will be given 3.5 meter reflections, 8 meter reflections, 13 meter reflections for instance. You can assign each of these to your abstracted "rows" like strings getting the 3.5 meter and 13 meter going to the percussion for example. It is a relatively organic way to achieve depth. If wants to learn about this specific type of reverb, watch the altiverb guided tour for more information. the long and short of it is, convolution reverbs are a sample based reverb- allowing you to apply the reflective character of a real room to your virtual instruments.
youtube.com/watch?v=EpzNgP8uThs
Very common in the mockup world.

What is the real benefit of VST3 over VST2? Is VST3 just a meme?

oops I said contrabass i meant brass.

Wow thank you. Seems like I still have a lot to learn and study before I can even understand half of this but I will save all of these and try testing and applying them myself. I thought about just paying for someone to do mixing and mastering for me however I'm writing all the music so why not learn to produce that music in a way that fits my vision and makes the sound come through as intended

Its doable. Start youtubing peoples orchestral templates and see how they attack this problem in unique ways. Its all just technical shit that can be learned with time, and you may even find a better way of doing it- there's no 'certainly right way'.

what are some good free VSTs for FLStudio? Im broke and im too stupid and lazy to pirate. Ive been mostly been just messing around with GMS and

I realize after writing that that you may not even know what the fuck im talking about re: a orchestral template. When you are trying to compose on a deadline, you literally cannot reinvent the wheel and mix the track on the fly when you have that many virtual instruments. Fortunately, orchestras are generally laid out in a predictable way (and mic'd in a predictable- and potentially emulate-able way), as Bourne from hundreds of years of experimentation. Your template is "all the instruments you might use, in a project, already mixed, already reverb'd (if applicable), already panned etc". Its the "put notes in me and I spit out something halfway decent without major tweaking of levels required. You have the instruments mixed in a realistic way before hand and that becomes your template. For your homework, take a piece of orchestral music that you enjoy, and put it in your daw, painstakingly, maybe about 16 bars of a passage you like. Put in all the dynamics it needs for the instruments and get it right. Then try to figure out what you have to do to mix it to sound like (your favorite) recording. This will get your foot in the door with the whole thing.

me too

AUTOGUN BABY

This is too complicated, I want to off myself REEEEEEE

hello

the only complicated part is writing good music everything else is easy to learn

what's your creative process like /prod/?

Good shit.

Attached: 1534303437140.jpg (853x1279, 117K)

Diva till i die brother hh

I fucking suck man, my brain just goes in overdrive mode every time I produce, I get those moments when I'm really having fun but they're rare. Started producing a bit more these past 6 months, got into it 3 years ago but would take 6-month breaks and stuff.

Is it me or is this really tough?

what does positive rms do?
did i break it?
in other words: how loud is too loud? or: am i dead?

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-06-24 at 2.43.08 AM.png (368x92, 22K)

is this aLoud?

knobs

allowed? get it? ban me i dare u
only decent post on this shithole

producing is hard if you're challenging yourself my dude

agreed. i do not find it hard. it flows out of my veins like water. you must have tricked yourself.
this is fun! try to relax, peak yr shit out n look at the rms meter like what

REEE TEACH ME, I can't relax

Not him but just focus on getting shit done without thinking too much about it, once the song is done you can correct and edit the bits you don't like.
Things are less stressful when you realize not everything needs to be perfect in your first attempt.

this. also imperfect things are usually the most beautiful anyway. look harder at the shitty shits you shit out, theyre usualy gold. if you arent making shitty shits, maybe you should be...

My umc404hd keeps randomly not working. Doesn't even show up in windows device manager. Only way to fix it is unplugging everything from my computer and putting the interface usb in random slots until one decides "okay, I'll work now". Anyone have suggestions or have experienced this? I've even tried different cables.

Okay, turning it off and on worked.

Everyone has different work methods... last minutes I got stuck in a loop of trying to make this song work out. It took me 5 days +7 hours a day just fucking around with sounds before I recorded the stuff.

Last week I was able mix down/record 30seconds of a song I am working on. Today I was able to make it to 3 minute mark and I am satisfied with the result.

Sometimes you just get stuck. It took me a week to work out a fucking 30-45 second material, but after the hardest part was over it was easy to start over today and really get the song 75% finished

I like that

How do I learn to arrange and produce like Fleet Foxes and Phil Ek?
youtube.com/watch?v=d370CKlg-wk

I get an idea, nothing happens for weeks, then a lil bit, then nothing again and suddenly i write a whole song in 3 hours and spend a feew weeks refining it.

post music

idk what im doing here instaud.io/3Rm6

Attached: xarnmaybe.png (1857x865, 411K)

Are you trying to sound like iglooghost?

yeah pretty much. i rip off of him a lot, i just think this aesthetic sounds like getting up real early and watching some really shitty anime.

bro how the fuck do y'all do that. I can only work on a song for an hour max before my brain wants to shut itself off

Anyone use Alter Ego?

I'm thinkin of switching genres as to what i currnetly produce..is like ambient experimental very soft and relaxin low bpm

But switching it up to 100gecs style..faster..harder glitcheir and more experimental..

btw anyone else use alterego vst? im playing round with it. and since i dont like my own voice singing tihnkin of using it for some lyrics.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-06-24 at 9.39.46 AM.png (886x582, 596K)

>tfw computer crashes the second i open the serum
>tfw need money for a new pc
>tfw don't want to wagekek

AAAAAAAA GET ME OUT OF THIS HELL, my music is so shit tier using operator presets

Let wealthy men use your holes in exchange for money.

is this logic exclusive? it looks like a lot of fun

Nope.
plogue.com/products/alter-ego.html

It's ton of fun. It's a voice synth. Can make some nice vocals outta of it. multiple personalities you can get for it..there are 2 for free/

>presets
Learn synthesis

I used it for a little while

sounded pretty shit desu, good for a vocal synth but that's not saying much

I mostly just made breathy ooh/aah sounds with it and put them through effects to make them sound more real.

prefer to just use granular synths to do that now.

clyp.it/1k5svrog

any feedback

epic tetris

instaud.io/3Rnn

Good stuff, I think it's exactly what it needs to be. I'm just imagining an extremely serious tetris themed crime procedural style show. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but it does.
instaud.io/3Rh8
playing around with some ideas, could be something

Sorry I'm late but here is a track
instaud.io/3RnJ

what string machine did u use?

Omnisphere

Some synths:
youtube.com/watch?v=4vEt2VPmEM8

Synths and effects:
youtube.com/watch?v=DVzXLwnk2Pc

More synths and effects:
youtube.com/watch?v=NIthiz299lk

Top two videos have dropbox links to dl the VSTs.

Well, I can help with one of those questions.

producerdojo.com/how-loud-is-loud-enough/?fbclid=IwAR2i2EOtzZu8AhJktETW0ctz9tf5EGUwoz_NDe1ZoIPhtvOSfTfV0Md2ZAs

lol better join the REASONGANG then

Generally I either dick around with my keyboard til I like a bassline, melody, or chord progression then try to flesh it out crowded-loop style or I hear a track in my head that I futilely try to express in my DAW before it gets corrupted by examination.

Yo that one's really nice.

post music

Not beats, but composition.

Same for the bassine. I don’t have my actual keyboard with me now, just the Akai mini. Or I transcribe things from guitar.

Any other good (VST) Synths for Dungeon Synth besides KORG M1?

I really love the KORG M1 VST, It was only 20 bucks on KORG site... are there any other late 80s and early 90s synth libraries with similar sounds?

Maybe any synth. Get a piano vst and strings and choir.

The Arturia collection

Anyone got anything? Can't seem to figure it out

Some guy on r*ddit told me DSK overture and fantasi, both are free

Regsrding DS

nice clip, but there's a lot of clipping going on

roland d50 and srx synths, they might be expensive if you want to buy them

I think FM8 (or any similar dx7 emulation- dexed is free) will be a good fit. Download the giant collections of factory DX7 sysex patches from the 80s and they can be imported to dexed and FM8. A lot of the M1 sounds were probably originally created on such a FM synth. The woodwinds, the percussion (think: timpani, etc) would be a good fit for dungeon synth.

this meme really makes me angry. I prefer someone who makes music you can actually listen to with presets (as musicians do since synthesizers are around) over someone who makes his own sounds but can't manage to finish a single track. The basics of sound synthesis are useful to understand what you are doing and to correct flaws in your tunes, but there's nothing wrong with using presets.

Also, post your music to prove me wrong

soundcloud.com/jormangod/jorman-god-of-all-the-bests

listen to these tracks

Whats up Yea Forums
hope u having a great day

Attached: Jormangodpic.png (619x681, 497K)

Yeah- I always like to say, the only thing that matters is if its the right sound for the track. If its a preset, if its a sample, great. If that sound doesn't exist, then you clearly need to synthesize it yourself.

wrong thread retard

This track all original, No help at all made fresh today out the oven

:>)
:>)
:>)

And it sucks

Nah man the sounds of it impossible to recreate and the way that it sounds in the mix

Like Dr.Dre lvl shit

gatesoflove.bandcamp.com/album/your-holy-heart

Does /prod/ have any resources for learning how to program rock drums?

clyp.it/aok5mqe4

there are tutorials for Superior Drummer on AudioZ

wow this is incredibly out of time. Before you bother about programming advanced rock drums you should maybe first learn how to play in time.

>I prefer someone who makes music you can actually listen to with presets (as musicians do since synthesizers are around) over someone who makes his own sounds but can't manage to finish a single track.
Does learning synthesis prevents you from being a good musician?
Why does it have to be one or the other?

No one is saying that every musician should be Autechre, but learning to use a synth and making cool sounds is literally the quickest skill to learn in music production. Much quicker than music theory, mixing, mastering, etc. and it's super useful for how little it takes to learn.
Literally just watch the NY School of Synthesis videos from the pastebin and play around with your synth making different kinds of sounds.
Or better yet, just do the syntorial exercises (including the "on your own" assignments). Less than a week and you're good. After that it's only a matter of practicing to get even better, but even without that, you'd still be fine.

>The basics of sound synthesis are useful to understand what you are doing and to correct flaws in your tunes, but there's nothing wrong with using presets.
This is the same as saying:
>The basics of music theory are useful to understand what you are doing and to correct flaws in your tunes, but there's nothing wrong with using midi kits

If you're using presets and your song sounds good because of it, then the merit of it sounding good isn't yours, as it would be thanks to whoever made the preset that your song sounds the way it does.

>this meme really makes me angry.
If you learned synthesis you wouldn't need such an angry cope.

>the only thing that matters is if its the right composition for the track. If its a midi pack, if its a loop, if its a sampled song, great. If that score doesn't exist, then you clearly need to compose it yourself.

I don't know if you're that original user, but he implied that using presets is bullshit. I say, as long as you're inspired and find nice sounds for your songs there's no reason to feel bad about not synthesizing yourself.

It's like expecting from acoustic musicians to build their own instruments. A piano player on the road has to take the instrument he's provided with any evening. A guitar player has to look for some years to find the right instrument for him, but he won't think about building his own guitar, because there are people who can just do it better. Just like people are better at building presets.

I think it's interesting to know about this shit and I have respect for everyone who can make his sounds, but it shouldn't prevent you from using presets if you like them.

is it possible to create cymbal background like the ones in these tracks in fl studio?

youtube.com/watch?v=cyaSLlNY0cw

youtube.com/watch?v=JT9iYePeXcY

The guy doesn't use a click track so I just did what I could

post stems pls

filthy pirate here, does anyone have some premium vcv modules they're willing to share.

Im no expert, but to me it sounds a bit like they are just using brushes instead of "normal" drum sticks

>I don't know if you're that original user, but he implied that using presets is bullshit.
I'm not him, but I agree with that.
If some guy was able to make that preset for you to use, then you can make it too, since it doesn't take an unreasonable amount of time to learn to make it.

>I say, as long as you're inspired and find nice sounds for your songs there's no reason to feel bad about not synthesizing yourself.
Yes there is, as I've explained in my post.

>It's like expecting from acoustic musicians to build their own instruments. A piano player on the road has to take the instrument he's provided with any evening.
That's a bullshit comparison.
The only reason instrument players don't build their own instruments is because it's unreasonable to spend their whole lives learning a skill that takes decades to master (plus many other decades to become top level at, like the guys who are building instruments today using centuries in technique development).
Learning to use a synth to make a sound is easy and it's more like learning to use pedals for your guitar or tuning your instrument instead of having a technician do it for you, which is perfectly reasonable to expect of a musician.

Your "building an instrument" analogy is more similar to "building a synthesizer", which is equally hard, and equally unexpected of musicians.
Using an instrument is like using a synth.
Building an instrument is like building a synth.
Building an instrument IS NOT like merely USING a synth.

1/2

first one is brushed like said. dig up some samples or try to fake it by pushing attack up on a regular cymbal.

the second one is mostly just a heavy phaser doing the bulk of the work.

>Just like people are better at building presets.
People are better at composing too. Should my song be made of midi taken from people who are better than me?
If people are better than you at doing something, then if your song sounds better because of their work, then it's thanks to them if their song is good.
It's like having Richard Devine on payroll in my studio to make me synth sounds on demand. How different is this than using his patches that he made previously?
If you could afford it, would you have a skilled composer on payroll making your compositions just because he's better than you?
If you're having people making every part of your song, then it's not your song. It's a collaborative effort that you took very little part of.
In electronic music sound design is an important part on the genre, and it dictates so much of how the song sounds, so if you make someone do that part of the work fo6 you "just because they're better at it than me", then it's at least in part their song.

>I think it's interesting to know about this shit and I have respect for everyone who can make his sounds
>but it shouldn't prevent you from using presets if you like them.
What do you mean "it shouldn't prevent you..."?
What is "it"?
How interesting knowledge of synthesis is, and how deserving of respect people who use a synth are?
No one is saying this.

2/2

synthesis bores the absolute fucking shit out of me so I just use effects (and end up getting something completely different from the original anyway)

easily.. just find some samples play with the velocity and tweak from there

once you get good at it, it becomes less of a chore in my experience

start using a real daw

>finally know everything i need to know to make good music
>all creativity and ideas disappear forever

hmm...

what I tried to point out with the instrument/preset comparison is, that there is only an arbitrary ending of what you expect a musician to do by himself or what he can take from others.

In the end there's only truth in music, it is either uninspired and boring, or interesting, personal and unique. The way to that goal in individual and it is bullshit to tell someone he should learn synthesizing if he's completely contempt with his creative status quo. Music can consist to 100% of samples and be entertaining as fuck, other music (as frequently posted on this sub board) is completely hand made and makes me want to vomit. Same with composition, lyrics and all other parameters of which music consists.
>What is "it"?

"It" is the bad feeling you might get when some user on /prod/ tells you that you're no real musician because you use presets.

By the way, I can synthesize sounds and I know a lot about sound synthesis, but I fighting this image that you can't make good music without knowing that shit.

P.S. none of the pro-synthesis anons has posted a sample of their work yet

this is me, the only way I can produce now is if im drunk, because my standards drop immensely

Trying to learn how use automation in Ableton, I am pretty new to this, so still using the lite version and the only plug in I got so far is addictive keys that came for free with the sound card. Here is me trying to practice automation on volume, also not really sure where to take it next.
instaud.io/3Rpk
I am yet to actually finish a full song, only made like 3 one minute unfinished demos so far.

are there actually any decent forums out there dedicated to production? cba with reddit

kvr and gearslutz. they're full of boomers though, although generally well-informed boomers.

>what I tried to point out with the instrument/preset comparison is, that there is only an arbitrary ending of what you expect a musician to do by himself or what he can take from others.
It's not arbitrary.
It's based on two simple questions:
>can a musician realistically do it without having to spend a lifetime learnign a second career?
>does it have a significant importance in the music?

>In the end there's only truth in music, it is either uninspired and boring, or interesting, personal and unique.
>The way to that goal in individual and it is bullshit to tell someone he should learn synthesizing if he's completely contempt with his creative status quo.
Nobody is denying this, but we're talking about the legitimacy of your work when an important part of it it's made by someone else.
If you're happy with using other people's work in your music then you're taking a shortcut and should accept that the merit of the song isn't yours.
If you can't compose melodies and chords and I'm happy using midi generators/packs for everything, then keep using them, but don't lie to yourself and say that you're as much a musician as someone who compose his own midi, and that your song is entirely yours when a good part of it was made by someone else.

I'm not saying that everyone should learn synthesis even if they don't want to.
If finds it boring, then he should keep using presets.
But he shouldn't delude himself in thinking that his music is as "his" as it would be if he made his sounds by himself.
That would be cognitive dissonance.

But anyone who makes music electronically and uses synths would be much better off spending a single week learning them, because for the small time investment the returns are more than worth it.

>Music can consist to 100% of samples and be entertaining as fuck
Yes but it wouldn't be your music the same way something made entirely by you would. In fact you wouldn't even be the creator of the piece, but merely a curator.

1/2

>other music (as frequently posted on this sub board) is completely hand made and makes me want to vomit.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Why do you keep making this false dichotomy?
As if good self-made music isn't possible.
If you learn to use a synth your music making abilities won't get worse.
It's "whatever your musical ability is" PLUS sound design.
They're not mutually exclusive and you know it.
I already addressed this bullshit argument in my first post, but you avoided it like you avoided everything else.

>"It" is the bad feeling you might get when some user on /prod/ tells you that you're no real musician because you use presets.
It's not a bad feeling.
In electronic music it's factual truth.
Sound design is such an integral part of the genre that it makes no sense to let somebody else do it for you and still call the song yours.

>By the way, I can synthesize sounds and I know a lot about sound synthesis, but I fighting this image that you can't make good music without knowing that shit.
No one said you ca't make good music without knowing sound design.
Fuck off with this straw man.

>P.S. none of the pro-synthesis anons has posted a sample of their work yet
I'm not playing this game.
If I post it you're gonna say "see? your music is shit, just like I thought", regardless of its actual quality.
Every time I post my music I get compliments both on the sound design, and on the music itself, which is why I tihnk that every electronic musician should learn it. If I can, then everyone can.
Besides, it's pointless. Proving that WE can't make good music doesn't mean that we'd make better music if we used presets, and it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't good musicians who make their sounds themselves.
It's such a stupid nonsense argument.

I'm fully expecting you to ignore everything I said once again, and kep repeating your dumb arguments a third time as if I didn't just explain how dumb they are.
I'll be waiting...

2/2

such as?

thanks

anything other than FL

your saying it's not arbitrary, but anything you say in your post is just that.

>If you're happy with using other people's work

That is as arbitrary as can be. Everyone uses other people's work all the time. The whole music history consists of musicians copying other musicians. The question what part of your music you take as field of your personal creativity is individual.
Blues uses the same chords for 100 years and can still entertain me. Thousands of musicians in the 80s used the DX-7 presets and made great music.

The question whether music is creative and innovative or not does not depend from such arbitrary (!) parameters as you postulate but from the question if the work as a whole is balanced and if the personality of the artist can be found in it.
I know a lot about music theory and not so much about sound synthesis, other people are just the other way round, and there's nothing wrong with hearing that in the music as long as you still can tell that there was scrutiny in the parts that were important to the artist.

Btw post your music, I'm really curious

Meme of the day

Attached: i'm pretty sure it's one guy copypasting every post.png (1124x1116, 2.13M)

>It's not arbitrary.
>It's based on two simple questions:
>can a musician realistically do it without having to spend a lifetime learnign a second career?
>does it have a significant importance in the music?

Those are arbitrary questions.

I only read your first post in time but

>I'm fully expecting you to ignore everything I said once again, and kep repeating your dumb arguments a third time as if I didn't just explain how dumb they are.

is what I could just say to you. We have different opinions on what makes music or any art 'good', but I think mine is better, because I had yours a few years ago.

If you could actually synthesize, you wouldn't be dependent on downloading more VSTs just to orchestrate your sound is what I was getting at. Synthesizers already get handed to you on a silver platter. In some cases like the wavestation you're holding down one key and you're basically halfway done with your new age jungle yoga CD. I can't believe someone not putting in at least this tiny bit of effort when people spend years learning actual instruments that can't rely on flashy gimmicks through timbres and automation. Music made using even a single preset is, in my opinion, also not personal and I would feel ashamed of using any because synthesizing patches is a gigantic part of an electric musician's voice. And yes, I'm aware of the DX7 pop history, vaporwave and dungeon synth turning this statement on its head.

Don't you hate it when you are at the club, having a great time with your friends, starting to get somewhere w/ the one chick with the neck tattoos- but suddenly you notice the song playing uses a sample and preset from Vengeance Electro House Essentials Volume XIVIXI- so you suddenly have to start having a bad time?

seems you missed the debate

real-time chats with easily searchable histories. Oh shit I'm sorry: forgot every newfag on 4ch since 2016 thinks they're too hot for discord.

>your saying it's not arbitrary, but anything you say in your post is just that.
My entire argument is:
>if you make a song entirely by yourself, then it's your work
>if you make it using some other person's work, then it's not entirely yours but it's partially thanks to someone else.
Please show me how this isn't 100% fact.

>That is as arbitrary as can be.
You dumbass that wasn't a rule that I use to define if it's acceptable or not.
Reeread the post because you're arguing against something that I'm not saying.

>Everyone uses other people's work all the time.
Not true, and not to the degree that you'd be if you were just using presets.

>The whole music history consists of musicians copying other musicians.
If they were using other people's ideas to make their own verison, it's inspiration and it's how art (or everythign really) progresses.
Nothing wrong with hearing a sound (even in a preset) and creating your own version.
But if you're talking about just straight up taking someone else's work and using it in your music, than no, it's called plagiarism and it's not a legitimate way of "making" music.

>The question what part of your music you take as field of your personal creativity is individual.
It's every part.
There is no picking and choosing.
THAT would be arbitrary.

>Blues uses the same chords for 100 years and can still entertain me. Thousands of musicians in the 80s used the DX-7 presets and made great music.
Again with this bullshit.
Why don't you understand that I'm not denying this.
Why do you keep repeating this?

Please tell me where I said that you can't make good music using presets.

>The question whether music is creative and innovative or not does not depend from such arbitrary (!) parameters as you postulate
>creative and innovative
I'm not arguing that, but keep pretending I am so you can keep writing posts instead of accepting that all you said is retarded.

1/3

>but from the question if the work as a whole is balanced and if the personality of the artist can be found in it.
>I know a lot about music theory and not so much about sound synthesis, other people are just the other way round, and there's nothing wrong with hearing that in the music as long as you still can tell that there was scrutiny in the parts that were important to the artist.
Completely arbitrary.
That is YOUR set of priorities in music and it's fine.
I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you.
All I'm saying is that if you use someone else's work in your song, then the song isn't fully yours, regardless of you being ok with that or not, or regardless of the quality of the end product.
But you keep avoiding addressing this point and instead making strawman arguments jsut for the sake of arguing.

>Btw post your music, I'm really curious
I've already explained how this is retarded.

They're not, because it's the same standard with which every other part of every career is judged.

>is what I could just say to you.
Bullshit.
I'm responding to every single word of yours, while you're cherrypicking phrases to misconstruct them as something else that I haven't said, just so you can write something in response to them (wh you wouldn't be able to do if you actually addressed my actual arguments).

>We have different opinions on what makes music or any art 'good'
NO we don't you retard.
I never said anything about GOOD or BAD.
Stop making strawman arguments.

>but I think mine is better, because I had yours a few years ago
Obviously you think your opinion is better.
Who thinks their own opinion is wrong?
You changing idea doesn't at all mean that you changed it for the good.
But I'm just explaining the retardness of your argument here, because as much as you struggle to understand it, I'm agreeing with you on this.

2/3

I'm tired of responding to your fallacies.
I won't engage with you unless you actually make an argument against what I'm saying, and don't ignore everything like you've been doing.

Please point where I said anything about a song's quality, or that songs that use presets aren't good.

3/3

well give some decent discord groups then nigga

Any tips for organizing samples? Also, I just got two crates of records. Should I rip and sort them, or use them as I go?

But they’re boomers that love music production, and their talks about the good old days is only in regards to nostalgia of old production practices.

jesus fucking christ somebody post the phaser pasta so these faggots can stop shitting up the thread.

Why not try finding some of your own ideas? The M1 has become some sort of defacto synth for the genre which goes against what made the classics so great. The nice thing about dungeon synth is that people ideally share their very own and personal vision of another world within their music. Something that got lost a little once the canon was established.

Well I am not exactly subsisting on M1 only. I use lots of Orchestral samples, Garritan Personal Orchestra among others.

I find KORG a very nice synth to add ambience and the combinations are endless. Some Dungeon Synth records yes are very boring because they tend to sound the same, using the same libraries.

My current song has perhaps 25% of Korg and rest are from others... I still think M1 has a very pleasant sound, I mean I just enjoy playing it...

>I'm tired of responding to your fallacies.

You're not responding. You don't seem to get it and post the same nonsense over and over.
Just because you quote me in your posts doesn't mean that you actually have something to say to my arguments.

You say I keep repeating the same arguments again although you don't deny them. So, why don't you understand the consequences?

>All I'm saying is that if you use someone else's work in your song, then the song isn't fully yours
>It's every part.
There is no picking and choosing.
THAT would be arbitrary.

We don't live in a world were we have infinite time to make any parameter in our music perfect and completely individual. The quality of art is proportional to the work that went into it. What parameters you chose for that is individual. Bob Dylan has poorer sound design than Deadmau5, is it appropriate to suggest to Dylan to work on his sound design skills?
If you play a C major chord you're already taking 'someeone elses work', same thing if you use a Moog synthesizer, even with your own presets.

You don't get my point at all I think... and you get quite insulting by now, calling me a retard

these were all quotes from you, greentext didn't work

>It's every part.
>There is no picking and choosing.
>THAT would be arbitrary.

get dexed its free, desu if you can afford it just get the whole korg collection on their site if you really like them that much..

kek
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/mu/thread/78826520/#78871079

clyp.it/0rmvvxqm
a really old loop thing i wrote, tried to add some stuff to it

It is a great synth for sure. There's tons of midi fonts floating about, the D50 is very interesting, E-Mu did a VST of the Proteus I think and Roland offers the JV1080 which is actually closer to the XV5080. Mortiis used a Roland JV30. Waldorf offers the PPG Wave plugin. Dexed is obviously also a great choice. FM synthesis was used by the old masters and is still very popular especially with the lofi crowd that rely on 4OP FM synths from the yamaha pss series. Something that I can't remember hearing yet except for one exception, is modular (VCV) and heavy sampling being used in a dungeon synth context. Wavetables also haven't yet been explored that much either. Granular synthesis might also be interesting in conjunction. I definitely want to experiment with these.

>My entire argument is:
>if you make a song entirely by yourself, then it's your work
>if you make it using some other person's work, then it's not entirely yours but it's partially thanks to someone else.

If this is the case, what music, or anything else for that matter, is 100% original? Everyone really does take inspiration from someone or something else. Art isn't made in a vacuum.
And what does it matter anyway. Because you yourself claim that it doesn't affect quality or creativity, why are you using an alleged lack of originality to call people less talented musicians, as if talent and ability are objective quantities?

If you make good music, even if the music isn't "100% original," you're a good musician, no?

Is there any portable hardware sampler capable of chromatic playback? Basically something that would behave like Simpler on Classic mode.

Oh, also the korg wavestation of course if you like the M1. I'm almost certain Varg used some sort of CZ series casio for his ambient stuff. Based on a video I found.

>Roland JV-1080

This sounds very pleasant, exactly something I am looking for youtube.com/watch?v=hM4m8w9XmyQ

pretty sure they'd all be capable of that, can't see why not anyway

Is it cheating if I take a preset and adjust the waves and and every other parameter?

instaud.io/3Rqz
feedback? critique? how do I add variation to this track?

>if you make a song entirely by yourself, then it's your work
>Please show me how this isn't 100% fact.
Not him, but ownership of a song makes up two elements. The composition and the recording. The main reason musicians get away with not building their own instruments IS NOT because it is way too hard to do, that's beyond retarded. The main reason they get away with it is because they are valued on their compositions and NOT their recordings, which they openly acknowledge is dealt with by sound engineers.

Your argument seems to be that electronic music producers have to building their own synth patches to be able to claim ownership over their own songs. This is illogical for the most part with some exceptions. If you compose a song, and then uses premade patches, does the composition cease to be yours? No, you are still the owner of the composition. But if you are making songs where the appeal lies solely in production, like in dubstep for example, then yes I can understant with your perspective to an extent as in order to claim ownership over what makes the song appealing, they would have to claim they produced the sounds themselves, which they did not if they were using patches.

But even in that example, it does not change the fact that the composition itself, how the synths were used in a song, is still what creates the song itself. Without an individual to determine how the sounds are used, there is no song, just a bunch of sounds.

>if you make it using some other person's work, then it's not entirely yours but it's partially thanks to someone else.

As the other guy said, taken to extremes you can say that everything is partially thanks to someone else. Using other peoples sounds will never change ownership over the composition of a song itself. The only way your argument holds water is if it a composition thats value relies on crazy sounds and not any sort of melodic and harmonic contribution, again going back to my initial point.

just keep adding and changing to what you already have and when you have a lot to work with just start arranging it all.. its really hard to say because all you have right now is just a loop and some drums

You will also be interested in the Roland Sound Canvas plugin then which is based on the SC series of Roland romplers. It contains a lot more 'cheesy' and primitive sounds. Here's the daggerfall soundtrack voiced by the SC55 youtube.com/watch?v=CqUCz7E1s90

>all you have right now is just a loop and some drums
basically every track I tried to make lol

how do I break from this curse

Why the fuck early 90s digital gear is so good? I have this guitar preamp hybrid, Zoom 9150. It has absolutely amazing fucking sounds for a preamp made in 1994, blows out of the water more newer preamp units too youtube.com/watch?v=Lu1_KurTt2s

Sometimes drive my synths through this just for the effects loop. Magical era the 90s

Why are you guys shits on Reason so much? Did you even try it? I do and really like it so far

Attached: Capture.jpg (1920x1040, 241K)

everyone gets stuck like that at some point or another, I don't really have a good answer for you, what I would do with that is create more variations of the chords and same with the drums, and try to add a melody

i own it, but every time I try to use it I get so overwhelmed and feel like im gonna have an autism attack, how do you genuinely get over the beginner hump

For me it just screams 'muh analogue' too much to the point the interface feels clunky. It is probably easy once you understand the basics but I haven't ever gotten past the initial disgust.

>tfw can only play triads

who /keyboardlet/ here?

Do you lack any fingers?

>You're not responding. You don't seem to get it and post the same nonsense over and over.
False.

>Just because you quote me in your posts doesn't mean that you actually have something to say to my arguments.
True, but not the case here.

>We don't live in a world were we have infinite time to make any parameter in our music perfect and completely individual.
Learning synthesis requires very little time.
If anything, learning music theory, arrangement, mixing, mastering, and playing instruments takes WAY more time, so just get other people to do all those for you to save time, right?

>The quality of art is proportional to the work that went into it.
I never talked about quality.
Strawman.

>What parameters you chose for that is individual.
Not in a world where you can do everything yourself with little effort.

>Bob Dylan has poorer sound design than Deadmau5, is it appropriate to suggest to Dylan to work on his sound design skills?
I don't sugest anything to anyone. As I said before, if you want to use shortcuts, then use them.
The song is just not fully yours.
If Bob Dylan used other people's skills to make a song sound better than it would've sounded by using only his own skills, then the song isn't fully his, but a collaborative effort.

>If you play a C major chord you're already taking 'someeone elses work', same thing if you use a Moog synthesizer, even with your own presets.
Invalid analogy.
It would be like saying
>plagiarizing poetry is fine because if you're using the word "he" you'd be using someone else's work, so it's fine to plagiarize.

>You don't get my point at all I think...
I get your point and I fucking agree.
It's my point that you don't get.

>and you get quite insulting by now, calling me a retard
Not an insult. Just an observation.

Pussy argument.
Just because it's not a key part of the genre doesn't mean it's legit to use someone else's work in yours.

1/2

>If this is the case, what music, or anything else for that matter, is 100% original? Everyone really does take inspiration from someone or something else. Art isn't made in a vacuum.
I specifically said that inspiration is a legitimate way of making music, because it's the foundation of creativity itself (nobody reinvents the wheel every time they have a new idea, obviously), and that it's very different from just straight up using someone else's work.
I've already explained this here (4th paragraph).
You're either deliberately ignoring my posts or you have serious reading comprehension issues. Which one is it?

>And what does it matter anyway. Because you yourself claim that it doesn't affect quality or creativity
It doesn't affect quality, but it does affect creativity.

>why are you using an alleged lack of originality to call people less talented musicians
Yes, lack of originality makes you a less talented musician than the same musician would be if he didn't have that lack of originality.

>as if talent and ability are objective quantities?
They are.
Compare two identical cloned producers with the same skills in everything except one is good at synthesis and one isn't.
Is the first not a better musician than the second?

2/2

>Not him, but ownership of a song makes up two elements. The composition and the recording.
I'm not talking about the legal side of the music business.
I'm talking about calling a song "made by you" regardless of who owns it.

>The main reason musicians get away with not building their own instruments IS NOT because it is way too hard to do. The main reason they get away with it is because they are valued on their compositions and NOT their recordings, which they openly acknowledge is dealt with by sound engineers.
Even by your definition, an electronic music producer IS valued by his sound, which is largely dependent on the sound design.
But regardless, if the difference between one instrument and the other was significant like the difference between presets, and building an isntrument was a common and easy task that many producers were able to do, then yes, people would expect musicians to make their own instruments because they'd be an integral part of their sound that they'd be outsourcing to somebody else.
It would be like a singer outsourcing lyrics, even if it's a common thing to do in many genres.

>Your argument seems to be that electronic music producers have to building their own synth patches to be able to claim ownership over their own songs.
No.
Only over the ENTIRETY of their song.
They can claim ownership of whatever they did in the song, but can't over the things they didn't do.

>If you compose a song, and then uses premade patches, does the composition cease to be yours? No, you are still the owner of the composition.
If the composition was the only thing in the song, then the song would be yours, but since the song is made out of other things, if those things aren't made by you, then your song isn't entirely yours, but only in part (whatever part of the work you did).

1/2

>But if you are making songs where the appeal lies solely in production, like in dubstep for example, then yes I can understant with your perspective to an extent as in order to claim ownership over what makes the song appealing, they would have to claim they produced the sounds themselves, which they did not if they were using patches.
Sure, that's the most blatant example of my argument, but even things that aren't immediately apparent to a listener can be pretty significant in the overall result.
My point is that anything that makes a non-negligible difference in the song can't be made by someone else without giving them part of the merit of the song's end result.

>But even in that example, it does not change the fact that the composition itself, how the synths were used in a song, is still what creates the song itself.
It only partially contributes to the song. Not entirely.

>Without an individual to determine how the sounds are used, there is no song, just a bunch of sounds.
DJ Khaled does nothing but tell musicians what he wants and they compose it and produce it for him. Is he a musician even if, in his words "that's all my vibes", despite him making no music and doing something that anyone who's never made any music could to?
No. He's a curator, not a creator.
Curating other people's work isn't a creative activity.
A musician is BOTH a curator and a creator.

>As the other guy said, taken to extremes you can say that everything is partially thanks to someone else
No because as I've already said, inspiration is different than straight up using someone else's work in yours.

>Using other peoples sounds will never change ownership over the composition of a song itself.
Never said otherwise.

>The only way your argument holds water is if it a composition thats value relies on crazy sounds and not any sort of melodic and harmonic contribution, again going back to my initial point.
See my response to that initial point of yours.

2/2

what's your process

instaud.io/3RqZ

Does anyone have any trouble making transitions when introducing new grooves or melodies in the song? It always sounds off to me no matter what I do. The above is what I am kinda stuck on atm.

As I said, you repeat the same nonsense over and over again.

>Not in a world where you can do everything yourself with little effort.
arbitrary, as in all of your posts before

>The song is just not fully yours.
as frequently stated, by now by three different anons beside me: a song is never FULLY yours, unless you take arbitrary standards. Maybe for you learning sound design was easy, for others (including me) learning music theory was

>Invalid analogy
now that's a strawman if I ever saw one. I never said anything about plagiarism. There is a difference between 'plagiarism' and 'not fully yours'. So your analogy with the word 'he' actually proves my point, although it is a bit weak because musical devices have no purpose in the real life.

>It's my point that you don't get.
your point is, if I use 'someone else's work, my work is not truly mine', right? I get it. I think it's nonsense.

>It doesn't affect quality, but it does affect creativity.
I agree, if you desperately try to make everything completely yourself it's gonna kill your creativity

Your last two paragraphs show that you don't get mine or the other anons' point. Arranging existing material is also a creative act that requires originality. And nothing is ever gonna be fully yours.
At one point you said that what you say is especially important in elecrtronic music... that's such a narrow way of thinking. Every artist has the right to make something that doesn't fit in any existing genre. The traditions of a music style should never stay in the way of one's creative flow
retard

transitions are the sole of a piece of music... like in porn. It's no wonder they make the most work

did you play those drums in by hand because they feel really off, also the samples are really weak imo maybe some different ones, or at least mix them better because they feel too out of place

A little bit of autism IS required for Reason appreciation that's for sure

I only got into this few days ago. I am the same user who posted this earlier >so still using the lite version and the only plug in I got so far is addictive keys that came for free with the sound card
That's all I am using atm, and still learning to mix

>Even by your definition, an electronic music producer IS valued by his sound, which is largely dependent on the sound design.

I acknowledged this and agree they ARE valued by their production, this is why they are called music PRODUCERS and not musicians.

What I'm really trying to say here is that when it comes to the perception of music producers, many possess a mindset that because someone makes electronic music, they must be judged predominately on production, while the actual ability to compose is ignored.

>people would expect musicians to make their own instruments because they'd be an integral part of their sound that they'd be outsourcing to somebody else. it would be like a singer outsourcing lyrics, even if it's a common thing to do in many genres

This is a bad analogy. An instrument and the timbre it produces is to do with the RECORDING while lyrics are to do with the COMPOSITION, they are two separate categories of song ownership altogether.

Even then, understanding your point, I disagree as musicians are valued for their ability to write/compose music. It is a double standard that is rampant in electronic music, one could be a brilliant composer but be called a fraud for not producing their own music despite composing it all. People who write live performance music are free to be praised despite not making their own instruments or producing their own records, yet electronic composers are SHAMED for not doing the same. It is a double standard, though this is just a side point, I am not directly accusing you of this. I don't think people would expect musicians to do it because they are valued in a fundamentally different way.

>>But even in that example, it does not change the fact that the composition itself, how the synths were used in a song, is still what creates the song itself.

I will clarify, a song is made up of both composition and recording, so you are correct, I actually meant composition here.

1/2

Also forgot to actually answer your question. Yes I did play the drums by hand, but I don't like how they sound like quantized

please quantize them and add some swing or something. not to be mean cause i know you're just starting out but they are so off its kind of hard to listen to, incase you don't know how to use swing on ableton yet

youtube.com/watch?v=M5QpesSjY-U

actually i forgot you said you were using lite, i hope it has the groove pool on it, cause i can't remember what limits Lite has

tell me what kind of track to make and ill make it

liquid drum & bass

>Only over the ENTIRETY of their song.
They can claim ownership of whatever they did in the song, but can't over the things they didn't do.

Then we are in agreement, mostly. I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that musicians don't make their instruments because of it being too difficult. They are seen as composers and performers where are electronic music PRODUCERS are valued for their production despite what they contribute compositionally.

>Curating other people's work isn't a creative activity.

Debatable. If by curating you mean selecting, directing and overseeing the creation of a song, doesn't it to some extent require creative vision? I would agree however that a curator should not be seen as as creative as a producer or composer though.

>No because as I've already said, inspiration is different than straight up using someone else's work in yours

Missing my point. A guitar is usually not made by the guitarist. I am specifically referring to production. You seemed to imply the idea that an electronic music creator is to be seen as not fully responsible for the creation of their own music when using (virtual) instruments created by others, while not applying the same attitude to musicians. However, you have now clarified, you ONLY mean if they are claiming responsibility for it, which I agree with.

We are mostly in agreement. My only question would be, would you ever imply that a musician isn't responsible for their own song (due to not recording and producing it and the instruments themselves)?

2/2

Musicians are given a pass to solely concentrate on making and performing music, where as electronic musicians are denounced for having the exact same focus on music over production. And it's nothing to do with "the difficulty" of making a live instrument. Their are electronic musicians who have built their own synths from the ground up digitally through programming. It is nothing more than a DOUBLE STANDARD. Electronic music creators have to learn more in order to receive the same reception, or risk being called a fraud.

It's literally nothing to do with how hard it is to make an instrument.

what's the general verdict on pic related, worth the money or?

Attached: LogoBlackNoBGMedium.png (600x166, 46K)

this. I think this might come from the fact that electronic music mostly is a very sound focussed music. But that doesn't mean that it has to be that way.

>However, you have now clarified, you ONLY mean if they are claiming responsibility for it, which I agree with.
who does that anyway, or are you implying that this is somehow common? Otherwise, like the other user said, it's a double standard. Nobody expects from a classical or pop/rock/jazz record to have the instrument manufacturers listed on the cover. So if you agree that this should not be mandatory the whole discussion becomes completely retarded again.

Wew that's a pushy way to ask.
I was gonna today anyway though so here.

instaud.io/3RrP

In this one specifically I played with my keys until I liked those chords, then just added shit on til I thought I had a good variety, arranged it basically, wrote the lead parts, then did more in depth arrangement stuff.

So what do you think as a 1st pass mixing? I'm gonna try it out in my car and write some notes then let it sit for a few days before tweaking anything.
Went for -8 lufs on the "all in" parts.

My personal criticisms are I'm not super sold on the reverb on the kick, the arrangement doesn't really flow as nicely as I'd like, and the lead seems a bit too busy at times and may be too loud.
My favorite part is when the synth horns get their fuller voicings and a little melody to them, which I wrote to be a middle 8 part, but I liked it so much I put it in the finale as well.

Attached: lots of colors.webm (1518x856, 1.87M)

it doesn't unfortunately, is there is a different method I could use instead for the groove?

the only other way i would know, is to quantise then move every note over slightly to get the desired amount.
just torrent suite, lite is cool but it'll just hold you back especially when you're learning

I like it... you shouldn't waste the material like that though. You kinda need a B section where other harmonies and/or another groove is introduced. As it is now you have basically heard the whole idea after the first 30 seconds, the rest is just some variation on that.

Regarding the mix, I think it's a bit harsh on the ears in the high frequencies.

In Live 9.5 how do I delete automation without deleting the midi mapping?

Attached: dfdjk.jpg (519x722, 24K)

and I mean ALL automation. I know how to delete all midi maps, but not all midi automation.

Nevermind I figured it out: "clear all envelopes"

Attached: A1569.jpg (250x250, 10K)

I like it, maybe try and copy what other people of the same genre are doing arrangement wise, because at the moment it sounds way too busy, and like there's no real tension & release..

mix sounds a bit dull to me personally, i wish i knew how to explain it a bit better

Imagine being so butthurt about last thread you make the new thread "fl is shit edition". I win.

That has a really cool vibe, but the bass is all wonky and needs to go. Maybe replace it with a string bass or just use the lower keys of the piano.
As for where to go just start arranging outwards and cycle in different instruments. I think imbibaphones or plucked violin sounds would go well with it.

>As I said, you repeat the same nonsense over and over again.
It's the only way to respond to you repeating the same nonsens eover and over again.
Maybe if you actually explained why it's nonsense I could change my mind, but all you do is say it's nonsense, and then argue against something I haven't said.

>arbitrary, as in all of your posts before
Not true.

>as frequently stated, by now by three different anons beside me: a song is never FULLY yours, unless you take arbitrary standards
"it's yours if you didn't use stuff made by other people" isn't an arbitrary standard.
I synthesize or record all my sounds myself, I compose and arrange everything, and I mix it and master it. How is my song not fully mine?
Other than making the tools (like instruments, gear, or software, which aren't part of the creative process and could very well be replaced with others from other brands), there's nothing I'm using that's made by other people.
AND EVEN THEN, I'm still acknowledging that my song isn't 100% mine BECAUSE of the impact that those things that I didn't make have on my song.
I accept that instead of lying to myself and saying that even if stuff mady by others is affecting my song, the song is 100% mine.

Besides, even if the cutoff line that decides what third party stuff is acceptable to use in your song, it's undeniable that presets are pretty close to the line, compared to anything that I'm doing.

1/3

Let's put it this way:
If 99% of what's significant (meaning it contributes to what's the final result) to my song is made by me, then this is 99% my song.
If 50% of what's significant to my song is made by me, then the song is only half mine, and the other half is thanks to someone else.
Now, we can disagree on how much each element affects the song, but that's besides the point, because at the end of the day synth patches are undoubtedly a big part of the final result, and using presets would bring the percentage of how much the song is yours down significantly.
If you're of with that, fine. Just accept that using other people's stuff in your song makes it less yours.

>I never said anything about plagiarism.
Jesus Christ do I have to spell everything for you?
You argued that using other people's work is fine because people already use stuff that's not theirs (like using a C chord) even if those things are as small as a C chord, so I made the analogy of a poet using other people's work (which I called plagiarism because that's what a poet using other people's work would be doing) saying it's fine because he's already using insignificant stuff that's not his (the word "he").
You obviously have severe reading comprehension, so I forgive you.

>There is a difference between 'plagiarism' and 'not fully yours'
The word "plagiarism" is only relevant to the poet's situation.
You're arguing semantics.

>So your analogy with the word 'he' actually proves my point
Not if you actually understood it.

>although it is a bit weak because musical devices have no purpose in the real life.
Irrelevant.

>your point is, if I use 'someone else's work, my work is not truly mine', right? I get it. I think it's nonsense.
NO you retard.
I said it's not FULLY yours. Not that it's not TRULY yours.
Big difference.

And you clearly don't get it because 100% of your responses ARE AGAINST SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY.

2/3

i did the demo. it's pretty fun but there's no way in christ i'd ever pay that much money for stuff i can learn for free without the gamification aspects.

>I agree, if you desperately try to make everything completely yourself it's gonna kill your creativity
Maybe that happens to you.
Not to everyone.
Also it's not difficult to not use other people's work in your music (unless they literally can't avoid to). Tons of musicians do it.

>Your last two paragraphs show that you don't get mine or the other anons' point. Arranging existing material is also a creative act that requires originality.
Not as much as CREATING the stuff you arrange yourself too.
There's no comparison at all.
Someone who creates before arranging will always be a better artist than someone who merely arrange.

>At one point you said that what you say is especially important in elecrtronic music... that's such a narrow way of thinking. Every artist has the right to make something that doesn't fit in any existing genre.
Sure.
There are many genres based entirely around samples, and I'm not saying that those genres shouldn't exist.
Only that those songs sound the way they sound thanks in part to whoever arranged them and in part to whoever made the stuff that they arranged.

You keep arguing as if I'm saying everyone should do everything.
I'm not.
I said multiple times that if you don't want to, then don't do it, but you should just accept that the merit is not 100% yours.

>The traditions of a music style should never stay in the way of one's creative flow
>retard
Never said otherwise.
Retard.

3/3

>I acknowledged this and agree they ARE valued by their production, this is why they are called music PRODUCERS and not musicians.
>What I'm really trying to say here is that when it comes to the perception of music producers, many possess a mindset that because someone makes electronic music, they must be judged predominately on production, while the actual ability to compose is ignored.
False dichotomy.
I never said anything about production being important and composition being unimportant.
Sure, composition is more important than production in all genres, even dubstep, but production is still very important.

>This is a bad analogy. An instrument and the timbre it produces is to do with the RECORDING while lyrics are to do with the COMPOSITION, they are two separate categories of song ownership altogether.
Yes, and?
It differs in category but the core point stills tands.
That's what an analogy is.
A different situation that works in the same way as the situation you're trying to explain.

>Even then, understanding your point, I disagree as musicians are valued for their ability to write/compose music. It is a double standard that is rampant in electronic music, one could be a brilliant composer but be called a fraud for not producing their own music despite composing it all. People who write live performance music are free to be praised despite not making their own instruments or producing their own records, yet electronic composers are SHAMED for not doing the same. It is a double standard, though this is just a side point, I am not directly accusing you of this.
Not all double standards are bad.
In this case it's good because the production of live music isn't a creative process, but merely a technical one.
In electronic music the production is a big part of the producer's job, so them not doing it means that they would be valued for something that they didn't do, at least in part.

1/3

Giving me kind of an FF8 town vibe, nice and calming.

>Then we are in agreement, mostly. I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that musicians don't make their instruments because of it being too difficult.
It's both because it's unreasonable to ask them to make their own instrument, AND because even if they did, it wouldn't make that much of a difference, so the merit of why the song sounds they way it does is still only in very small part on the instrument maker.

>They are seen as composers and performers where are electronic music PRODUCERS are valued for their production despite what they contribute compositionally.
Electronic music producers are almost always valued for both.
Only those who have out of this world production can get away with bad composition.
Everybody else needs good composition to be called a "good" producer.

>Debatable. If by curating you mean selecting, directing and overseeing the creation of a song, doesn't it to some extent require creative vision?
You changed my mind on this.
Curating does require SOME creativity if it involves all those things, but nowhere near as much as actually creating plus curating, and I don't think curating alone is enough for someone to be called an artist.

>However, you have now clarified, you ONLY mean if they are claiming responsibility for it, which I agree with.
Thank you.

2/3

Holy shit you guys are autistic it's probably why your music is so bad. You are even worse than art fags. The only thing that 99% of people care about is if your track sounds good.

>My only question would be, would you ever imply that a musician isn't responsible for their own song (due to not recording and producing it and the instruments themselves)?
A musician wouldn't be responsible for their own song (meaning it's not their own song) if the end result is entirely the product of someone else's work.
If they did 10% of what makes the song sound the way it is, then the song is 10% theirs.
If all they did is tell the musicians and producers that they want "a summery song with a hint of Nirvana but with Dubstep growls" and the musicians figured how to make it work, then they can only claim merit for whatever percentage that initial input is worth in the end result (which is the subjective part, but I don't think it's big enough to be able to say "mostly mine").

3/3

>Their are electronic musicians who have built their own synths from the ground up digitally through programming
Yes, and it's very difficult and requires many years of study and practice, so it's not realistic to expect them to do it.
Just like there are musicians who build their own instruments.
The exception doesn't make the rule.

If it was easy to make the instruments, and they were also significant in the end result, then it would become a part of the creative process.

An example of that is generative music.
Within that genre people make their own synths and programs even if it's difficult, because it's an integral part of the creative process, and someone who makes generative music but didn't make their own generators is called a hack (rightly so) because they'd be valued based on someone else's work, so even if it's difficult, expecting them to make their own is the most reasonable thing, because letting them use third party stuff defeats the entire purpose.

So it's not that it's difficult, but that it's BOTH difficult AND relativelt insignificant to the end result, and people take into account that they're just playing someone else's instruments.

okay unless you say something new this is my last answer

>"it's yours if you didn't use stuff made by other people"

give me one piece in music history for which this is the case?

>I synthesize or record all my sounds myself, I compose and arrange everything, and I mix it and master it. How is my song not fully mine?
are you really that dumb? do you program your own DAW and VSTs? Are you beats and baselines inspired by any other artist?

Wow, you are really retarded to the point that I think you are trolling. By now you repeat over and over that I should stop to tell you to repeat your bullshit over and over lmao

Yes, that is what I was referring to, the double standard. I felt as if he was implying that electronic musicians don't own their music if they don't make patches, but he clarified.

This double standard is a serious issue that pervades the entirety of electronic music. I think that it only began after Skrillex though. In the early 2000s electronic artists were still valued on their ability to write music, but after Skrillex, everything shifted to production, and anyone who didn't produce all of their own compositions were denounced for it, regardless of their musical contributions to the song. It's wrong. Why do electronic musicians have to learn double the amount of information to receive a fraction of the praise?

what is wrong with asking people for their opinion on your track? surely that's a great way to get better?

this niggas brain is stuck on false dichotomies and babbies first logical fallacy. rip my nigga.
he is a turboautist don't worry

>who does that anyway, or are you implying that this is somehow common?
Not him (I'm the guy he was responding to) but a lot of producers believe that using other people's stuff in your music (presets, samples, midi, etc.) takes away NOTHING from your ownership of the song, and it's still 100% yours.
All I'm saying is that they should accept that it's at least in part not thanks to them if the song sounds the way it does.

>Otherwise, like the other user said, it's a double standard. Nobody expects from a classical or pop/rock/jazz record to have the instrument manufacturers listed on the cover.
Just like nobody expects synth and software makers to be on the cover of electronic music records.

It's the truth.

Feedback and tips are fine. my only issue here is with the turboautist that is shitting up every thread with reddit paragraphs.

Anything that emulates any of a number of "string machines".

youtube.com/watch?v=smEMTPd2VgY

ye sorry i realised after i replied

Good.
Finally I can stop feeling like a preschool teacher.

Lmao.

Love the dreamy chords. I'd probably do it with some trip-hop inspired drum chopping and a reverb-drenched lead with a sparse arrangement.

>Why do electronic musicians have to learn double the amount of information to receive a fraction of the praise?
Because that's the job of the electronic musician. To do both.

Just like there's a double standard between opera singers and pop singers.
Everybody expects the first to just sing, but also the second to sing, dance, look good (ok, opera singers also need to be well dressed during performance, but that's all), have a good public image, and to write their songs.

Different jobs come with different tasks, even if the title is similar.

this argument is boring af but its better than the straight shitposting in last thread

how do I achieve this sound

imagine making music to get praised

>instaud.io/3Rm6
download synth1

>he doesn't produce entirely fore the "sounds cool bro" from his friends.

You now realize it's the same couple dozen failed producers who click on these generals and you've been arguing with/getting vapid criticism from literally the same anons for years.

Turns out you can still add swing manually without the groove pool. So I quantized everything and messed around with different swings. Is it better now? instaud.io/3Rsy

see
propellerheads.com/blog/artist-feature-iglooghost

I use FL Studio

>ok, opera singers also need to be well dressed during performance, but that's all
kek I first thought you made that analogy in favour of opera singers. You're aware that opera singers have to know how to sing much more perfectly, with an orchestra, live without any post production and at the same time also to act, aren't you?

>Different jobs come with different tasks, even if the title is similar.
you make it seem like this is an eternal truth. Producers of electronic music are human beings with a restricted amount of time to their disposal, so either they focus on composition or on production or they coop with other artists. But you can't ask them to always do both.

much better, there are still a few sections where the drums are kinda out of time and still needs a bit of work but definitely getting there.. turn up the piano because the drums are way too loud in the mix and maybe add a decent amount of reverb, idk if you can use sends on lite but if you can definitely add the reverb that way.

15 of us berating each other and giving bad advice it's great
Last thread got out of hand. There is nothing wrong with FL studio btw sry

redpill me on how to improve?

I plan on just dividing my production into composition/arrangement/sound design/mixing/mastering and just work on each separately. I'm tired of being ass lads.

>I say this a lot but it's just because I wish someone told me this when I was like 14. Make the stuff you are annoyed doesn't exist yet! You ever spend tons of time lurking YouTube and Yea Forums for some really specific dream combination of sounds that you invented in your head?

wtf
Iglooghost browses Yea Forums?

>I never said anything about production being important and composition being unimportant.

One of your (illogical) arguments, is that musicians would make their own instruments if it was easier. So the implication is that because it is easy for electronic musicians to do so, they
SHOULD make their own patches. This is inconsistent and a double standard as other user pointed out. Many electronic artists build their own software AND hardware synths. From the grounds up, and their is an EXPECTATION of electronic artists to have their own instruments, whether it is a synth patch or the synth itself. You insinuate multiple times that live performers don't do it because its too hard. This is beyond retardation.

>It differs in category but the core point stills stands.
No the core point is a poor one due to the analogy. Singing is NOT equal creating an instrument. I was being light on you, but if you insist on defending poor logic, then I have to be honest, it is a retarded analogy that greatly damages your 'core point',

>Not all double standards are bad.
Agreed

>In this case it's good because the production of live music isn't a creative process, but merely a technical one.
Wrong. Live music always requires creativity. Even within a DJ set.

>In electronic music the production is a big part of the producer's job, so them not doing it means that they would be valued for something that they didn't do, at least in part.
Someone who is a musician, who composes for electronic music, who puts their compositions together with patches, would be shamed for it. Even if the final result sounded great. This is wrong. If someone actually said "I am the greatest producer", then I would agree. But someone who simply composes music for electronic genres shouldn't be shamed for not being as invested into production if the final result is sonically good.

I have the reverb applied on the piano only, but not through sends, there are sends on Lite but I don't fully understand them yet, I do get the general idea though.

>kek I first thought you made that analogy in favour of opera singers. You're aware that opera singers have to know how to sing much more perfectly, with an orchestra, live without any post production and at the same time also to act, aren't you?
Yes, just like electronic musicians aren't expected to compose on a very high level.

>you make it seem like this is an eternal truth. Producers of electronic music are human beings with a restricted amount of time to their disposal, so either they focus on composition or on production or they coop with other artists. But you can't ask them to always do both.
That's why the most praised producers are good at both, and those who are only good at one aren't praised as much.

Not all jobs have to have the same difficulty. Some are harder than others.
Just like being a VST developer (who needs knowledge of a harder high performance language like C++, math, high level DSP, etc) is much harder than being a web or an app developer.

It is an eternal truth.

spend one day of the week just making drums, then synth patches,
loops,
fx/risers and shit
then whatever else and at the end of the week try and make something out of it all, thats how i got better

add reverb to the drums, they are really dry, im pretty sure ableton has a reverb set to send A as default, just move up the A dial on the channel rack on the drums

>Yes, just like electronic musicians aren't expected to compose on a very high level.
>That's why the most praised producers are good at both, and those who are only good at one aren't praised as much.

Well, speak for yourself. It depends if 'being praised' for you means playing for screaming teenie girls or being a part of the serious art music scene. People like Oscar Salla and Karlheinz Stockhausen are also part of the world of electronic music and they were certainly not great sound designers.

>It's both because it's unreasonable to ask them to make their own instrument,
But yet in your eyes, it is reasonable to expect electronic musicians to spend hours, ontop of learning all the music theory that the average musician has to learn, to also learn not just synthesis, but the ins and outs of music production as a whole AND know how to transfer all this knowledge from manufacturer to manufacturer. Yes you are retarded.

>AND because even if they did, it wouldn't make that much of a difference, so the merit of why the song sounds they way it does is still only in very small part on the instrument maker.

Wrong again. HEAVY METAL itself spawned from musicians taking more control over their sound, what what happening to their instruments. History proves designing your own sound/instrument can create entire new genres (skrillex another example).

>Everybody else needs good composition to be called a "good" producer.

I have already agreed with this point, if someone tries to claim ownership over something they haven't done, then that is wrong. But you are going a step further and implying that musicians shouldn't be held to the same standard whereas electronic artists are shamed by the same standards. That is bullshit. The double standard is wrong.

Let people be judged on what they have actually contributed, instead of being shamed because of not being held to abstract standards.

Probably frequents the Kpop threads.

Thanks man, that main thing is like a two year old thing I wrote and last night wanted to see what I could add. It was a lil quick thing so had to take away the ending and loop it. Uematsu is my fav VG composer also, so thanks.
clyp.it/rc1amnpy

I much prefer this thing I actually wrote recently, it’s a bit busy and I can’t mix too well, but it had more intention behind it than the other thing.

>it's another "the dhitposter copy-pastes old arguments at himself" episode
i hate this place

Just did, thanks

post results

Well I make music cause there’s nothing else for me in life, but I’d like for people to like it an receive it well. I don’t want to make shitty music to be edgy.

free sample packs?

I used to use a bunch but now all I use is Abletons Wavetable. Element gets an honorable mention.

>Being so stupid you need assleton
I don't need a daw I just use audio libraries for the C, C++, Python programming languages...

instaud.io/3Rt5

>instaud.io/3Rt5
Nice mediocre shit
You won a blow job experience with Angelina Jolie

calm down everyone starts somewhere

That's right, you should start sucking some dicks

Soundfonts with delay

kys

guys please stop

Attached: 1516668947638.png (1587x1600, 1.13M)

Today I've tried with no success, so it's god plan to stay here on earth insulting (You).

clyp.it/bw22nr3n

want to commit seppuku

>clyp.it/bw22nr3n
Nice mediocre shit
You won a blow job experience with Miley Cyrus

Man, I was whistling a melody along until that second percussion bit started with the weird timing. Now I'm disappointed.

Oof, isn't that a downgrade from Jolie?

>downgrade
Jolie doesn't have natural tits anymore

better don't feed the autist... I'd really like to hear some of his music

True but she likely doesn't have whatever kind of mutant herpes Cyrus does.
Plus I thought it was just a blowie, do we get to touch the talent as well?

its alright like, sounds like one of those tracks that have those london rappers on, not grime but the more pop shit

Do you think I should keep the same beat through whole song? Or it could be the weird swings I did, because I didn't really put much thought into it when I was applying them. I literally put swing on everything, not just the drums, was that a bad idea?

What would you do if I were naked in front of you?

take the swing off of everything except for the drums

vomit

I suggest watching a few youtube videos on beat composition, that will be your biggest help (ignore the trap ones they're just mediocre bullshit)

See how catartic I am?

>One of your (illogical) arguments, is that musicians would make their own instruments if it was easier. So the implication is that because it is easy for electronic musicians to do so, they
>SHOULD make their own patches.
No.
Musicians would make their own instruments if it was both easier AND as significant to their sound as synth patches are.
See (the last part, in response to )

>This is inconsistent and a double standard as other user pointed out.
Why is a double standard automatically a bad thing? See >Many electronic artists build their own software AND hardware synths. From the grounds up, and their is an EXPECTATION of electronic artists to have their own instruments, whether it is a synth patch or the synth itself.
Not true.
Nobody expects electronic musicians to make their own synths, unless it's the whole point of their genre (like generative music), just like nobody expects normal musicians to build their own instruments unless it's the whole point of their genre (music that revolves around wacky self-built instruments).
The point is that it's unreasonable because it's both hard (so it would require a lifetime of full-time work to build a quality piano/guitar/etc on par with one that you can buy so it would detract from their music abilities and almost no musican does that) AND ininfluent (so that even if it was easy there wouldn't be a point).

It's not a black and white rule of "it's too hard". It's because the more time-consuming it is, the less reasonable it is to expect it from them, and after a point it becomes too time consuming for a normal musician to do, so nobody does it, and people take this fact into account while judging a musician for their job.
Just like nobody judges an electronic musician for not making their own DAW, because it's taken into account that they didn't and people judge them for other stuff.

Making a synth patch isn't even in the realm of making the whole synth.

1/5

>Singing is NOT equal creating an instrument.
Where did I say so?
Please reread the post if you have to misrepresent it this much.

>I was being light on you, but if you insist on defending poor logic, then I have to be honest, it is a retarded analogy that greatly damages your 'core point',
It's only retarded if you completely misunderstand it, as you did.

>Wrong. Live music always requires creativity. Even within a DJ set.
I'm talking about THE PRODUCTION of live music, not about playing an instrument.
Please refrain from calling me a retard if you can't read.

>Someone who is a musician, who composes for electronic music, who puts their compositions together with patches, would be shamed for it. Even if the final result sounded great.
Yes because the job on an electronic musician isn't to just compose.
If it was, you wouldn't be an ELECTRONIC musician. Just a normal one.
What makes you an ELECTRONIC musician and not a normal musician is that you're doing it electronically.
If you're lettin other people do the part of your job that makes it "electronic musician", than people have all the right to say that you're not an electronic musician, but just a regular musician.

>But someone who simply composes music for electronic genres shouldn't be shamed for not being as invested into production if the final result is sonically good.
Sure, but he can't call himself an electronic producer if he can only compose and not produce.

It's all about what you call yourself.
If all you can do is program drum patterns and you use othe rpeople's stuff to make your song, then you should say that you're a drum programmer, and can't compare yourself to people who do what you do, plus a myriad of other things.

2/5

>Well, speak for yourself. It depends if 'being praised' for you means playing for screaming teenie girls or being a part of the serious art music scene. People like Oscar Salla and Karlheinz Stockhausen are also part of the world of electronic music and they were certainly not great sound designers.
We can define "praise" in a billion ways, from getting compliments online, to being commercially successful, to being critically acclaimed, to being taught about in college.
It's such a generic term and you can't say "you're wrong because it's not true in this particular definition".

>But yet in your eyes, it is reasonable to expect electronic musicians to spend hours, ontop of learning all the music theory that the average musician has to learn, to also learn not just synthesis, but the ins and outs of music production as a whole AND know how to transfer all this knowledge from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Yes it is because it's bart of the job description.
If you can't do that then you're not an electronic musician, but a regular one.
Electronic music isn't a genre. It's a way of making music.
Why do all the types of musician have to have the same skills?

>Yes you are retarded.
Sorry for not subscribing to your same cope for being too much of a brainlet.
Maybe one day you'll realize that music production isn't difficult for all of us lmao

>from manufacturer to manufacturer
Ahahahaha

3/5

instaud.io/3RtS like this?

>Wrong again. HEAVY METAL itself spawned from musicians taking more control over their sound, what what happening to their instruments.
HEAVY METAL IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE FOR MY POINT.
THEIR GENRE REVOLVES AROUND THE CREATIVE USE OF THEIR INSTRUMENTS TO OBTAIN A SOUND, SO IT'S EXPECTED FOR THEM TO KNOW HOW TO MAKE SOUNDS WITH THEIR INSTRUMENTS.
JUST LIKE ELECTORNIC MUSIC REVOLVES ABOUT USING SYNTHS TO MAKE SOUNDS AND IT'S EXPECTED FOR THEM TO KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
NOBODY EXPECTS HEAVY METAL MUSICIANS TO BUILD THEIR OWN GUITARS JUST LIKE NOBODY EXPECTS ELECTRONIC MUSICIANS TO BUILD THEIR OWN SYNTHS.
Lmao you're so bad at analogies that you made my argument for me.

>History proves designing your own sound/instrument can create entire new genres (skrillex another example).
Are you comparing making synth patches and using available software for sound design, to actually build your own instrument?
Are you retarded or you're trolling?
Or maybe you're one of those fuckheads who can't even use a synth so they think it's as difficult as building one from scratch?

Your entire argument revolves around you thinking that learning sound synthesis is prohibitively difficult and are butthurt that people don't respect you for not being able to (crying injustice instead of accepting your shortcomings).
It takes less than a week to be proefficient in sound design you absolute brainlet.
You're absolutely transparent.

4/5

>But you are going a step further and implying that musicians shouldn't be held to the same standard whereas electronic artists are shamed by the same standards. That is bullshit. The double standard is wrong.
Different titles come with different tasks.
Why are you an electronic musician if you can't do anything that normal musicans can't do?
What is an electornic musician if not a musician who does things electronically?

Just like being a VST developer (who needs knowledge of a harder high performance language like C++, math, high level DSP, etc) is much harder than being a web or an app developer.

>"boo hoo, why is a runner only required to run, while a soccer player is required to run, AND be able to play with the ball?"

>"boo hoo, why is a decathlon athlete expected to be an expert in all these different disciplines while other ahletes are only expected to do one?"

>"boo hoo, why is a stand up comedian required to write good jokes AND have good timing and delivery while comedy writers only need to write jokes for other people?"

>"why do employed workers only need to do their job but freelancers need to also learn the business side of things?"

THIS IS HOW STUPID YOU SOUND.

Just accept that you chose a harder job than a similar one and get to work. It's not that hard.

>Let people be judged on what they have actually contributed, instead of being shamed because of not being held to abstract standards.
Sure.
If I hear great electronic music but find out that they didn't produce it, then I judge them as good musicians but not good ELECTRONIC musicians.
Just like Kavinsky who used to have his music produced by SebastiAn. He's a good musician and I judge his music for what it is, but Sebastian can make great music AND produce it, so he fits the description of an electronic musician much better than someone who doesn't do the "electronic" part.

5/5

Thanks guys, I'll keep on tryna study arrangement techniques, got any book/video suggestions?
I'm like halfway through the DMM but I keep fucking with DAW shit when I should be reading.

HF harshness I'll make a note of, likely from the FM synth or the overdriven organ, for when I retouch the mix in a few days.
"Dullness" could be a few things, likely that the master chain consists of four compressors and two maximizers, but possibly because of the "tape" effects on all the percussion and the master and some of the fairly deep EQ cuts I made.

Offer you my shirt.

Offer you my shit*.
Sorry, autocorrect.

Shit makes flowers grow, I need it for my plants.

Also I'm a famous electronic musician I'm just here for the lulz ahah. I'll put you in one of my next songs

much better, just keep working on it

dude you're way of arguing is insufferable. You're obviously not interested in mutual education but you only dissect arguments looking for possibilities to twist the other anons' words. If you were the diligent musician you make believe you are you wouldn't torture us with these multipart verbosities.

>Just like being a VST developer (who needs knowledge of a harder high performance language like C++, math, high level DSP, etc) is much harder than being a web or an app developer.
Please stop. You don't know what you're talking about. This is laughably bad information.

>your
inb4 retard

>got any book/video suggestions?
when i started out i read tonnes and watched loads on arrangement techniques, and it just made me more confused.. literally the best advice i could give anyone starting out is to just import your fav song/the song you are taking influence from and take note of exactly how it is laid out, then completely copy it with your own music, see how it works and if there are issues just fix them, too many people cry over arrangement but that's honestly what I would do

>fairly deep EQ cuts
try using sidechaining, and saturation to help parts as well

the best way to learn it imo is analyzing stuff you like. In general you can say that any part needs its counterpart. A single note gets value only when it is met with a second note, a chord with a second chord, a section with another section. A dominant is to a tonic what a verse is to a chorus.
I made the observation with my own behaviour that not writing B sections often is just due to the fact that I'm too lazy to write transitions... transitions are the stuff that makes music good, imo, but it's also the hardest part

>I'm like halfway through the DMM but I keep fucking with DAW shit when I should be reading.
that's a better use of your time honestly

where could i post a song (not mine) and get help understanding the way it is mixed?

Question: in sties dedicated to the sale of samples, in which you can hear them or at least a selection of some of loops found in the sample pack... is it a low bitrate preview, or does it sound exactly like the sample you buy?

I've been "pirating" a few samples by recording the previews with audacity, and just realized maybe I'm getting a low quality version, even if I save the files as high quality wavs.

gearslutz/kvr, the boomers are pretty good at that shit, what song is it?

Literally what the other guy did to me.
I always argued politely and provided counterarguments to the content of their posts, but then they started using fallacies and calling me a retard (literally saying "you believe ? you're reatrded"), at which point I got aggressive.

I think you're the guy himself, because it's not possible for someone to read the discussion and see them calling me retarded first when I merely made my argument, then misrepresent and twist my words, and say that I'm the insufferable one.

The second guy started out as reasonable, admitted that he misunderstood my post and that he agreed when I elaborated. I responded politely and even admitted that I was wrong on a point and that he convinced me.
Then he switched for no reason, so I stopped being respectful and gave him the same treatment he gave to me.
Why am I the one being called out?

I'll give you that I'm very verbose, but I'm not doing anything wrong that they haven't done to me first.

How is it wrong?
Please elaborate.

I doubt they'd preview low quality because that would throw off potential customers? maybe itll say on their site somewhere?

this song: youtube.com/watch?v=13Tvr7Tz0Oc
the drums have me intrigued

Pirate them from AudioZ then buy them if you like them.

No, I watched the conversation. You called him retard first, and you didn't adress his points. You just spammed the thread with your walls of text.

I literally have a sequencer app on the App store, and it's not wrong.
A bit vague, but there's nothing incorrect in that part of the post.

every thought about being wrong?

>You called him retard first
Please point the exact post.

>and you didn't adress his points
>You just spammed the thread with your walls of text
Yes, the walls of text were just random characters, not at all a response to your arguments.

Fuck off dude, your samefagging is more than transparent.

90% of that is just the weird panning they have going on, i quite like it although its making me anxious (im listening through my macbook speakers so take what im saying with a grain of salt)

Yes, I even admitted it above on one of the points we were arguing.

What about you?
Ever thought that you might be wrong?
I'm sure you have, otherwise you wouldn't have resorted to twisting my words or calling me retarded with no explanation, just to not appear like you've been proven wrong.

I have no problem admitting my mistakes, and I've been pressing the first guy for actual arguments to actually prove that I'm wrong instead of merely stating so, but I couldn't get an actual argument out of him.

The second guy argued normally and we were having a normal discussion but then switched to posting like the first guy.

I'm not going to be the next victim of your pointless bullshit. Do something with your life, e.g. make music.

that was the post when you became insulting for no reason

Yeah you're right, I started insulting him because I got angry at him twisting my words.
It was irrational and I shouldn't have done that.
I apologize.

Hahahahahahaha. Wow I never manage trigger people this hard even when I'm trying. Most of these points are complete utter garbage that don't actually refute anything I've said.

In a nutshell. how your brainlet logic works:
>Keep linking to past comments to avoid having to address flawed logic
>Strawman points I've made
>Out right deny points that you have insinuated by acting like my critique of your point is a direct quote, therefore being able to deny ever saying it
>Acting as if own personal preference is universal law and should be perceived and enforced as such

And no, not a single one of them greentexts are direct quotes, retard. But this is your overall way of reasoning.

Why even spam this much nonsense when you aren't even saying that much? Are you that upset? This is so tiresome.

Literally false.
This whole post.
Glad you're not even trying to pretend you're not baiting.

Sad. I liked when you were actually arguing with me instead of calling me retarded for no reason.

You generalized "web apps" and app developing to a retarded degree. It can easily be more difficult than developing a vst depending on what you are going for.

(aside fromt he fact that I haven't said "web app developer" but "web or app developer")
Of course, you dumbass.
There are exceptions to this (complex apps or simple VSTs), but generally, making the average website app is much easier than making the average VST.

It makes total sense in context (both as the analogy and the literal situation it describes) but you're nitpicking just to insult me.

nice backpedaling. I'm nitpicking because you're making stupid generalizations.

>No.
Musicians would make their own instruments if it was both easier AND as significant to their sound as synth patches are.
See (the last part, in response to (You))

>This is inconsistent and a double standard as other user pointed out.
Why is a double standard automatically a bad thing? See Trash re linking instead of addressing your own logical inconsistencies.

>Nobody expects electronic musicians to make their own synths
By synth I mean sound libraries, incase you misunderstood. And IF you are going to argue that, yes people DO expect them to create their own sounds. YOU do. One of your central arguments has been that 'it comes with the job'. This is your own personal perspective. If someone wants to focus on COMPOSITION, and they decided to record their COMPOSITIONS electronically, and it sounds good, why should they be shamed? They shouldn't, and that was my final point I stated earlier. Let people be judged on what they actually contribute, not standards made by retards like yourself

>muh production
>Le it come with the job

I'll continue to call you retarded for having these opinions. The fact that you are zooming in sooo much on irrelevant points, and them STILL FAILING to provide a substantial counterargument is pretty funny desu. You definitely seem to have autism to some extent.

Relinking is the same as repeating my point.
If I'd have addressed your point by repeating what I said above, why type it again if I can link it?
Why is this a problem?
Oh wait, it's not. You're just pretending it is just so you can say I'm not "arguing correctly".

>By synth I mean sound libraries, incase you misunderstood.
Who would ever mean it like that?
I don't believe you that that's how you meant it. It doesn't make any sense.

>And IF you are going to argue that, yes people DO expect them to create their own sounds. YOU do. One of your central arguments has been that 'it comes with the job'. This is your own personal perspective.
I wasn't arguing that, as I obviously do expect them to make their own synth sounds.
This whole paragraph was pointless and you knew from the start that this wasn't my argument.

>If someone wants to focus on COMPOSITION, and they decided to record their COMPOSITIONS electronically, and it sounds good, why should they be shamed? They shouldn't, and that was my final point I stated earlier. Let people be judged on what they actually contribute, not standards made by retards like yourself
You already made this argument and I addressed it here >>muh production
>>Le it come with the job
>If I repeat his argument in a funny way I prove he's wrong

>I'll continue to call you retarded for having these opinions.
Just like my 4yo cousin calls me stupid for thinking that 3x2 is 6.

>The fact that you are zooming in sooo much I'm merely addressing your points one by one.
Besides, you're the one who's digressing into side points and you've even admitted it here >though this is just a side point, I am not directly accusing you of this

>and them STILL FAILING to provide a substantial counterargument
Now you're baiting.

>You definitely seem to have autism to some extent.
Doesn't surprise me that someone like you would think that.

This discussion is going nowhere. This is my last post.
Goodbye.

I fucking hate you guys so much

>Where did I say so?
>people would expect musicians to make their own instruments because they'd be an integral part of their sound that they'd be outsourcing to somebody else. it would be like a singer outsourcing lyrics, even if it's a common thing to do in many genres

Your (retarded) analogy makes the assumption that the two are the same. They aren't. Writing LYRICS is composition, the TIMBRE of an INSTRUMENT, is recording.

>I'm talking about THE PRODUCTION of live music, not about playing an instrument.
Please refrain from calling me a retard if you can't read.

I mean ALL live music you retard. what did I type?

>Live music 'ALWAYS' requires creativity.

You are the one who can't read retard.

>Yes because the job on an electronic musician isn't to just compose.

The job of a MUSICIAN is to make MUSIC. The OFFICIAL OXFORD DEFINITION:

>a person who plays a musical instrument or writes music

You are a colossal retard acting as if your preconceived biases and prejudices are fact. Who are you to determine what the 'job' of an electronic musician is? It electronic is just a medium, it HAS NO JOB. and the definition of a musician is defined above.

>If you're lettin other people do the part of your job that makes it "electronic musician", than people have all the right to say that you're not an electronic musician, but just a regular musician.
>Sure, but he can't call himself an electronic producer if he can only compose and not produce.

If you are making compositions and then recording them electronically, you are an electronic musician. This is objective fact. according to the definition listed above, if you use the electronic medium, EVEN IF you don't make your own patches, you are STILL an ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN. Your own preference is irrelevant, the etymology is FACT.

It cannot be argued with, it is LITERAL FACT.

Can we stop throwing shit at each oter and unite together to make fun of Multiplier?

He keeps building studios and wasting whatever money he makes from YT as if he actually needs a studio at all.
youtube.com/watch?v=jvyl3ds5yTo
Look at him guys. Look! haha

I am still arguing with you, you have posted so much bullshit it takes time to respond. The reason I call you retarded is because you continue to maintain the same position despite facts.

Ok, now I finally understand that you're right and I'm retarded.
Thanks for finally making me see the light.

You're not arguing, you're just stating your opinion and insulting me.
Or some times just insulting me lmao.

why would i give a shit that a moderately successful youtuber wants to buy some gear? you sound like an asshole user

user pls

fuck I miss old /prod/

Will you guys help me try to come up with a name for this track? I know it's lo-fi bullshit and that's always shit on, but I figured I'd say, "Fuck it" and take my chances.

instaud.io/3RuY

Does the mix seem full enough? I know it's all wonky because of all the reprocessing and shit, but I just wanted some fresh ears on this.

Also, what's this make you think of?

Attached: 24859025-4.png (486x464, 320K)

god he's so fucking annoying, I can't believe anyone watches him

Autists writing paragraphs were an integral part of old /prod/.
Remember Phaser's golden age? Imagine if he was here too.
I'd have literally reported the thread hoping to get it deleted to start a fresh one.

i normally just name tracks absolute bullshit because who really cares in the end,

mix sounds alright, it is what it is, nothing annoying me

decent track although I feel like maybe some more variation of the drums, and maybe 4 mins is a bit too long, I feel like the track only really needs to be 2 and a half mins top personally

This heavy metal response is one big strawman. My point was that you insinuated that musicians don't need to change the timbre of their instruments (via actually designing their own instruments) as it wouldn't make that much of a difference. So I used Heavy Metal as an example that proves this completely and utterly false. You insinuated electronic musicians should care more about their sound because it matters more where it doesn't matter as much with musicians, and that complete bullshit.

>NOBODY EXPECTS HEAVY METAL MUSICIANS TO BUILD THEIR OWN GUITARS JUST LIKE NOBODY EXPECTS ELECTRONIC MUSICIANS TO BUILD THEIR OWN SYNTHS.

Again specifcally strawmanning the point. The production of heavy metal matters more than with other live performance genres, and there actually ARE artists within the genre who have had custom made guitars for this very reason. The only reason people don't EXPECT them to, is because people don't have the same standards for live musicians compared to electronic musicians.

And this is a further strawman because by synth I was referring to sounds originally crafted by the electronic musician. The only equivalent for live musicians is to design their own instrument. But no one expects that of live performers which is nonsense, even in a production heavy genre like Heavy Metal, their is still no expectation, where as electronic musicians MUST design their own sounds from the ground up, whether that is designing a patch or a synth itself, which many have.

>Your entire argument revolves around you thinking that learning sound synthesis is prohibitively difficult and are butthurt that people don't respect you for not being able to (crying injustice instead of accepting your shortcomings).

You are making many assumptions and also strawmans again. I never made any anecdotal arguments, so who I am is irrelevant. I never even said it was difficult, you are getting all emotional and butthurt because you have retarded logic. 1/2

Yeah, I didn't realize it was that long until it had rendered. I usually lower the playback rate after I've got everything sounding all grungy and shit because it increases the effect of it all.

Thanks for the listen, user. I'll do some rearranging and see how much I can cut it down.

>Your entire argument revolves around you thinking that learning sound synthesis is prohibitively difficult and are butthurt that people don't respect you for not being able to (crying injustice instead of accepting your shortcomings).

The argument was never about difficulty, it was about consistency. If a musician decides to use electronic music as his method of recording his compositions, he should not be shamed because of his lack of interest in producing all of his own sound, as you have insinuated on multiple occasions.

Again repeating myself and going back to my point earlier (because you are a literal retard who selectively ignores things that prove you to be a retard), let people be judged on their ACTUAL contributions, instead of being shamed for some abstract standards made by autistic retards such as yourself.

not just paragraphs but literal 5 part essays of tism

>accuses of strawmanning WHILE making a strawman.
>for the entire post
Impressive.

As much as I'd like you to waste your time, I told you that I stopped engaging with you.
I'm not gonna waste any more time dealing with your bullshit insults and fallacies.

i honestly didn't think it was all that lo-fi, maybe work on that a bit more if that's what you're going for?

there's useful/educational on topic paragraphs and then there's semantic/pointless bullshit:
>"no you said/that word means!"
>"x daw is shit/better than yours"
>anything about forgoing theory or saying it's *literally* impossible to write without it
>x genre is shit and everybody who makes it a shit
>if you sample u shit
>if you can't play instruments
etc. and the people who reply to them are just as bad. nobody changes anybodies mind on those topics ever and coming at it from those particular angles helps nobody

>all that gear
>room still not treated

>This discussion is going nowhere. This is my last post.
>Goodbye.

Hahahahaha. Wtf. I wasn't even baiting. You are the complete sperg hammering every point I made without making any significant argument. I don't even entirely disagree with everything you have said but you are way way way to invested in zooming in on everyone of my statements and trying to make a substantial rebuttal, even when you don't have one.

I actually agreed with some points you made but you struggle to be able to do the same despite the fact we don't disagree on everything.

When I was calling you an autistic retard, I really meant it, I hope you understand.

Protip: Don't sperg everywhere if you can't clean up your own mess.

Don't take it to heart. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings user. I apologize for calling you a retard. But you definitely exhibit traits of autism.

I'd be willing to keep going for days if you didn't just switch to insults and strawman arguments in ALL of your replies.
None of us has nothing to gain here.

>I actually agreed with some points you made
You only agreed on things that you were previously agreeing on but thought I was saying differently.
You didn't change your mind on anything.

I don't care that you're insulting me. I'm butthurt that you're insulting me INSTEAD of arguing.

In all honesty, I think you're just trying to bait me.
Wouldn't make sense otherwise.

hey stop making sense asshole

"The Streetlight Said 'Keep Walking', So I Did"

I dunno, makes me think of a walk through a skeezy part of town at night.

>I don't care that you're insulting me. I'm butthurt that you're insulting me INSTEAD of arguing.

I insulted you WHILE arguing. I actually did make points above.

Look I won't call you a retard again. Though I stand by my autistic comments.

This is really the only point I ultimately wanted to make: Let people be judged on what their contributions are, instead of being shamed for not meeting abstract standards.

That was original point.

But now I would also like to make this point: Just because you don't synthesize your own sounds, doens't mean you can't be considered an electronic musician.

They are the ultimate 2 points I have been trying to argue, making other arguments I believe support these points. When you disagreed with the other arguments I assume you disagree with these 2 points. So are we in agreement over these 2 points?

this whole discussion gave us no answer, is it ok to use samples and presets or should I feel bad for using them?

Attached: 15438699579401.jpg (1125x1116, 678K)

Look I'm gona have to stop this. I remember when Yea Forums was peaceful and people could discuss things on threads without shit being thrown.

If you want to be seen as a producer, make your own bank. If you are ok with not being seen as a producer, it's fine, but you will have to make up for it musically or risk being seen as a talentless hack.

None of your posts contained any arguments.
They were either insults or responses to things I didn't say.
I read everything even if I didn't respond, and if I did it would just be a specific version of this.

>This is really the only point I ultimately wanted to make: Let people be judged on what their contributions are, instead of being shamed for not meeting abstract standards.
I agree on this.

>But now I would also like to make this point: Just because you don't synthesize your own sounds, doens't mean you can't be considered an electronic musician.
You are an electronic musician because technically you make electronic music, but you're a lesser electornic musician than what you'd be if you were able to.

The two guys arguing about it for the whole thread seem a bit daft imo.

I might be wrong, but the best way to approach the problem is to have presets that can get close to the sounds you want, and then have a knowledge of synthesis so that yoiu can tweak them in hardware/software to get them where you want.

There's no point working from the ground up when 90% of the job is there ready and done, that's just going to slowdown your workflow to the point your clients aren't going to come back because you have a terrible turnaround time.

Attached: pd,x400,macbook_air_13-bg,ffffff.u10.jpg (558x400, 23K)

use samples but tweak and manipulate them as much as possible personally, but honestly who the fuck really cares as long as it sounds good

>talentless hack.
anyone that uses this phrase cannot be taken seriously and thus I'm not worried about being judged by them. samples and presets are fine and most producers use them.
they are mad autistic

>None of your posts contained any arguments.

I actually made this argument earlier, and you agreed with it, but you zoomed in on every other point I made that was purely made to support that point. So naturally I responded.

But we are ultimately in agreement. You agree that you are still an electronic musician and with my initial point.

It was a fun discussion. Sorry for being rude. Bye.

>Sorry for being rude

Based etiquette user

Yes depends what the goal is. If you are working for clients, I agree, it is all about making sure they get what they want.

But if you are a solo producer making a name for yourself as such, you have to craft your own sound to be seen and respected as a producer.

Also useful for not sounding like everybody else.

You can be rude. I don't care.
As long as you also argue against my points.

>It was a fun discussion
I'd have rather spent the time doing something else.

>Bye
Goodbye.

I just want to thak you guys for this, I've copied the whole thing to a text file so I can reenact this argument in a few years.

i know this is stupid, but i had to ask.
i usually drag an operator into a drumrack in order to make a kickdrum, i transpose it either at -24dB or -36. So the question is, when i do that, the root note is always in c?