More SPACE and less DESNSITY...

[Nestor]

More space and less density:

I think we are all using perhaps, too many effects and too many sounds at the same time in this Easy-to-build-Music-Projects-No-Musicians-Needed-Era.

Today I was listening to some music in a reflexive way and thought... that we are perhaps... overloading our songs with a bit of everything.

Typical would be the exaggerated amount of “reverb” for instance. Contradictory I’m one of those who are actually using more and more effects every day. I tend to search for new sounds, for new horizons and so, I use everything at my reach, but I think than in general, we are overloading our music with effects and instruments, when in reality, sometimes little means much… I nevertheless make a clear difference - when working, between using FXs as a creative tool and using FXs as a way of covering something I can’t find otherwise: a theme, a musical idea, or any musical else, I think I've made myself clear now.

The other day my girlfriend said to me: “Why do you have this organ there, what is it for?” I thought this organ was the very core of the timber of the groovy I was creating, but paying attention to what she said to me, I tried putting it out and the sound was now in perfect balance. It was not obvious to hear, not at all... cos the sound of this organ was son nice that you would never think putting it out… Well, when I did, everything sounded just better.

I think that in many occasions, using only three or four instruments you can achieve very good results, concentrating more in musical creativity rather than in tweaking knobs. (Please understand I am not being disrespectful to those who are tweaker knobs fans. Even more, this is one side of music creation I am keen to learn about)

This last 10 years of music are going to an overloading of FXs usage I think, and we could do equal or best with less than that.

Which is your understanding on this? Please, be open minded and give me your opinion so we deeply analyse the subject together, intelligently...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2002-06-07 20:17 ]</font>

[kensuguro]

A tough topic to tackle, but it's always good for the musician's mind.

As naive as my opinion may be, I think that simply knowing each of the effects good enough to be able to accurately aim for the end result is the way to go. At times, you may use just the right amount of everything to creat that perfect atmosphere. And you may also aim for that dry feeling that brings out the roughness, raw-ness of the session. And then, when you're in a hurry, and don't have time to figure out that perfect harmony, you use way too much effects to smear it up. The job has to get finished ya know.

So in any case, it seems to me that to know just what the result is that you're creating with the effects, would be the correct way of dealing with it.

In a more compositional way, I totally agree with the 4 instrument way of working. If it can be done with 20 instruments, it can be done using 4. (and your tracking software runs more smoothly too) When building something with more than 4 tracks, I find that I use the excessive instruments to accent the main 4, or use 2 in conjunction to build 1 of the 4.. but taking a step back, it's still obvious that I'm working around 4 main streams of grooves and melodies. Dunno, maybe fugue still does live on in modern music. That fugue way of thinking is always very good for the music. Does that note have to be there? Is the note in the most harmonically efficient position? Does that voice move to contradict/accent the motif?

This is very, very essential to styles such as hip hop. Hip hop is so minimalistic these days, most tracks are built around 3-4 main samples. It's either be there and change the texture of the entire song, or trash it. While the efficiency is superb, one wrong creative decision can totally kill the tune. I kind of like that situation cuz there's alot to be learned.

I guess it's not really a question of knob tweaking or not. The efficiency is always at question and there are ways to be efficient in any style.

[garyb]

yes,good advice,tho it depends on what you're doing.some nigerian music is written with three (no more,no less!)different keys playing at the same time............

[paulrmartin]

I like to think in choral terms: Soprano, Alto, Tenor, Bass. That gives me vertical (harmony)and horizontal(melody) movement. At the same time comes rhythm: Dynamic movement balanced against static movement(flurries against block chords or short notes against long notes).

As far as space is concerned I believe that each piece has it's own "personality" and deserves it's own treatement. If it needs to be cluttered up with 100 reverbs then so be it! If it calls for only one instrument playing solo over the song of a robin in a forest, so be it as well.

Only the composer can truly determine what he wants for his creation but he does have to know when to say "No" when adding new layers and delete them.

[eliam]

Absolutely... There is no absolute, but there are certain things that do not change much... When you look at most symphonic scores, you realize that the composer did not overcrowd the music harmonically nor instrumentally to keep his ideas clear. When many instruments are heard together, they play the same notes so that they add something to the general tonal texture while vertically everything stays balanced and cognizable. Generally, chords of 5 notes or more are carefully and with subtlety brought to life when they are relevant.

The concept of foreground vs background is very important to grasp for composers and orchestrators in order to maintain clarity in an orchestration. Some elements have to emerge from the background so to create a spatial feeling in the music. Just like in a play, all the actors do not speak at the same time, so is it in music, where instruments must share the room and cooperate to the beauty of the whole. That is a lack I find in many music, my own included. Sometimes, the dynamics are too homogenous, and the instruments could travel from the background to the front and back again when appropriate.

[Neil B]

I think we all tend to look at this with composers eyes or technical/studio engineers ears.
The man in the street who buys music, for the most part, is not judging a track or an album by which type of reverb was used, how many instruments there were in the studio, but whether he or she actually likes it. More often than not this is due to a catchy melody or one effective sound that captivates that person. Less can be more in most cases.
Take a classic such as Tubular Bells. How many instruments are there in the first 5 or 6 minutes. Not many, but the lasting impression is always the first few bars of piano. perhaps these were warmed up with reverb, perhaps not.
If you have a strong string section in a track that took several layers of samples to achieve the result, so be it. For the composer it is the realisation of the sound that they wanted. For the listener it is a good string section, not a collection of samples.
I suppose in summary, it is a case of composers having so many facilities, sounds, effects etc nowadays that the temptation is to try and throw everything into every track, whereas we should be aware of what all these things can do, but use them only when they are needed. There is a danger of creativity being stifled due to technology getting in the way, when all the listener wants is something memorable that sounds right to them. Definitely a case of less is more.

[eliam]

I couldn't agree more with you, Neil. In french, there is an adage which says "C'est l'air qui fait la chanson". It means that we can recognize a song to its melody. And that is true, but can a dedicated composer feel fulfilled in composing only solos, duos or quartets? I guess so. The possibilities of the human voice are infinite, as well as each musical instruments... But for me, who have chosen to dedicate my whole life to music, I feel impelled to explore a wide variety of orchestrations and ensembles, from the solo to the symphonic...
For now, I work in solo and sometimes duo, because I don't find many partners, and it cand be quite intense that way! As for my orchestral endeavours, I can touch them with my sampler and sequencer for now, until all the musicians I need are around... Soon I hope...

[Nestor]

I think we do exactly what you would do sometimes, when you have too many good thinks in your fridge. You go, you get something you like, but you like something else too, so you get it too... Then you finished with a table full of food. First of all, you can only eat some of it, and second, many times a single taste stands out bettern and it's more pleasant than mixing many different flavours toguether.

We tend to mix too many timber flavours toguethern and by the end, you don't know what is going on, cos you don't like it enymore.

If there are two or three timbers which are very rich, they will kill each other. But if there is just one which is predominantly there, it's all right. For example, a strong "Camamber" is likely to take all the flavour, it'll convine well with some butter, but not with some... I don't know... let's say mustard. The whole thing will be too strong. Like my last song, where I sing, there are two instruemtns colliding each other, the drum against the percution.

Of course, it's a very subjective example, but just for you to get what I want to say.

[garyb]

3 DIFFERENT keys at the SAME TIME!

[paulrmartin]

Gary, it worked for Charles Ives. Doesn't mean it works for everybody though

[Nestor]

Some brown bread to start, raw onion, some dinosaur-marmalade a la Parmesan, a slice of hippopotamus jaws in pickling brine and… of course, Dijon’s mustard on top of it. This dish should always be served with chilled sweet white wine…

[garyb]

it's a STYLE! in some locations 3 different keys works for everybody.(with talent)

[eliam]

To continue in the kitchen vein, -now I speak as a vegetarian cook, I can say that I often come up with something REALLY TASTY by combining many -well chosen- ingredients. Everything is in choosing the right things and balancing them in the right way. For instance, I make delightful sauces, which are all-purpose meal flavour enhancers. Sometimes I can put 30-40 ingredients in them -spices, herbs, oils, vinegars, etc. etc. and people -me included- are just amazed at how tasty they are...

So is music: with the right dosage and combinations, many tasty ingredients can combine to synergetically result in something delicious. Of course this is an art in itself, and changes nothing to the marvelous taste of a raw asparagus eaten as is...! Anyhow, I must say that the most vital ingredient in any creation, be it musical, culinary or of any nature, is the Love that one puts in it...

Has anyone ever heard a symphonic orchestra performing live? If not, then go hear one, it's worth it. The first time I heard the Montreal symphonic orchestra was the first moment where I really understood what music's all about. What Life's all about... Having a group of persons acting as if they are one to reach a goal of harmony where every element contributes to the upliftment of the whole, and of the audience... That is quite a lesson!

[garyb]

true.

[Nestor]

Wow Eliam! There you got me completely! Absolutely agree with you, and I’m even happy to see someone to think like that, it just makes me feel happy and a bit more human too.

[Matt]

Quote:

The other day my girlfriend said to me: “Why do you have this organ there, what is it for?”

Well Nestor if she doesn't know by now....?

sorry, basic humour I know, but it's Friday!

[Nestor]

Ok!!! for the first time i'm going to use the correct word, cos you actually are talking about the staff... I'm not mistaken then... BTW, she, and only ***SHE*** knows where it is...

Fidelity at work, remember?

[garyb]

On 2002-06-11 13:11, Nestor wrote:
Some brown bread to start, raw onion, some dinosaur-marmalade a la Parmesan, a slice of hippopotamus jaws in pickling brine and… of course, Dijon’s mustard on top of it. This dish should always be served with chilled sweet white wine…

oh,japanese food!

[kensuguro]

Sushi!! hehe.

[pavig]

On 2002-06-07 20:13, Nestor wrote:
More space and less density:

I think we are all using perhaps, too many effects and too many sounds at the same time in this Easy-to-build-Music-Projects-No-Musicians-Needed-Era.

A friend of mine spent a few years working with Michael Stavrou, an Australian audio engineering guru (who's book, mixing with your mind, is worth a read: http://www.mixingwithyourmind.com/)

Several of the tricks Michael taught him (which may be relevant here) he passed on to me.

One of them is to pan your channels BEFORE you touch the levels, so that you create the space for each sound without being influenced by the desire to hear it front and center.

The other is to turn your effects up until you can hear them THEN turn them down till you can't any more. This is particularly true of reverbs and delays. The sense of space remains but the mooshy wall of sound disappears and the instruments are able to play within their own dynamic range with more clarity.

Effects are a necessity in the digital domain where everything is so clean to start with, to get some artificial air back into recordings. I can't complain, my synthesis method is heavily feedback loop based and i tend to take things to an extreme on that level. Even so, i think there's a tendancy to rely too heavily on beefing up the timbres of our sources instead of giving them the room to breathe.