Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Ahhh so grasshopper you been wistning to Jellbean wately?
    
    Notice that other spatially interesting trick of altering the reverb on
    various rhythm parts as the mix progresses, like I tried last night eg:
    clap, clap, clap plus massive reverb.
    It sounds bloody wicked in the final mix and is a little less obvious
    than the "lets break back to the beat then bring the bass back in"
    cliche. (CONFESSION:which I also used last night!)
    Another interesting source of stunning production tricks other than
    Master Jellybean, is the Art of noise - musically they can be
    irritating but (and this is probably why) they do introduce no end of
    slick production tricks.
    
    Hah well, TUNE, huh? Hmmm now where'd I leave that dictionary.............
    
    
    
    
    

    It was the KLF's `What Time Is Love' that brought it to mind.  On
    Saturday I'm going to put a House pattern  (hi hat, open then
    closed, and a bass drum) through a Wah Wah pedal!
    
    matty

    
    
    I'm no professional producer or else I wouldn't be here.  But I have
    some experience working at all levels of the recording medium (24, 16,
    8, 4 trk).  And I've been doing it activily for about 5-6yrs.
    
    I've found that the best thing to do around production is to start off
    with a good song.  No amount of production will make a bad song good.
    So work on something that you feel you can live with...I mean really
    live with.
    
    From there start to identify what you like in other songs and try to
    figure out how they did what it is that you liked.  If a cowbell is
    doing something that you like and you have a song that will accomidate
    that type of pattern, put it in.  Same goes for drum patterns.  The
    idea is to start off with something you know and inadvertantly you'll
    add some things that will make it unique to you.
    
    Be aware that you are limited by your musicianship and the technology
    you're working with.  If you want to do a break down section similar
    to the one that Jam and Lewis have in "Rhythm Nation", be prepared to
    have a *nice* sequencer, some sort of musicianship, and lots of
    patience.  If on the other hand you're working a house tune, be
    creative with your samples, string and rhythm arrangemets.
    
    I guess these aren't techniques per se.  You could call them
    fundamentals.  But as a producer, these things are extremely important.
    Get them down and you start to move into eq-ing instruments and
    vocals onto tape, using alternate compressions on not only vocals
    but kick drums and grand pianos, or using effects for doubling
    parts or creating new sounds.  I love to do stuff like that, using
    the eq and effects units to create a new sound or add depth to a
    kick/snare combination.  But I hardly ever have the time cause I'm
    still trying to get the fundementals to a point where its second
    nature to me.
    
    Most of all, experiment and do whatever *you* want, because you'll
    find out what works best for you.  I read an article on engineer/
    producer Chris Lord Alge (?), where he said "If it doesn't sound
    good to you, it probably isn't".  If you've got the time, don't
    settle for anything but the best that you feel you can do.
    
    Good Luck, Gene 

    A follow up question to of you out there;
    
    I find it hard to write on my guitar (I'm into House music and
    therefore keyboards).  I can't compose on the keyboard I have, only
    play one sound live and sing.  The sounds are pretty awful.
    
    If feel that when I get a good keyboard and have the ability to compose
    on a computer, I will be able to write till my heart is content.
    
    Am I kidding myself, or will it really be easier?
    
    
    matty

    
    Will it be easier?  Well, yes and no.  
    
    The whole hype of computer-aided music is that you need no musical
    ability, and that's BS.  You need to have an ear for melodies, an ear
    for harmony (however simple or complex depends on the style you want to
    pursue) and enough sense to know when a song is really working or is
    just a pile of cliche licks.
    
    For the type of music you want to do, a sequencer can help, because to
    my ear most house music is built up from a drum track, then a bass
    line, etc.  This type of song construction is well suited to
    sequencing.  Plus, the style actually depends to some extent on nearly
    obsessive repetition, again, well suited to sequencing  8^)  8^).
    
    Look at it this way...if you can hum or sing out the parts you hear in
    your head, and play them (however wobbly) one at a time on your
    keyboard, then you should be OK.  That's what quantizing is for 
    8^)  8^)
    
    
    						Brian

re            <<< Note 2452.5 by AQUA::ROST "Dennis Dunaway Fan Club" >>>
>                       -< It' Still Hard Work, But.... >-

    
>    The whole hype of computer-aided music is that you need no musical
>    ability, and that's BS.  You need to have an ear for melodies, an ear
>    for harmony (however simple or complex depends on the style you want to
>    pursue) and enough sense to know when a song is really working or is
>    just a pile of cliche licks.

	Agreed, seconded, etc.    But there is hope {there ARE hope ?}

	I'm learning a lot with  Bars and Pipes (tm)  right now, I'm
enjoying it.  .....it ain't easy, it can be fun, it can be rewarding,
it can produce a midi-morass of multi part trash, I usually learn
something about the need for more space between the notes when it
does. I seem to be improving my ability to handle the traditional
human/instrument interface {keyboard chops}.  I'm not trying to make
any sort of commercially successful  "thing".

	I don't think it would be a lot of fun to scan in a lead
sheet, hit a couple of mouse clicks for  "style"  and get instant midi
files (or test press CDs) out.  I see no reason why such a product 
should not appear RSN  (-:, (-:

	Reg

    In my experience, a keyboard, or SGU, that can really make the sounds
    that you hear in your head made a lot of difference.   Really having
    the thick string sound that I needed made the difference between
    effortlessly improvising the parts I wanted and my former state of not
    knowing where to start to build them up.
    
    	Eirikur
    

If you practice ear training, you won't need a physical instrument to compose.
You just listen to it in your head and write it down on paper or a scoring
program. That's how I wrote music when I wrote music.  Perfecting your 
imaginative ear gives you the liberty to imagine any instrument or combination.
Including things you can't play yourself because you're not an orchestra,
or a violinist, or an oboist.
First comes ear training, then harmony, then counterpoint, in there
instrumentation, orchestration, form.  It's difficult to imagine an
improvement on a conservative but open-minded musical education.
TOm

    If I might add to Tom's excellent observation, I found that (shortly
    before I was sans MIDI) I got to where I would think up a tune away
    from the keys and could basically step up and start plinking it out.
    I found that even the pitch became automatic in that I would more often
    than not have the pitches "correct" and wouldn't have to transpose
    between my head and the keys.  Most composition occurs (for me) away
    from the keyboards.  The comment about having equipment good enough to
    match what's in your head is true.  If the equipment can't even come
    close it's worthless.  This also hits close to home as to how
    MIDIholics get hooked ...  The thing to really watch out for is
    equipment that suggests the melodies and such.  Remember all the
    "breathy" ads on TV when the D50 came out?  So much of the music was
    suggested by the technology/built-in patches that it all started
    sounding about the same, ready to throw into the disco bin.  If you
    don't put thought into it, it won't be lasting (although the CDs might
    go platinum if you include payola or sell your body).  As John Cage has
    proven (to me anyway), you might enjoy listening to it -- once.
    
    Steve                                              
    Steve

    Last night I was trying to write a Techno/electro piece.  I started
    with a dead simple drum track in my head and recorded that.  My PSS680
    only has the ability to record 2 bars, which loop, so the rhythm is
    either on or off.
    
    I then picked 2 chords (D and F), simply changing to the other chord at
    the end of each bar.  Then I had this great bleepy, really fast melody
    which fitted the chords.  Then came the bassline, it wasn't a melodic
    bassline, just bass to the chords.  I then made a lead synth type of
    sound and invented a melody, that I intended to play over the top.
    
    Now I had 2 problems.  I had run out of tracks on my `Sequencer'
    (Melody banks really) and I only had 255 notes on each bank to play
    with, making it very hard not to be repetitious.  By this time I had
    given up, sick of the sounds on the keyboard, and sick of not having a
    computer sequencer.
    
    The only `fun' I'm getting out of keyboard is when I work out the
    chords to a song I like (it could be a Heavy Metal song), and I can
    play Strings or Piano instead and sing along.
    
    The other side of the coin is - recently I was on a 4 week course
    learning how to use a D20, 4 track, Midiverb etc.
    
    I picked this great warm choir/string sound (Soundtrack), layed down a
    few Minor to Major chord changes, then put some raspingly breathy
    voices over the top.  I liked it, my Mum, my sister, my brother, and
    even mates who are into Metal and House liked it!
    
    I really feel I can DO something when I get the something good. 
    There's nothing worse than having soething good in my head, then
    playing it on my PSS680 and giving up 'cause it sounds naff.
    
    As a footnote - in March the DEC building where I worked burned down. 
    To cheer me up I when and spent 450 pounds on a guitar and practice
    amp.  Why didn't I get a new keyboard???
    
    
    matty
    
    

    Look at the high side. With your decidedly "low-tech" gear you wrote
    a song!!
    
    Exploit what you have, and buy more as you NEED it, not want it.
    Buying a Synclavier won't help if you don't have any ideas to begin
    with.
    
    Edd

    I agree that Tom's observations are excellent, but there's a pragmatic
    problem, and, most of what he said just wouldn't work for me.
    
    I don't WANT to write pieces that can't be "realized" with what is
    available to me.
    
    I might imagine a great part for a glockenspiel, but if I didn't have
    (and couldn't get) a glockenspiel sample, I'd write for a different
    instrument.
    
    My goal is to have a finished product that I can listen to myself, play
    for others, etc.  I would find it very frustrating and unsatisfying to
    have written something that I can't record.
    
    My writing is frequently influenced by sounds.  Both in terms of
    inspiration for the song itself, and in terms of individual parts.
    
    I find that riffs, phrases, etc either "work" or "don't work" with
    particular sounds.
    
    In my COMMUSIC VII submission, I had this organ patch and was going to
    do the organ solo a particular way.  Then one day I accidentally hit
    the mod wheel and played a slur at the high end of the keyboard and
    went "wow - that sounds like a screamin' Hammond" and so I ended up
    doing a "screamin' Hammond organ" solo instead with lots of slurs,
    certain chord forms (5+7 chords) and I think it worked MUCH better.
    
    The piece I've been working on recently was entirely inspired by a
    sorta toy piano patch and a riff that just seemed to be "right" for
    that patch.  

    Even the demo sounds naff on my keyboard.
    
    Re. The `sound matches a riff concept';
    
    I can play some great riffs on my electric guitar, but they sound naff
    on a piano, or my classical guitar.  But the thing with the guitar, is
    that because of my lack of ability on it, it would sound twice as good
    with somone bashing a drum kit, and playing bass.
    
    RE-2.  I f feel I can't just add this as I need them - that is, untill
    I get a good base to start from.
    
    If I buy a D70, what can I do then that I can't know?  (sounds apart) 
    I want to be able to write and record a song, then play it to death on
    tape, so I can decide if I like it.  A Computer based sequencer would
    enable me to quickly and easily record my ideas.
    
    Writing this has got me thinking.  Maybe the answer would be to buy a
    computer and sequncing package, and use that with my PSS680.  It would
    be less of a lay out that spending on a D70 or whatever.  I could add
    that later.  IS THIS A GOOD IDEA???  I'll have to check my MIDI spec
    tonight!
    
    matty

    
    
    Hey Matty,
    
    From the production side of things I still believe that you ought to
    stick to getting those songs together.  That awful sounding keyboard
    shouldn't hold back your capabilities as a songwriter.  Now, you've
    chosen a difficult genre (House) to work with because like someone
    else mentioned, you *have* to have a sequencer for that sort of stuff.
    
    You want to hear your stuff perfect, ready to go, immediately. 
    Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like you have the
    equipment/money/patience/or whatever to make your house tunes.  Check
    it out!  Its gonna take some time before you get to hear your songs
    the way you want to hear them.  Even in SSL land, people have to slug
    it out with other musicians, engineers, producers, and label execs.
    before they come out with product that they like.  And sometimes the
    end result isn't the one that they wanted.
    
    Take another look at what you want to do.  If you want killer house
    tommorrow, go out and buy that equipment today.  If you can't do that
    then concentrate on songwriting while you aquire the equipment.  By the
    time you've got the equipment, you'll probably have gone through a
    couple of different writing phases.  You'll be more mature and focused
    about it (and I'm not saying that you're not mature now).  And you'll
    have grown into your technology.  All this learning will get you to the
    point where your demos will sound the way you want them to sound.
    
    Little Gene Jr., from Beyond 495 Productions

    Yeah, I think you're right.
    
    So back to the base note (sort of).  What's the simplest way to write
    a plain old song.  What I do at present (on the guitar) is;
    
    Pick some nice chord changes, probably between only 3 and 6 chords (I
    only know about 12 chords on the guitar at present).
    
    I then try and make a tunes that fits those chords.  I do this my
    humming or trying make the lyrics up.
    
    The problem I get is that because of my limited chord knowledge I end
    up with something that sounds like it's from the 60's (Beatles or Buddy
    Holly or something).
    
    Tonight I'll try humming a tune, then trying to fit chords afterwards.
    
    Good night from Cheshire,
    
    
    matty

    I know about the "chords that I know" problem.  Try a chord book or
    list play some of them, adding them to your mental stock.  Also just
    play things on the keyboard and when you have something that you like,
    figure out what it is in notational terms.  My Maj9sus4 stuff comes
    from that.  I wish Practica Musica (Mac program) was better at
    analyzing complex chords.  Lassitude....
    
    	Eirikur
    

    RE. 15
    
    Whats good for Buddy Holly is good for us.  Just don't get on an
    airplane anytime soon (I know, that was in bad taste).  
    
    Seriously, bang out those chords until you think you got a song.
    I'm really prone to verse/bridge/chorus, verse/bridge/chorus, verse
    as a solo section/bridge/chorus out.  Then theres verse/chorus, 
    verse/chorus, bridge/verse as a solo section, then chorus out.
    Bridges should change musically and build so that whatever you
    go back into is some way dramatic.  House tunes tend not do any
    of these things.  They stay with a base line and simple chord 
    structure.  The melody/vocal/sample arrangement and mix make up
    the house song.  Take the Buddy Holly song and strip to 2 chords
    and imagine the house beat behind it all.  Use slang terms to come
    up with your vocal hook.  And don't be afraid of the 60's.  Dee-Lite
    just cashed in on the trend and the B-52s sold a couple of million
    records on the strength of "Love Shack".  You couldn't get more
    60's.
    
    Good luck, LGJ

    
    
    Most of the best songs ever written (pop songs that is) have very
    simple chord structures...
    
    Don't get put of by the pseudo-muso-technologist's need to play all
    those complex chords...
    
    					Paul.
    

    
    re .16
    
    Ahhhh...chord book!  That's what I am looking for.  I went into the
    local music store a while ago and asked if they had a book containing
    the description of all those complex chords and the system of their
    notation and - ziltsch.  Can anyone recommend a good book of this kind?
    
    And I agree with .18, since you're the one who's creating this music, 
    it should sound good to you.  Even with very simple chords you can do
    amazing things when you put your soul behind it.  If you keep on doing
    the best with what you know now, it will just grow and grow...
    
    Paul
    
    Paul

    
    
    Hi Again,
    
    One thing about a good song.  If its good, then you could use it as a
    fast song or a slow song, acoustic or industrial.  So when you come up
    with a new song, see if you can hear it in other environments besides
    the one in which you created it.  This isn't a make or break type of
    thing because I doubt if "Groove in the Heart" could be played
    acoustically, but you'll know that you've got a "special" song when it
    starts to jump musical genres.

    I occasioanlly use a chrod structure to write "on" occasionally I get a
    melody or lyric that I try to build chords around. The former is the
    easier for me, but the latter tends to be more inspired.
    
    dbii

    Seems to me that there was a program that came out for the Mac that
    could be used to construct chord progressions.  It did it on a grid
    of some kind.  I know that lots of folks do the chords first and take
    it from there.  Me, I like to work the melody first and then work out
    the chords.  This is because I'm always spotting melody in speech and
    nature.  Once you have the melody there is usually a chord progression
    or two implied.  What's neat is exploring the various chord
    progressions that can fit the same melody.  I also like to work on the
    chorus before the verses, if I use that type of structure.  Much better
    to know where you're going at the climax.
    
    Steve

    I had a good weekend.  I `wrote' the chords to a song, verse, bridge
    and chorus.  It's only four chords, but it goes at 2 different tempo's,
    which I've always liked when someone else has done it.  I just need to
    come up with some words that don't sound cliched, or about love or
    something similar.
    
    Has anyone ever tried listening to music backwards?  I have a Walkman
    that plays beckwards (the auto reverse is broken).  You can get some
    great melodies out of backwards songs.  I listened to the whole of
    Madonna's `Like A Prayer' LP this way.  I'm serious!
    
    
    matty

I deliberately munged an old reel-reel deck to play backwards (still have it).
I like my music backwards. ;-)
I have heard that Phoebe Snow is singing backwards so to speak on Laurie
Anderson's Sharkey's Day.
but did not verify that.
Tom

    
    
      I often experiment with backwards recording. Drop down a couple
    of tracks on 1+2 of the four-track, then flip the tape and play
    'em back on three and four. I've gotten quite a few interesting
    rhythm patterns this way, not to mention some early Hendrix psychedelia
    guitar effects.
    
    
    
    RichC
    

	Yeah, I do that with the sequencer, and with the sampler as well.

	i.e. with KCS, there is a "reverse track" and "reverse sequence"
	pulldown. Of course, attacks, etc. aren't reversed, just the order
	of events. Nifty though, you get to hear your melodies and/or
	accompaniments "backwards"....

	with the EPS, I sampled good old "Number Nine" off the White Album,
	made a layer copy, and turned that copy backwards, and put it on
	the program change key. So you can get "Number Nine" or "Turn me on,
	deadman" depending on whether or not you're depressing the prog change
	key... 

	Every once in awhile I'll take a two track demo and run it backwards
	through the deck, just to hear what it's like. Sometimes music isn't
	that much different backwards....


	/pjh

    
    Record your voice speaking/singing on tape and then listen to it back-
    wards and rehearse this until you have it down.
    
    Then speak/sing 'backwards' onto tape and listen to that backwards!
    Better than any voice-simulator/vocoder effect!  
    
    Paul

    There was a woman who could do this in real time, on Carson or
    Letterman. They'd give her a sentence; she'd say it backwards; then
    they'd play a tape of her speech reversed. It was incredible. Nearly as
    amazing as the guy on NPR who could do a round of Row, Row, Row Your
    Boat by himself, by humming one part and whistling the other.
    
    And all I can do is type (somewhat well).
    
    - Hoyt

    One one of Tom Benson's COMMUSIC submissions ("Noel Noel") he recorded
    the reverb to a vocal backwards and it sounded extremely cool. 
    
    That is you get reverse reverb that builds up and cuts out when the
    vocal comes IN.  Sorta like what T-40 folks are doing with reverse
    gated snare ("Knocked Out" by Paula Abdul has this).
    
    I've also recorded crash symbol reverb this way and really liked it.
    
    I also created this sampler patch where you have a crash cymbol that
    starts in reverse and then goes back to fwd play.
    
    The general idea behind all these is that you have something where the
    reverse part sorta "builds up to" the actual sound.
    
    Extremely cool.  Can't wait til that new affordable Tascam 8-track
    comes out so I can do a lot more of this.
    
    	db

The spx90 can do backwrads reverb without any tape tricks.
Among other things.
Tom

    Some time back someone posted a nice trick to emulate a mallet rolled
    cymbal from a sampler or drum machine.. I've looked for it and can't 
    find it.
    
    Pointer or replication, please ?
    
    thx karl

    > The spx90 can do backwrads reverb without any tape tricks.
    
    It can't do the tricks I described unless it knows what I'm going
    to sing or play before I do it.

    Maybe the SPX-90 is much smarter than people give it credit...
    
    ;^)
    
    dp

re: .32

>    > The spx90 can do backwrads reverb without any tape tricks.
    
>    It can't do the tricks I described unless it knows what I'm going
>    to sing or play before I do it.

	Sure it can.  It delays your signal while it fabricates the
	reverse reverb.  The DSP family does the same trick.  Makes
	it tough to stay in the groove, though.  Fortunately, it's
	not the kind of effect you'd really want to use for any length
	of time

    Try doing that at a gig

    .. would work nice with a sequencer - just advance the track to hwere
    it hits on time with reverse reverb..
    
    karl