So what is a producer anyway? Do I need one? Can anyone become one?
Let's deal with this one by one, from the back. Yes, almost anyone can become a producer, but the focus this requires means that only a few people ultimately do. And yes, you do need one - even if it's going to be you. And this brings me to the main question: what does a producer do?
You'll find many different answers to this question if you read music business books, or depending on whom you talk to in the music circles. But there's one common thread: the producer is the person who creates the "product." Hence the name. And the "product" is, in a nutshell, your music.
An artist or a songwriter can be, and often is, also a producer. However, it's sometimes a good idea to work with an objective outsider who can help you craft your music (art) into a commercially viable recording (product). And this is what "production" is all about.
So, when you think about it, in order for the "product" to be good, it has to undergo a "quality control" process, which is the essence of production. That's also why I said that "anyone" can become a producer, but only those with sufficient focus actually manage the job. Because the kind of focus required to be a "good" producer can be quite intense.
There are at least two basic types of producers out there. There's the "hands-on" kind and the "ears-only" kind. These days, the first kind is by far the most predominant. That's the guy who is, typically, an experienced engineer or perhaps a songwriter/musician who's been around the block a few times and knows what it takes for a recording to find an audience. The "ears-only" producer is, these days, more of a dying breed - and that's someone who basically just listens to the music and gives (sometimes very vague) instructions to his team members regarding what changes need to be made for a song to "happen."
Both kinds of producers draw on a multitude of skills, whether they themselves are so multi-talented, or whether they have a team of collaborators. They essentially DIRECT the project, down to the minutest detail.
It is not uncommon for a producer to be "everything" on a record, except for the performer him- or herself. Sometimes this leads to rather outrageous situations and accusations of "manufacturing" talent start flying.
In this post, however, we're talking about a "mindset" which is a must for and serious producer.
One of the characteristics of a good producer is the ability to cut through the clutter and bring forth the best values of any song as well as any musician and artist involved in its creation. Like a movie director or a book editor. It's not uncommon for the producer to request lyrical changes, or melodic tweaks or rearrangements. Nothing is off limits, nor should it be. Not infrequently, a producer will actually cowrite large parts of any album he is a part of. And as long as you believe in his or her "grand vision" that's perfectly okay. Troubles only begin when the artist starts feeling that the producer steps on "his" or her "exclusive" territory.
This is just an outline of what the producer does, but the real idea in this post is to bring your attention to the simple FACT that, as an independent artist, you really have almost no choice but to become your own producer. Easier said than done. But... once you realize that it's just a "mindset" that you need to adjust, things become easier.
It's all in the "programming" you've subjected yourself to. If you think that you're "just a songwriter," and "someone else" will have to produce your music, you're most likely heading nowhere fast. You NEED to change this attitude to "I will produce my music to the best of my ability" - and that will include going through EVERYTHING with a fine-tooth comb, until everything in your song is exactly right.
That's why I said that this is a "mindset" thing as much as anything else. That's why an "ears-only" producer can actually do a great job, as long as he's a real taskmaster and has a clear, strong vision. Once you adopt this kind of a mindset, you'll, naturally, also need the technical and artistic skills to execute your own commands and recommendations.
What a producer does, when faced with an inability on part of his artists (or himself) to deliver what he wants to hear, is either modify his requests to suit, or... employ session musicians, singers, engineers - whoever is needed to get the job done.
A good producer, like any good artist, NEVER COMPROMISES his vision of quality.
Take "you" as your own producer. You "hear" your new song in your head and then you record it. And you quickly discover that it doesn't sound quite the way you envisioned it. Do you (a) do "whatever it takes" to make the recording match your imagination, or (b) you settle for the best you could do under the circumstances...?
Well, if you answered "a", you're already a producer. If you answered "b" you need to give your mindset a little shake-up and reconsider your entire position. Chosing the "a" path will lead you to a measure of success, if you persevere. Chosing the "b" path will lead you exactly nowhere.
One final point. You'll wonder if the "a" path is realistically attainable to you. Do you really have the ears and the judgment needed to be a great producer? Well, the truth is that you'll never know until you really try. And another truth is: perhaps you can't be a great producer, but you CAN decide to work with one! And if you're serious about your music, getting better or working with better people is not a choice. It's an imperative.
LISTEN TO: 229-Q/Tuesday Jun 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Catching Their Attention
You know the old saying "you don't get a second chance to make good first impression?"
Thankfully, it's not like that on Fame Games, but it's a valid observation in general. If you deliver a great song and production, your listeners will be looking forward to your next one, often with anticipation. Will it be just as good? Better? Nah, it won't be just as good... but let's hear it!
Similarly, if your first submission is mediocre, your listeners will tend to want to skip over your next one. But some might listen for the same reason as above only this time they'll want to see if you've improved.
And now, another consideration. Many listeners only listen to a new song for the first 30-45 seconds. A minute, max. And then they switch. If the first impression was good, however, they'll come back and listen in full. This is a clear pattern we often observe here on Fame Games.
So, how do you ensure that your song will catch your listener in such a short time? And doesn't this imply some sort of cheap commercialism..?
Let's deal with the easy part first. There's nothing cheap or pejoratively commerical about keeping your music interesting and well arranged. Attention to detail and considering your listeners' perceptions is a sign of a mature artist.
But what about the important part? What can you do to keep their interest?
The answer will vary from person to person and from song to song. But there are certain general principles which, if you keep them in mind, will serve you well. Put in the very simplest way, you either have to have a GREAT song or a GREAT production - or... have BOTH.
A great song is one where the whole structure, from lyrics to the melody to the chords, is "just so" - it's natural, fresh yet vaguely familiar, meaningful and "real." It can be happy or sad, light or deep, but it has to have that sense of "having a flow." Few songs are "born that way." Most require a lot of additional tweaking and revision. ALWAYS take the time it takes to make the song itself RULE. Use just one instrument to develop it. If it's great acoustically, it's probably gonna be great fully arranged.
A great production is a more complex question. A production, by definition, also includes the song itself. But in the sense I'm intending here, it's all the arrangement, recording, performance and mixing work that goes into delivering the final product. And with that in mind, you'll need to keep one thing in mind: production serves the song - and only rarely is it the other way around. This is certainly true if your goal is to create something that lasts.
Still, the most important aspects of a production (besides a great song), come down to this:
And keep intros to a minimum, especially if all they do is repeat the same thing without contributing anything new with each passing round. Some songs need elaborate and long intros, for sure, but avoid UNNECESSARY repetition.
If you're able to deliver to such exacting standards, your music will not only command people's attention and get you loads of respect, but it just might put some food on your table as well!
LISTEN TO: 229-Q/Monday Jun 29, 2009
Thankfully, it's not like that on Fame Games, but it's a valid observation in general. If you deliver a great song and production, your listeners will be looking forward to your next one, often with anticipation. Will it be just as good? Better? Nah, it won't be just as good... but let's hear it!
Similarly, if your first submission is mediocre, your listeners will tend to want to skip over your next one. But some might listen for the same reason as above only this time they'll want to see if you've improved.
And now, another consideration. Many listeners only listen to a new song for the first 30-45 seconds. A minute, max. And then they switch. If the first impression was good, however, they'll come back and listen in full. This is a clear pattern we often observe here on Fame Games.
So, how do you ensure that your song will catch your listener in such a short time? And doesn't this imply some sort of cheap commercialism..?
Let's deal with the easy part first. There's nothing cheap or pejoratively commerical about keeping your music interesting and well arranged. Attention to detail and considering your listeners' perceptions is a sign of a mature artist.
But what about the important part? What can you do to keep their interest?
The answer will vary from person to person and from song to song. But there are certain general principles which, if you keep them in mind, will serve you well. Put in the very simplest way, you either have to have a GREAT song or a GREAT production - or... have BOTH.
A great song is one where the whole structure, from lyrics to the melody to the chords, is "just so" - it's natural, fresh yet vaguely familiar, meaningful and "real." It can be happy or sad, light or deep, but it has to have that sense of "having a flow." Few songs are "born that way." Most require a lot of additional tweaking and revision. ALWAYS take the time it takes to make the song itself RULE. Use just one instrument to develop it. If it's great acoustically, it's probably gonna be great fully arranged.
A great production is a more complex question. A production, by definition, also includes the song itself. But in the sense I'm intending here, it's all the arrangement, recording, performance and mixing work that goes into delivering the final product. And with that in mind, you'll need to keep one thing in mind: production serves the song - and only rarely is it the other way around. This is certainly true if your goal is to create something that lasts.
Still, the most important aspects of a production (besides a great song), come down to this:
- Record your band tightly (or if you're sequencing, ensure it's tight and feels "played" - not "sequenced").
- Ensure that all parts are exactly right, interesting and well-played. But don't get too fancy unless you're a virtuoso!
- Focus extra special attention on the vocal. Polish it, do as many takes as are necessary to deliver the best possible performance.
- Arrange your whole song from a minimalist perspective. Keep it simple. Only add sounds when the song "screams for it." Don't clutter your arrangement unneccessarily and ensure that the arrangement "breathes." Remember the power of well-placed silence.
- Ensure that the sounds you're using, be it a simple acoustic guitar or a complex arrangement, have a "healthy" ring to them. Avoid old and tired sounds, unless they are a feature of your production.
- And finally, mix everything in a way where you'll be able to hear every instrument in the mix clearly, with the voice cutting through in exactly the right proportion.
- Make sure your production screams COMMITMENT!
And keep intros to a minimum, especially if all they do is repeat the same thing without contributing anything new with each passing round. Some songs need elaborate and long intros, for sure, but avoid UNNECESSARY repetition.
If you're able to deliver to such exacting standards, your music will not only command people's attention and get you loads of respect, but it just might put some food on your table as well!
LISTEN TO: 229-Q/Monday Jun 29, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Element of Surprise
Ever since we've been children, we always loved surprises. It is, in fact, an integral part of our human spirit to always look for something new, exciting and... surprising.
On the other hand, we're also reassured by the "safe" and "familiar." Those experiences in our lives which have the "right" balance of familiarity and surprise are the ones we are the most fond of.
And this is definitely also true of our music discovery.
Why do we fall in love with a song? What is it that makes us want to play it again? The answer is by necessity a complex one, but it really boils down to what I said above: the right mix between the surprising and the familiar.
With this in mind, the challenge for any serious artist is to create an arrangement which addresses these two concerns. And it really is an "arrangement" question more than purely a songwriting one. Although it can be both.
"Surprise" is the ultimate "hook" in a song. But watch out: overdo it at your peril. You might make something so surprising so as to become unfamiliar, and therefore "too demanding" - and in case of mainstream audiences, it's the last thing you want. Sad, perhaps, but true ;)
Refer to my previous posts about arranging and the use counterpoint, and this is essentially what I'm thinking about here. When arranging your song, keep this in mind. Don't just play it safe and do what is comfortably predictable. Strech yourself just a bit. Fall back on familiar elements, but also always have a pleasant surprise awaiting your listeners.
But a word of caution: a "contrived" (unnatural) surprise may work against you...!
Ultimately, how you deal with this is a matter of taste. It's how you make your life's experience to bear on your production. Know yourself and you'll know the world. And keep this keyword in mind next time you work on a song!
LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Wednesday Jun 24, 2009
On the other hand, we're also reassured by the "safe" and "familiar." Those experiences in our lives which have the "right" balance of familiarity and surprise are the ones we are the most fond of.
And this is definitely also true of our music discovery.
Why do we fall in love with a song? What is it that makes us want to play it again? The answer is by necessity a complex one, but it really boils down to what I said above: the right mix between the surprising and the familiar.
With this in mind, the challenge for any serious artist is to create an arrangement which addresses these two concerns. And it really is an "arrangement" question more than purely a songwriting one. Although it can be both.
"Surprise" is the ultimate "hook" in a song. But watch out: overdo it at your peril. You might make something so surprising so as to become unfamiliar, and therefore "too demanding" - and in case of mainstream audiences, it's the last thing you want. Sad, perhaps, but true ;)
Refer to my previous posts about arranging and the use counterpoint, and this is essentially what I'm thinking about here. When arranging your song, keep this in mind. Don't just play it safe and do what is comfortably predictable. Strech yourself just a bit. Fall back on familiar elements, but also always have a pleasant surprise awaiting your listeners.
But a word of caution: a "contrived" (unnatural) surprise may work against you...!
Ultimately, how you deal with this is a matter of taste. It's how you make your life's experience to bear on your production. Know yourself and you'll know the world. And keep this keyword in mind next time you work on a song!
LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Wednesday Jun 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Revision - The Power of Conciseness
When arranging your songs, always aim for conciseness of delivery. Think about talking. You can beat about the bush or you can get straight to the point. Sure, there are times where getting straight to the point may not be the best way. But most other times it really is the only way.
And this definitely applies to much of popular music.
In order to be musically concise, you need to revise. We all know that a fresh idea that we wish to share with friends will take us longer to talk about and "flesh out" than an idea we're already very familiar with, one we have talked through many times and can now present it in a brief, punchy, powerful way. In this case the process of "revision" was "natural" and unforced. You just kept talking about a certain thing and with each retelling you got tighter and tighter.
In music, the process is the same, but often requires a more concentrated and deliberate effort. And it applies to melodies as much as lyrics. In fact, it applies to everything from arrangement to vocal and instrumental parts to the final production.
One of the biggest hurdles to achieving concise results tends to be our attitude towards our ART. For some inexplicable reason, many of us feel that writing requires genius and that genius is spntaneous - and we're the spontaneous genius...
But if you think about it, this attitude reeks of arrogance. It implies that we feel that whatever we do on the spur of the moment is perfect! Upon reflection, most of us will agree that it isn't really so and it's not what we meant when we said "spontaneous is best." OK. But hold on. Before we start splitting hairs, we can easily agree that perhaps a second take or another look at those lyrics or melody is "acceptable." And if you push us, perhaps three times...
All right. So we're just looking at a question of degree - not the principle.
So here's the deal. The secret lies in the DEGREE to which you're willing to subject your creations to revision. But beware: some of us are very compulsive. I've known many talented writers who just didn't know when to stop and consequently virtually castrated their inpired ART down to something lifeless and sterile.
As with everything in life, common sense is your ally. Work that lyric or tweak that melody for as long as your energy level is high. Stop when you're feeling that it begins to wane. Go out and clear your ears. But make sure to come back to it. Allocate a finite amount of time to each tweak. At one point you'll just have to move on, and resolve to "get it right" next time. But never give in without at least trying to maximize your effort.
So, how long should it take to revise each component of a "typical" song? If you can answer the question "how long is a piece of string?" then you know the answer. It all depends. But I can give you a couple of typical examples.
In a typical writing session in my experience, the barebones of the song (basic melodic and chordal idea, at least partial lyrics) can take anything from a few minutes to maybe an hour. That's assuming that you're an experienced writer. A basic arrangement of this, meaning assigning parts to instruments and getting a "first listen" can take another hour to two hours if you're dealing with experienced musicians, or if you're good with your sequencer. A listen-through will confirm whether you're on the right track and whether the raw song evokes the kind of feelings you had when you wrote it.
And now revision must start in earnest. A typical lyric may endure 30 or 40 rewrites. Naturally, now and then you'll hit on the "right" idea much sooner, but be prepared to do 50 re-writes! And be happy if you arrive at the "optimal" version in less than that. A melody line may take multiple rewrites too. Often the core melody is just right, but "flipping out" a note here or there or coming up with an alternative line in a part of the song will take you a good couple of hours as well. The same will apply to all instrumental performances. Unless you want your rhythm guitar to just strum a boring 1-2 pattern you'll have to arrange its part so that it flows. Perhaps each chord should have a couple of steps built in to take it to the next chord, etc. All that needs planning - and revising.
All told, a "typical" song can take a good 3 days to "get right" on the arrangement and writing side. You can then take another day for recording it (with multiple re-takes until it totally shines!), and finally give yourself a couple of days to get the mix down. So... a week. That's about right.
No. This does NOT make you sound lame. A week dedicated to a song is, in fact, quite skimpy. DON'T FALL for those stories of "we got this down in 15 minutes in a live session." This CAN happen once in a blue moon, but don't program yourself for that. And it's not evidence of anything other than a bit of good fortune. Genius is measured by RESULTS - not by the time it took to get there!
The famed band "Boston" used to take up to 4 years per album...! Excessive? Perhaps, lol. But each one of their albums enjoyed multiple platinum sales and each one was hailed a "classic." And nobody even cares that their last album took not 4 but 6 years to complete!
No, I'm not advocating this kind of extremely obsessive production cycle. I too think it's nuts! But if you can help it, NEVER predetermine how long a song will take you to produce. It will be done when it's done. This power tip is actually a SHORT-CUT. If you spend MORE time on doing GREAT music, your chances of "making it" will grow expenentially. If you spend less time on producing a lot of half-baked music, you are GUARANTEED to get nowhere.. very slowly.
Oh, and I KNOW I could have been much more concise in this post! ;)
LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Tuesday Jun 23, 2009
And this definitely applies to much of popular music.
In order to be musically concise, you need to revise. We all know that a fresh idea that we wish to share with friends will take us longer to talk about and "flesh out" than an idea we're already very familiar with, one we have talked through many times and can now present it in a brief, punchy, powerful way. In this case the process of "revision" was "natural" and unforced. You just kept talking about a certain thing and with each retelling you got tighter and tighter.
In music, the process is the same, but often requires a more concentrated and deliberate effort. And it applies to melodies as much as lyrics. In fact, it applies to everything from arrangement to vocal and instrumental parts to the final production.
One of the biggest hurdles to achieving concise results tends to be our attitude towards our ART. For some inexplicable reason, many of us feel that writing requires genius and that genius is spntaneous - and we're the spontaneous genius...
But if you think about it, this attitude reeks of arrogance. It implies that we feel that whatever we do on the spur of the moment is perfect! Upon reflection, most of us will agree that it isn't really so and it's not what we meant when we said "spontaneous is best." OK. But hold on. Before we start splitting hairs, we can easily agree that perhaps a second take or another look at those lyrics or melody is "acceptable." And if you push us, perhaps three times...
All right. So we're just looking at a question of degree - not the principle.
So here's the deal. The secret lies in the DEGREE to which you're willing to subject your creations to revision. But beware: some of us are very compulsive. I've known many talented writers who just didn't know when to stop and consequently virtually castrated their inpired ART down to something lifeless and sterile.
As with everything in life, common sense is your ally. Work that lyric or tweak that melody for as long as your energy level is high. Stop when you're feeling that it begins to wane. Go out and clear your ears. But make sure to come back to it. Allocate a finite amount of time to each tweak. At one point you'll just have to move on, and resolve to "get it right" next time. But never give in without at least trying to maximize your effort.
So, how long should it take to revise each component of a "typical" song? If you can answer the question "how long is a piece of string?" then you know the answer. It all depends. But I can give you a couple of typical examples.
In a typical writing session in my experience, the barebones of the song (basic melodic and chordal idea, at least partial lyrics) can take anything from a few minutes to maybe an hour. That's assuming that you're an experienced writer. A basic arrangement of this, meaning assigning parts to instruments and getting a "first listen" can take another hour to two hours if you're dealing with experienced musicians, or if you're good with your sequencer. A listen-through will confirm whether you're on the right track and whether the raw song evokes the kind of feelings you had when you wrote it.
And now revision must start in earnest. A typical lyric may endure 30 or 40 rewrites. Naturally, now and then you'll hit on the "right" idea much sooner, but be prepared to do 50 re-writes! And be happy if you arrive at the "optimal" version in less than that. A melody line may take multiple rewrites too. Often the core melody is just right, but "flipping out" a note here or there or coming up with an alternative line in a part of the song will take you a good couple of hours as well. The same will apply to all instrumental performances. Unless you want your rhythm guitar to just strum a boring 1-2 pattern you'll have to arrange its part so that it flows. Perhaps each chord should have a couple of steps built in to take it to the next chord, etc. All that needs planning - and revising.
All told, a "typical" song can take a good 3 days to "get right" on the arrangement and writing side. You can then take another day for recording it (with multiple re-takes until it totally shines!), and finally give yourself a couple of days to get the mix down. So... a week. That's about right.
No. This does NOT make you sound lame. A week dedicated to a song is, in fact, quite skimpy. DON'T FALL for those stories of "we got this down in 15 minutes in a live session." This CAN happen once in a blue moon, but don't program yourself for that. And it's not evidence of anything other than a bit of good fortune. Genius is measured by RESULTS - not by the time it took to get there!
The famed band "Boston" used to take up to 4 years per album...! Excessive? Perhaps, lol. But each one of their albums enjoyed multiple platinum sales and each one was hailed a "classic." And nobody even cares that their last album took not 4 but 6 years to complete!
No, I'm not advocating this kind of extremely obsessive production cycle. I too think it's nuts! But if you can help it, NEVER predetermine how long a song will take you to produce. It will be done when it's done. This power tip is actually a SHORT-CUT. If you spend MORE time on doing GREAT music, your chances of "making it" will grow expenentially. If you spend less time on producing a lot of half-baked music, you are GUARANTEED to get nowhere.. very slowly.
Oh, and I KNOW I could have been much more concise in this post! ;)
LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Tuesday Jun 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Why Does It Sound Dated?
If you're a "traditionalist" musician, you probably believe that your music should reflect the values of your idols, be they from the 60's, 70's or whatever. You then write and produce your own songs in that spirit... only to hear this one most dreaded quip: "DATED!"
With that one little word, your labor of love is written off and swept under the rug.
What do you do? Some of you shrug it off and carry on regardless. Others get frustrated and increase their hatered of all that "over-commercialized crap," and walk away believing themselves to be right and everyone who doesn't agree - wrong.
Is there a right or wrong? Not really, when it comes to the ART of songwriting. But when it comes to the PRODUCTION of music, there are objective observations which are neither "right" nor "wrong." They just are.
So, yes, there IS such a thing as a dated sound. Put on something from the 40's or 50's. Can you honestly say it sounds "current?" (This NEVER means that it's "not good" - only that it clearly sounds like it's from another era)
OK. So you'll have no major problems agreeing that there exists such a thing as a virtual "time-stamp" on music. It's easy to tell the difference when comparing something "modern" with something as old as 40 or 50 years. But what about stuff which is only a few years old? Well, it gets a bit more subtle then. But, again, keen observation will reveal the differences.
Some of those differences start out as simple fads (this kick sound is "in" and that snare sound is "out!"). Others are a more organic evolution. Instruments change and evolve, special effects sound different, mixing techniques change too and even the overall production values change (here's a pretty good comparison: think of a movie from 30 years ago and compare it to something from "today" - even the acting is different, not to mention the way they shoot or light their scenes!).
It's no use complaining about it. Things change. And the only thing that remains is whether you care or not. If you don't - great. But if you don't care about that and yet still would like to win a NEW audience for your music, then you'll have a bit of a steep hill to climb.
If you do care at least enough to find a compromise position between what you believe and what "is needed" to "connect" with new audiences, then here's some food for thought.
What is it that "dates" a piece of music? Sounds? Production? Sure. Who wouldn't be able to accurately identify anything from the 80's with its prominent (some might say "cheesy") synth sounds and electronic drums.
But there's another, perhaps even more important aspect. It's the melodic and chordal structure of a song. Observe how that has changed over the years. Certain types of melodies often come across as "old-fashioned" where changing only one note here or there, might suddenly give it a "new" feel. Go figure! The same goes for chords and the way the melody relates to them. Melodies lead by chords are almost always viewed as "dated" and "uncool" (that where when the chord goes up or down and the melody line predictably follows it). It's because we're by now so utterly familiar with progressions and melodies of this type that we can practically sing along with any such "new" song which utilizes this kind of structure.
The late 90's and much of the 21st century has seen a resurgence of more "organic" and "natural" sounds. In rock you'll hear many more songs totally devoid of synths (because they tend to be so easily dateable!), with straight acoustic drums, and just solid "old-fashioned" values. And yet... if you hear one of those seemingly traditionally-arranged songs, you'll just KNOW that it's NOT an oldie. And when you stop and think why, you'll discover that it's mainly about melody and (often less elaborate) chord progressions.
And there's one other thing: vocal performance. Here too you'll find subtle changes. In the old days "over-singing" (read: too much drama! lol) was commonplace and even frequently "expected." Today, it's soooo uncool to do that. Make it "too dramatic" and modern ears tend to switch off. The "modern" trend is towards more "natural" melodies and deliveries. They should almost sound like they're "spoken," in some modern genres at least. But not quite.
It's subtle. Aware of all this, have another listen to some of what's going on in the music scene today. You'll find that there's room for your "old-fashioned" music in today's marketplace - with only a few small tweaks. And then go ahead and make those tweaks!
And the best part? You might even enjoy it!
LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Monday Jun 22, 2009
With that one little word, your labor of love is written off and swept under the rug.
What do you do? Some of you shrug it off and carry on regardless. Others get frustrated and increase their hatered of all that "over-commercialized crap," and walk away believing themselves to be right and everyone who doesn't agree - wrong.
Is there a right or wrong? Not really, when it comes to the ART of songwriting. But when it comes to the PRODUCTION of music, there are objective observations which are neither "right" nor "wrong." They just are.
So, yes, there IS such a thing as a dated sound. Put on something from the 40's or 50's. Can you honestly say it sounds "current?" (This NEVER means that it's "not good" - only that it clearly sounds like it's from another era)
OK. So you'll have no major problems agreeing that there exists such a thing as a virtual "time-stamp" on music. It's easy to tell the difference when comparing something "modern" with something as old as 40 or 50 years. But what about stuff which is only a few years old? Well, it gets a bit more subtle then. But, again, keen observation will reveal the differences.
Some of those differences start out as simple fads (this kick sound is "in" and that snare sound is "out!"). Others are a more organic evolution. Instruments change and evolve, special effects sound different, mixing techniques change too and even the overall production values change (here's a pretty good comparison: think of a movie from 30 years ago and compare it to something from "today" - even the acting is different, not to mention the way they shoot or light their scenes!).
It's no use complaining about it. Things change. And the only thing that remains is whether you care or not. If you don't - great. But if you don't care about that and yet still would like to win a NEW audience for your music, then you'll have a bit of a steep hill to climb.
If you do care at least enough to find a compromise position between what you believe and what "is needed" to "connect" with new audiences, then here's some food for thought.
What is it that "dates" a piece of music? Sounds? Production? Sure. Who wouldn't be able to accurately identify anything from the 80's with its prominent (some might say "cheesy") synth sounds and electronic drums.
But there's another, perhaps even more important aspect. It's the melodic and chordal structure of a song. Observe how that has changed over the years. Certain types of melodies often come across as "old-fashioned" where changing only one note here or there, might suddenly give it a "new" feel. Go figure! The same goes for chords and the way the melody relates to them. Melodies lead by chords are almost always viewed as "dated" and "uncool" (that where when the chord goes up or down and the melody line predictably follows it). It's because we're by now so utterly familiar with progressions and melodies of this type that we can practically sing along with any such "new" song which utilizes this kind of structure.
The late 90's and much of the 21st century has seen a resurgence of more "organic" and "natural" sounds. In rock you'll hear many more songs totally devoid of synths (because they tend to be so easily dateable!), with straight acoustic drums, and just solid "old-fashioned" values. And yet... if you hear one of those seemingly traditionally-arranged songs, you'll just KNOW that it's NOT an oldie. And when you stop and think why, you'll discover that it's mainly about melody and (often less elaborate) chord progressions.
And there's one other thing: vocal performance. Here too you'll find subtle changes. In the old days "over-singing" (read: too much drama! lol) was commonplace and even frequently "expected." Today, it's soooo uncool to do that. Make it "too dramatic" and modern ears tend to switch off. The "modern" trend is towards more "natural" melodies and deliveries. They should almost sound like they're "spoken," in some modern genres at least. But not quite.
It's subtle. Aware of all this, have another listen to some of what's going on in the music scene today. You'll find that there's room for your "old-fashioned" music in today's marketplace - with only a few small tweaks. And then go ahead and make those tweaks!
And the best part? You might even enjoy it!
LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Monday Jun 22, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
It's Not A Bakery. Take The Time It Takes!
Here's a more general observation rather than a "tip." But it's nonetheless one of those things that bear repeating. It's all about paying attention to detail. Your success depends on it.
The devil is always in the detail. "Almost great" will never be "GREAT." This applies to everything from you songwriting, to your arrangements to playing, performances, mixing and the overall production of your music. Pursuit of excellence is what drives every true artist.
What does it cost you to get your bass player and drummer to play in perfect synch on a particularly difficult part? An hour? A day? Whatever it is, it's a finite period of time. Take that time. It will be worth it. If you don't - you'll await "success" for YEARS, and chances are you'll never reach it.
But saying that attention to detail is critically important is a truism and it also sounds kinda nitpicky and boring to many artists who believe that "spontaneity" is the essence of art. DON'T fall for this without thinking about it first.
Art lives in the moment. It's personal. It's that "something indefinable" which makes it what it is. Art exists is in the process of creation. The rest is craft and process of production! And only through that can others experience it too!
A true artist is a real task-master and a QUALITY CONTROLLER.
You probably know that it's easier to tell others what to do than do it yourself. Other people's mistakes are much more easy to spot! ;) You need to develop the ability to "step outside of yourself" to notice the same things about your own work. And then find a way to get yourself not to settle for "okay."
The moment you adapt this attitude (and it takes a little time to really get your head around it), your future will change for ever.
LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Wednesday Jun 17, 2009
The devil is always in the detail. "Almost great" will never be "GREAT." This applies to everything from you songwriting, to your arrangements to playing, performances, mixing and the overall production of your music. Pursuit of excellence is what drives every true artist.
What does it cost you to get your bass player and drummer to play in perfect synch on a particularly difficult part? An hour? A day? Whatever it is, it's a finite period of time. Take that time. It will be worth it. If you don't - you'll await "success" for YEARS, and chances are you'll never reach it.
But saying that attention to detail is critically important is a truism and it also sounds kinda nitpicky and boring to many artists who believe that "spontaneity" is the essence of art. DON'T fall for this without thinking about it first.
Art lives in the moment. It's personal. It's that "something indefinable" which makes it what it is. Art exists is in the process of creation. The rest is craft and process of production! And only through that can others experience it too!
A true artist is a real task-master and a QUALITY CONTROLLER.
You probably know that it's easier to tell others what to do than do it yourself. Other people's mistakes are much more easy to spot! ;) You need to develop the ability to "step outside of yourself" to notice the same things about your own work. And then find a way to get yourself not to settle for "okay."
The moment you adapt this attitude (and it takes a little time to really get your head around it), your future will change for ever.
LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Wednesday Jun 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
How To Place A Vocal In The Mix
In one of my previous posts I looked at EQ'ing the voice by finding the right "pocket" for it. This time, let's talk about another aspect of vocal placement which combines level-setting, panning, double-tracking and special effects.
You'll probably have noticed that different styles of music feature sometimes vastly different approaches to the way vocals are mixed. In some styles, the vocal must be the most prominent foreground sound; in others, it rides just slightly above the mix, and in others still, it's "sunk" in the mix so as to be barely distinguishable from the rest of the music - and yet it's there, and you're hearing it (perhaps because it's panned or doubletracked - or through some other witchcraft!).
How you mix your vocal is largely a matter of convention and style, but it's also a function of the vocal characteristics of your singer. Needless to say, also, the vocal is there to be heard and lyrics understood (in most cases, lol), so a key consideration is making sure that your mix preserves the message well.
It's very easy to "lose" the vocal in the mix. And to make matters worse, it's not just the "too quiet" ones that get lost. Overpowering vocals can not only "get lost" - they can make you switch off entirely. (Don't believe me? Go to any karaoke bar and hear how much louder the vocals tend to be than the backing music! Close the door after you leave please!)
So, how do you mix a vocal?
OK. I can only give you a few general guidelines in the confines of this space. The KEY is to realize the relationship that exists between the vocal character and the instruments selected to back it. For example, you need to consider whether a raspy vocal backed by a distorted guitar wants to "sink in" or "bounce off" the backing track, and which EQ bands to reserve for each. The same song performed by two different vocalists may be mixed entirely differently, depending on the vocal characteristics.
First establish the genre you're in. For most pop music the voice must "ride on top of the mix" meaning that it should have a clear EQ pocket for itself and a level placement which gives it a small edge over the rest of the track. Something in the area of +1dB might be the rule of thumb. For some rock styles as well as a lot of dance music the voice wants to "sit" in the track becoming something like an instrument within it, and to give it definition you really need to resort to EQ techniques, double-tracking, gentle chorusing and such. In R&B it's become a fashion to have the vocal really out in front, almost entirely dry. So, knowing these general rules, you can now approach your mix.
One of the most important ways to "place" a vocal in the mix (not just vocal, mind you) is by a skillful application of the reverb. Assuming you have a reasonable quality reverb (ideally with output to a stereo track where you can re-EQ it if need be), you use it to give the voice a placement within the mix "as if in 3D." Experiment with that. More reverb (without changing the source level) will make the voice appear to "go back" in the "room." Next, decide on the length of your reverb. "Wet" sounding voices sound great in some types of mixes but totally ruin others. Again, you need to know the general direction of your track to establish the general principle which you can now adapt to your specific mix.
A critically important thing is TIMING your reverb. Many modern plug-ins do this automatically for you, but even then they will use a preset which you still would have to adjust. Should the reverb have a 600 millisecond setting or 300 - or even 150? (i.e. which beat in the bar it should end on in a track running at, say, 120 bpm). This is, of course, a function of the tempo of your track. If your track runs at 120 bpm but your reverb is timed for a 90 bpm track, the result will be a "sloppy" sound.
Applying special effects (like reverbs, choruses, delays, etc) can indeed bring out the vocal presence and character, just as long as you don't over-do it! Gating can also be used very successfully to "define" the vocal particularly in certain rhythmic styles of music, as can compression. In fact compression is a bigger subject which I think I'll address in another post.
The general principle in mixing a vocal is to build the mix in such a way that it's sound compliments and supports the vocal sound. That's why the same track done with a female singer may need a re-EQ on some instruments such as keyboard or guitar, if those particular frequencies compete with the vocal. The same mix with a male singer might suddenly need a bit more edge on the rhythm guitar or that bass.
How do you know? Well... it's all about the ears. So LISTEN to other similar mixes and learn from them. Knowing the above general principles, however, should be enough to give you a good start and a recognition of those elements in professionally-done mixes!
LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Tuesday Jun 16, 2009
You'll probably have noticed that different styles of music feature sometimes vastly different approaches to the way vocals are mixed. In some styles, the vocal must be the most prominent foreground sound; in others, it rides just slightly above the mix, and in others still, it's "sunk" in the mix so as to be barely distinguishable from the rest of the music - and yet it's there, and you're hearing it (perhaps because it's panned or doubletracked - or through some other witchcraft!).
How you mix your vocal is largely a matter of convention and style, but it's also a function of the vocal characteristics of your singer. Needless to say, also, the vocal is there to be heard and lyrics understood (in most cases, lol), so a key consideration is making sure that your mix preserves the message well.
It's very easy to "lose" the vocal in the mix. And to make matters worse, it's not just the "too quiet" ones that get lost. Overpowering vocals can not only "get lost" - they can make you switch off entirely. (Don't believe me? Go to any karaoke bar and hear how much louder the vocals tend to be than the backing music! Close the door after you leave please!)
So, how do you mix a vocal?
OK. I can only give you a few general guidelines in the confines of this space. The KEY is to realize the relationship that exists between the vocal character and the instruments selected to back it. For example, you need to consider whether a raspy vocal backed by a distorted guitar wants to "sink in" or "bounce off" the backing track, and which EQ bands to reserve for each. The same song performed by two different vocalists may be mixed entirely differently, depending on the vocal characteristics.
First establish the genre you're in. For most pop music the voice must "ride on top of the mix" meaning that it should have a clear EQ pocket for itself and a level placement which gives it a small edge over the rest of the track. Something in the area of +1dB might be the rule of thumb. For some rock styles as well as a lot of dance music the voice wants to "sit" in the track becoming something like an instrument within it, and to give it definition you really need to resort to EQ techniques, double-tracking, gentle chorusing and such. In R&B it's become a fashion to have the vocal really out in front, almost entirely dry. So, knowing these general rules, you can now approach your mix.
One of the most important ways to "place" a vocal in the mix (not just vocal, mind you) is by a skillful application of the reverb. Assuming you have a reasonable quality reverb (ideally with output to a stereo track where you can re-EQ it if need be), you use it to give the voice a placement within the mix "as if in 3D." Experiment with that. More reverb (without changing the source level) will make the voice appear to "go back" in the "room." Next, decide on the length of your reverb. "Wet" sounding voices sound great in some types of mixes but totally ruin others. Again, you need to know the general direction of your track to establish the general principle which you can now adapt to your specific mix.
A critically important thing is TIMING your reverb. Many modern plug-ins do this automatically for you, but even then they will use a preset which you still would have to adjust. Should the reverb have a 600 millisecond setting or 300 - or even 150? (i.e. which beat in the bar it should end on in a track running at, say, 120 bpm). This is, of course, a function of the tempo of your track. If your track runs at 120 bpm but your reverb is timed for a 90 bpm track, the result will be a "sloppy" sound.
Applying special effects (like reverbs, choruses, delays, etc) can indeed bring out the vocal presence and character, just as long as you don't over-do it! Gating can also be used very successfully to "define" the vocal particularly in certain rhythmic styles of music, as can compression. In fact compression is a bigger subject which I think I'll address in another post.
The general principle in mixing a vocal is to build the mix in such a way that it's sound compliments and supports the vocal sound. That's why the same track done with a female singer may need a re-EQ on some instruments such as keyboard or guitar, if those particular frequencies compete with the vocal. The same mix with a male singer might suddenly need a bit more edge on the rhythm guitar or that bass.
How do you know? Well... it's all about the ears. So LISTEN to other similar mixes and learn from them. Knowing the above general principles, however, should be enough to give you a good start and a recognition of those elements in professionally-done mixes!
LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Tuesday Jun 16, 2009
How To Place A Vocal In The Mix
In one of my previous posts I looked at EQ'ing the voice by finding the right "pocket" for it. This time, let's talk about another aspect of vocal placement which combines level-setting, panning, double-tracking and special effects.
You'll probably have noticed that different styles of music feature sometimes vastly different approaches to the way vocals are mixed. In some styles, the vocal must be the most prominent foreground sound; in others, it rides just slightly above the mix, and in others still, it's "sunk" in the mix so as to be barely distinguishable from the rest of the music - and yet it's there, and you're hearing it (perhaps because it's panned or doubletracked - or through some other witchcraft!).
How you mix your vocal is largely a matter of convention and style, but it's also a function of the vocal characteristics of your singer. Needless to say, also, the vocal is there to be heard and lyrics understood (in most cases, lol), so a key consideration is making sure that your mix preserves the message well.
It's very easy to "lose" the vocal in the mix. And to make matters worse, it's not just the "too quiet" ones that get lost. Overpowering vocals can not only "get lost" - they can make you switch off entirely. (Don't believe me? Go to any karaoke bar and hear how much louder the vocals tend to be than the backing music! Close the door after you leave please!)
So, how do you mix a vocal?
OK. I can only give you a few general guidelines in the confines of this space. The KEY is to realize the relationship that exists between the vocal character and the instruments selected to back it. For example, you need to consider whether a raspy vocal backed by a distorted guitar wants to "sink in" or "bounce off" the backing track, and which EQ bands to reserve for each. The same song performed by two different vocalists may be mixed entirely differently, depending on the vocal characteristics.
First establish the genre you're in. For most pop music the voice must "ride on top of the mix" meaning that it should have a clear EQ pocket for itself and a level placement which gives it a small edge over the rest of the track. Something in the area of +1dB might be the rule of thumb. For some rock styles as well as a lot of dance music the voice wants to "sit" in the track becoming something like an instrument within it, and to give it definition you really need to resort to EQ techniques, double-tracking, gentle chorusing and such. In R&B it's become a fashion to have the vocal really out in front, almost entirely dry. So, knowing these general rules, you can now approach your mix.
One of the most important ways to "place" a vocal in the mix (not just vocal, mind you) is by a skillful application of the reverb. Assuming you have a reasonable quality reverb (ideally with output to a stereo track where you can re-EQ it if need be), you use it to give the voice a placement within the mix "as if in 3D." Experiment with that. More reverb (without changing the source level) will make the voice appear to "go back" in the "room." Next, decide on the length of your reverb. "Wet" sounding voices sound great in some types of mixes but totally ruin others. Again, you need to know the general direction of your track to establish the general principle which you can now adapt to your specific mix.
A critically important thing is TIMING your reverb. Many modern plug-ins do this automatically for you, but even then they will use a preset which you still would have to adjust. Should the reverb have a 600 millisecond setting or 300 - or even 150? (i.e. which beat in the bar it should end on in a track running at, say, 120 bpm). This is, of course, a function of the tempo of your track. If your track runs at 120 bpm but your reverb is timed for a 90 bpm track, the result will be a "sloppy" sound.
Applying special effects (like reverbs, choruses, delays, etc) can indeed bring out the vocal presence and character, just as long as you don't over-do it! Gating can also be used very successfully to "define" the vocal particularly in certain rhythmic styles of music, as can compression. In fact compression is a bigger subject which I think I'll address in another post.
The general principle in mixing a vocal is to build the mix in such a way that it's sound compliments and supports the vocal sound. That's why the same track done with a female singer may need a re-EQ on some instruments such as keyboard or guitar, if those particular frequencies compete with the vocal. The same mix with a male singer might suddenly need a bit more edge on the rhythm guitar or that bass.
How do you know? Well... it's all about the ears. So LISTEN to other similar mixes and learn from them. Knowing the above general principles, however, should be enough to give you a good start and a recognition of those elements in professionally-done mixes!
LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Tuesday Jun 16, 2009
You'll probably have noticed that different styles of music feature sometimes vastly different approaches to the way vocals are mixed. In some styles, the vocal must be the most prominent foreground sound; in others, it rides just slightly above the mix, and in others still, it's "sunk" in the mix so as to be barely distinguishable from the rest of the music - and yet it's there, and you're hearing it (perhaps because it's panned or doubletracked - or through some other witchcraft!).
How you mix your vocal is largely a matter of convention and style, but it's also a function of the vocal characteristics of your singer. Needless to say, also, the vocal is there to be heard and lyrics understood (in most cases, lol), so a key consideration is making sure that your mix preserves the message well.
It's very easy to "lose" the vocal in the mix. And to make matters worse, it's not just the "too quiet" ones that get lost. Overpowering vocals can not only "get lost" - they can make you switch off entirely. (Don't believe me? Go to any karaoke bar and hear how much louder the vocals tend to be than the backing music! Close the door after you leave please!)
So, how do you mix a vocal?
OK. I can only give you a few general guidelines in the confines of this space. The KEY is to realize the relationship that exists between the vocal character and the instruments selected to back it. For example, you need to consider whether a raspy vocal backed by a distorted guitar wants to "sink in" or "bounce off" the backing track, and which EQ bands to reserve for each. The same song performed by two different vocalists may be mixed entirely differently, depending on the vocal characteristics.
First establish the genre you're in. For most pop music the voice must "ride on top of the mix" meaning that it should have a clear EQ pocket for itself and a level placement which gives it a small edge over the rest of the track. Something in the area of +1dB might be the rule of thumb. For some rock styles as well as a lot of dance music the voice wants to "sit" in the track becoming something like an instrument within it, and to give it definition you really need to resort to EQ techniques, double-tracking, gentle chorusing and such. In R&B it's become a fashion to have the vocal really out in front, almost entirely dry. So, knowing these general rules, you can now approach your mix.
One of the most important ways to "place" a vocal in the mix (not just vocal, mind you) is by a skillful application of the reverb. Assuming you have a reasonable quality reverb (ideally with output to a stereo track where you can re-EQ it if need be), you use it to give the voice a placement within the mix "as if in 3D." Experiment with that. More reverb (without changing the source level) will make the voice appear to "go back" in the "room." Next, decide on the length of your reverb. "Wet" sounding voices sound great in some types of mixes but totally ruin others. Again, you need to know the general direction of your track to establish the general principle which you can now adapt to your specific mix.
A critically important thing is TIMING your reverb. Many modern plug-ins do this automatically for you, but even then they will use a preset which you still would have to adjust. Should the reverb have a 600 millisecond setting or 300 - or even 150? (i.e. which beat in the bar it should end on in a track running at, say, 120 bpm). This is, of course, a function of the tempo of your track. If your track runs at 120 bpm but your reverb is timed for a 90 bpm track, the result will be a "sloppy" sound.
Applying special effects (like reverbs, choruses, delays, etc) can indeed bring out the vocal presence and character, just as long as you don't over-do it! Gating can also be used very successfully to "define" the vocal particularly in certain rhythmic styles of music, as can compression. In fact compression is a bigger subject which I think I'll address in another post.
The general principle in mixing a vocal is to build the mix in such a way that it's sound compliments and supports the vocal sound. That's why the same track done with a female singer may need a re-EQ on some instruments such as keyboard or guitar, if those particular frequencies compete with the vocal. The same mix with a male singer might suddenly need a bit more edge on the rhythm guitar or that bass.
How do you know? Well... it's all about the ears. So LISTEN to other similar mixes and learn from them. Knowing the above general principles, however, should be enough to give you a good start and a recognition of those elements in professionally-done mixes!
LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Tuesday Jun 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Working with a Professional Engineer
If you're planning to design your dream home, chances are you'd feel a lot better if the final plans were actually drawn by a professional, wouldn't you?
The same principle is good to keep in mind when working with your own mixes. There comes a point in every indie artist's career where it really is a good idea to take your favorite song to be mixed by a pro. The disadvantage? Well, you'll have to spend a little money. The advantage? Not only will your song sound as good as it possibly can with the current arrangement and recording, but you'll also have learned key mixing principles from a pro.
Why is this important? Most of us learn to mix on our own, and even if we have a natural flair for it, it simply never hurts to learn how it can be done even better from the pros. There are so many little intricate details which you can pick up during a single session, which would otherwise take you years of trial and error and loads of reading to figure out.
If music is your business (or at least your WISH it to be your business), then this just might be one of the best investments you'll ever make.
We often hear otherwise excellent songs mixed poorly, and as a result they don't do so well on the show. What a shame and a pity! Frequently, only a few small adjustments to the mix would have completely transformed it.
And how can you know that the engineer you're about to pay a small fortune to is really good? Well, it's quite simple, really. Ask around. Check his credentials. Listen to his work. Also make sure it's an engineer who's experienced in mixing your style of music.
Bottom line: If you work with specialists, professionals - you can only improve yourself. Once you do, you'll never look back.
LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Monday Jun 15, 2009
The same principle is good to keep in mind when working with your own mixes. There comes a point in every indie artist's career where it really is a good idea to take your favorite song to be mixed by a pro. The disadvantage? Well, you'll have to spend a little money. The advantage? Not only will your song sound as good as it possibly can with the current arrangement and recording, but you'll also have learned key mixing principles from a pro.
Why is this important? Most of us learn to mix on our own, and even if we have a natural flair for it, it simply never hurts to learn how it can be done even better from the pros. There are so many little intricate details which you can pick up during a single session, which would otherwise take you years of trial and error and loads of reading to figure out.
If music is your business (or at least your WISH it to be your business), then this just might be one of the best investments you'll ever make.
We often hear otherwise excellent songs mixed poorly, and as a result they don't do so well on the show. What a shame and a pity! Frequently, only a few small adjustments to the mix would have completely transformed it.
And how can you know that the engineer you're about to pay a small fortune to is really good? Well, it's quite simple, really. Ask around. Check his credentials. Listen to his work. Also make sure it's an engineer who's experienced in mixing your style of music.
Bottom line: If you work with specialists, professionals - you can only improve yourself. Once you do, you'll never look back.
LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Monday Jun 15, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Collaborations: Putting Your Career In Second Gear
Many "one-man bands" (which includes songwriters and producers) often have this attitude: "I do EVERYTHING in my music and I'm gonna make it ON MY OWN!"
Perhaps it's something we all share as humans, this sense of (false) pride and some kind of a Quixotic romantic notion that this is "the way" to do it.
Unfortunately, not only does it not square off with reality, it's a deeply flawed sentiment and it's one which can positively stop your career dead in its tracks before it can ever get off the ground.
I used to think the same way. Initially, you couldn't get me to collaborate with anyone. If asked, I would flat-out refuse. In this manner I've missed some awesome opportunities. Some where my would-be collaborators went on to bigger and better things, and others where perhaps my influence would have helped them.
With time, however, and way too late, I finally embraced the concept. And as soon as I did, I didn't just get to work with people who were "as good as" or "worse than" me. Pretty soon, I was invited to collaborate with "better" people. Some of them household names. And here's an interesting insight: I've learned LOTS from EACH of these types of collaborators. The "better ones" taught me plenty, but so did my "peers" as well as my "students."
Today, I'm fully converted. I believe a good collaboration can bring out the best in each artist involved. In fact, I can't even think of an example of ANY successful artist, writer or producer - anyone - who did it all alone. They all had collaborators!
Think about it. Would John and Paul "make it" without Ringo and George? Would either Britney Spears or Max Martin get on the map without each other? Would Jagger work without Richards?
There's time to work alone, and there's time to work with people. Make sure that in your artistic development schedule you have both. It's easier for bands. They're, by default, a "collaborative artist." But even they can use outside influences! Invite people to your sessions if only to be your "listeners."
Are "all" collaborations good?
Well, this very much depends on everyone's personality, but none more so than yours! If you're open-minded and sufficiently creative, you'll benefit from ANY kind of collaboration. I remember writing songs for a project involving little kids. At first I locked myself away and wrote and wrote, and then I had them perform it. Later, I decided to write in front of them - cold and on the spot. This completely transformed my mindset. I really had the hand on the pulse there, and the music I wrote was much more in tune with my young collaborators. Everybody (including me) enjoyed the whole experience much more as a result! I also worked with "peers" - people who were pretty much as good as I was. I usually managed to control these collaborations in such a way that they didn't become an uhealthy competition and everybody benefited from each other's insights and ideas. And finally, I also worked with people who were much better than me. Not only did that teach me stuff that would have taken me years to figure out by myself, but it also opened me to further similar collaborations!
So, how do you select whom to collaborate with?
I'd say that at first just try it with "anyone" who is equally passionate about music, and who's readily available to work with you. If possible, try to select people who complement you. Perhaps you're a great songwriter but not a great drum arranger? Or maybe you're a great arranger but don't know how to write "killer top-lines?" If you're objective about your limitations and not hung up about not being the best in "everything" you will soon be able to form killer collabs. And don't limit yourself to only one or two collaborators!
One of our closest friends and a long-time collaborator, Rob Davis, has gone on to become one of the world's most respected songwriters after he's teamed up with Kathy Dennis (whose solo efforts were also going nowhere fast at the time).
Collaborations can be magic. But they can only happen if you're open to them!
LISTEN TO: 226-Q/Wednesday Jun 10, 2009
Perhaps it's something we all share as humans, this sense of (false) pride and some kind of a Quixotic romantic notion that this is "the way" to do it.
Unfortunately, not only does it not square off with reality, it's a deeply flawed sentiment and it's one which can positively stop your career dead in its tracks before it can ever get off the ground.
I used to think the same way. Initially, you couldn't get me to collaborate with anyone. If asked, I would flat-out refuse. In this manner I've missed some awesome opportunities. Some where my would-be collaborators went on to bigger and better things, and others where perhaps my influence would have helped them.
With time, however, and way too late, I finally embraced the concept. And as soon as I did, I didn't just get to work with people who were "as good as" or "worse than" me. Pretty soon, I was invited to collaborate with "better" people. Some of them household names. And here's an interesting insight: I've learned LOTS from EACH of these types of collaborators. The "better ones" taught me plenty, but so did my "peers" as well as my "students."
Today, I'm fully converted. I believe a good collaboration can bring out the best in each artist involved. In fact, I can't even think of an example of ANY successful artist, writer or producer - anyone - who did it all alone. They all had collaborators!
Think about it. Would John and Paul "make it" without Ringo and George? Would either Britney Spears or Max Martin get on the map without each other? Would Jagger work without Richards?
There's time to work alone, and there's time to work with people. Make sure that in your artistic development schedule you have both. It's easier for bands. They're, by default, a "collaborative artist." But even they can use outside influences! Invite people to your sessions if only to be your "listeners."
Are "all" collaborations good?
Well, this very much depends on everyone's personality, but none more so than yours! If you're open-minded and sufficiently creative, you'll benefit from ANY kind of collaboration. I remember writing songs for a project involving little kids. At first I locked myself away and wrote and wrote, and then I had them perform it. Later, I decided to write in front of them - cold and on the spot. This completely transformed my mindset. I really had the hand on the pulse there, and the music I wrote was much more in tune with my young collaborators. Everybody (including me) enjoyed the whole experience much more as a result! I also worked with "peers" - people who were pretty much as good as I was. I usually managed to control these collaborations in such a way that they didn't become an uhealthy competition and everybody benefited from each other's insights and ideas. And finally, I also worked with people who were much better than me. Not only did that teach me stuff that would have taken me years to figure out by myself, but it also opened me to further similar collaborations!
So, how do you select whom to collaborate with?
I'd say that at first just try it with "anyone" who is equally passionate about music, and who's readily available to work with you. If possible, try to select people who complement you. Perhaps you're a great songwriter but not a great drum arranger? Or maybe you're a great arranger but don't know how to write "killer top-lines?" If you're objective about your limitations and not hung up about not being the best in "everything" you will soon be able to form killer collabs. And don't limit yourself to only one or two collaborators!
One of our closest friends and a long-time collaborator, Rob Davis, has gone on to become one of the world's most respected songwriters after he's teamed up with Kathy Dennis (whose solo efforts were also going nowhere fast at the time).
Collaborations can be magic. But they can only happen if you're open to them!
LISTEN TO: 226-Q/Wednesday Jun 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Arrangement: Less is More
You've often heard this, for sure. Everyone says it: "less is more." But how does that apply to music? What if you WANT to have a "busy," dynamic part? What if you want your whole piece to be FULL of sound? Where does that leave "less is more?" Surely there have been successful songs and even classical compositions which are "rich in sound" and definitely don't sound like anything's "missing" there...?
Welcome to the world of arranging. "Less is more" does not mean "take EVERYTHING out!" It doesn't mean "don't use instruments which you would like to use." In fact, all it means is "be mindful of SPACE" in music. Let it breathe! And even that doesn't mean that you "must." It's only a recommendation, but a very heathy one.
It's all because of how our attention works. Picture a canvas filled with ornaments, design elements, all sorts of things. And all that is supposed to be a background for the "centerpiece," whatever it is How easily will you spot that centerpiece? How quick before you get tired of even looking at that picture?
It's very similar to the "less is more" principle in musical arrangement. Clutter your arrangement too much and you'll distract the ear from the central point of your message. Conversely, and in all fairness, if you don't do "enough" you might simply bore your listener.
OK. But how do you learn the art of "tasteful" arranging? As with anything in life, it takes time and patience and... study. Listen. Analyze. But, there are some useful shortcuts. Most indie arrangers are already quite experienced and they don't need the basics - they just need some things cleared up.
Let's use a "pop" track as an example (this could be anything from rock to R&B to country, etc). What is the barest minimum a song needs to "communicate?" Well, presumably the performance (vocal and instrumental ie. at least one instrument) and the song's inherent melodic and chordal structure. Will that be enough to "work" in your target market? Perhaps not. So, what does your target market expect? Let's start with the beat. It's pop after all! And that's drums and bass. Work out the rhythm section (and keep working on it) until it can stand on its own. It's gotta "groove" and "sit" just right. With a tightly arranged rhythm track, most songs almost don't "need" anything else. You'll find that most pop songs will work with just the basic (very well arranged) drums, bass and perhaps a rhythm guitar or rhythm piano, etc. Let these instruments complement each other and create a "vibey" and exciting pattern that could almost work as a composition in its own right.
That's the "core." Once you have the core, you can now add extra parts. But only add them when they're needed. Once you hear your song with the lead vocal and rhythm section, you'll easily hear that some parts work just the way they are, and some could use "something" to make them "lift."
But always "resist" adding more instruments. Remember that you CAN - so resist! ;) Before you do, first revise your rhythm section yet again. Keep working it out until you know it's exactly what the additional instrument needs to be and what it needs to do. And only then go on and add it.
In this manner, you'll learn to create "perfect" arrangements, i.e. arrangements which have exactly no more and no less than what's needed for the song to work.
And then there's one more unwritten but really essential rule: music needs to "breathe." It's a very good metaphor. When you breathe, you can breathe "in" or "out" - or "pause" for a moment. Make your music organic like that! You'll quickly discover what works for your particular piece, but always keep in mind that "relentless" events in your music (e.g. constant rapping or repetitive melody or insistent riffs, or progressions without breaks, etc, etc) often spoil the listening experience.
"Less is more" is all about "taste" and as a songwriter/producer/arranger this is by far the most important weapon in your arsenal!
LISTEN TO: 226-Q/Tuesday Jun 09, 2009
Welcome to the world of arranging. "Less is more" does not mean "take EVERYTHING out!" It doesn't mean "don't use instruments which you would like to use." In fact, all it means is "be mindful of SPACE" in music. Let it breathe! And even that doesn't mean that you "must." It's only a recommendation, but a very heathy one.
It's all because of how our attention works. Picture a canvas filled with ornaments, design elements, all sorts of things. And all that is supposed to be a background for the "centerpiece," whatever it is How easily will you spot that centerpiece? How quick before you get tired of even looking at that picture?
It's very similar to the "less is more" principle in musical arrangement. Clutter your arrangement too much and you'll distract the ear from the central point of your message. Conversely, and in all fairness, if you don't do "enough" you might simply bore your listener.
OK. But how do you learn the art of "tasteful" arranging? As with anything in life, it takes time and patience and... study. Listen. Analyze. But, there are some useful shortcuts. Most indie arrangers are already quite experienced and they don't need the basics - they just need some things cleared up.
Let's use a "pop" track as an example (this could be anything from rock to R&B to country, etc). What is the barest minimum a song needs to "communicate?" Well, presumably the performance (vocal and instrumental ie. at least one instrument) and the song's inherent melodic and chordal structure. Will that be enough to "work" in your target market? Perhaps not. So, what does your target market expect? Let's start with the beat. It's pop after all! And that's drums and bass. Work out the rhythm section (and keep working on it) until it can stand on its own. It's gotta "groove" and "sit" just right. With a tightly arranged rhythm track, most songs almost don't "need" anything else. You'll find that most pop songs will work with just the basic (very well arranged) drums, bass and perhaps a rhythm guitar or rhythm piano, etc. Let these instruments complement each other and create a "vibey" and exciting pattern that could almost work as a composition in its own right.
That's the "core." Once you have the core, you can now add extra parts. But only add them when they're needed. Once you hear your song with the lead vocal and rhythm section, you'll easily hear that some parts work just the way they are, and some could use "something" to make them "lift."
But always "resist" adding more instruments. Remember that you CAN - so resist! ;) Before you do, first revise your rhythm section yet again. Keep working it out until you know it's exactly what the additional instrument needs to be and what it needs to do. And only then go on and add it.
In this manner, you'll learn to create "perfect" arrangements, i.e. arrangements which have exactly no more and no less than what's needed for the song to work.
And then there's one more unwritten but really essential rule: music needs to "breathe." It's a very good metaphor. When you breathe, you can breathe "in" or "out" - or "pause" for a moment. Make your music organic like that! You'll quickly discover what works for your particular piece, but always keep in mind that "relentless" events in your music (e.g. constant rapping or repetitive melody or insistent riffs, or progressions without breaks, etc, etc) often spoil the listening experience.
"Less is more" is all about "taste" and as a songwriter/producer/arranger this is by far the most important weapon in your arsenal!
LISTEN TO: 226-Q/Tuesday Jun 09, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Start With the End In Mind: Know Your Target Market!
When arrranging and producting a song (as opposed to simply "writing" it) here's one simple rule which should help focus you: Start with the end in mind, or in other words KNOW who your target audience is! But don't just "follow fashion" either.
So how does this work? Well, let's try to use an example. If you're writing a song for a prticular kind of a heavy metal crowd, it's clear that they will be the best judges of your music. If you know what makes that crowd tick, what they're looking for in music, what sounds they consider "hip" and so on, then you'll know how your song needs to be arranged and produced to make them totally "dig it."
If you know your market REALLY well (i.e. mostly likely you actually BELONG in that market), you'll know not only what works "now" but also what should work tomorrow! And you'll know this instinctively, simply because YOU are that market.
But what about "hybrid" arrangements, "experimental" stuff and such? What if you're not really rooted in any particular market and you just want to create music which will appeal to audiences right across the board? This is an increasingly common situation these days where a growing number of writers and woud-be producers don't really have a strong "base."
Well, at this point you have a challenge. If you don't belong to any specific demographic group (although you really DO, if you think about it...!), you need to identify with one (at least for the time during which you're writing your song).
But let me say this: more often than not this sort of effort will come out contrived and unconvincing. As a result, there's a lot of music around these days which sounds "unfocused." It's like it "doesn't belong" anywhere...!
And I'm pretty familiar with most arguments in defence of "broad" (i.e. "un-targeted") approach to songwriting. For years I was one of those displaced writers/producers who wouldn't "aim" his music at any particular demographic. I thought that by aiming at "everybody" I would appeal to everybody. But it doesn't work that way.
In order to increase your chances of not just succeeding in a particular niche but ALSO of crossing over to "everybody," lol, get to know your target audience REALLY well, and get to know the music they listen to REALLY well.
Sounds like a no-brainer of a tip? Well, it is, really. But you'd be surprised how many potentially great songwriters (and many novice producers) have NO CLUE that this is in fact the IDEA that drives all successful music. Once your song is going SOMEWHERE, so are you!
So, one final point: how do you get a sample of your target audience to listen to your music and give you meaningful feedback? Here is one way: play it to them without revealing it's you. Observe and listen, and NEVER argue. Just clock how they react, what they say (or don't say), whether they ask you to turn it up or beg you to switch to something else...! And NEVER EVER ask your close friends or family to judge it. Even if they're critical they're BIASED, and very few among them will therefore be able to give you the kind of feedback you can actually build on. So... start working on that thick skin...! ;)
LISTEN TO: 226-Q/Monday Jun 08, 2009
So how does this work? Well, let's try to use an example. If you're writing a song for a prticular kind of a heavy metal crowd, it's clear that they will be the best judges of your music. If you know what makes that crowd tick, what they're looking for in music, what sounds they consider "hip" and so on, then you'll know how your song needs to be arranged and produced to make them totally "dig it."
If you know your market REALLY well (i.e. mostly likely you actually BELONG in that market), you'll know not only what works "now" but also what should work tomorrow! And you'll know this instinctively, simply because YOU are that market.
But what about "hybrid" arrangements, "experimental" stuff and such? What if you're not really rooted in any particular market and you just want to create music which will appeal to audiences right across the board? This is an increasingly common situation these days where a growing number of writers and woud-be producers don't really have a strong "base."
Well, at this point you have a challenge. If you don't belong to any specific demographic group (although you really DO, if you think about it...!), you need to identify with one (at least for the time during which you're writing your song).
But let me say this: more often than not this sort of effort will come out contrived and unconvincing. As a result, there's a lot of music around these days which sounds "unfocused." It's like it "doesn't belong" anywhere...!
And I'm pretty familiar with most arguments in defence of "broad" (i.e. "un-targeted") approach to songwriting. For years I was one of those displaced writers/producers who wouldn't "aim" his music at any particular demographic. I thought that by aiming at "everybody" I would appeal to everybody. But it doesn't work that way.
In order to increase your chances of not just succeeding in a particular niche but ALSO of crossing over to "everybody," lol, get to know your target audience REALLY well, and get to know the music they listen to REALLY well.
Sounds like a no-brainer of a tip? Well, it is, really. But you'd be surprised how many potentially great songwriters (and many novice producers) have NO CLUE that this is in fact the IDEA that drives all successful music. Once your song is going SOMEWHERE, so are you!
So, one final point: how do you get a sample of your target audience to listen to your music and give you meaningful feedback? Here is one way: play it to them without revealing it's you. Observe and listen, and NEVER argue. Just clock how they react, what they say (or don't say), whether they ask you to turn it up or beg you to switch to something else...! And NEVER EVER ask your close friends or family to judge it. Even if they're critical they're BIASED, and very few among them will therefore be able to give you the kind of feedback you can actually build on. So... start working on that thick skin...! ;)
LISTEN TO: 226-Q/Monday Jun 08, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Spicing Up Your Mixes With Replaced Sounds
In order to benefit from this tip you need a good audio program like Cubase, Logic, ProTools or anything similar. Since most artists have something like that in their studios these days, I think this tip might prove useful.
Sound replacement can be a pretty laborious process, but if done well it will be well worth the hassle. It can be used by bands as well as solo performers who record everything by themselves. If done well, it can completely transform your mix, making it sound "the business!"
In order to explain how this works I'll use a band as an example. This technique is very well known to professional producers, so if you're one of them it will be old news to you. But if you're not, have fun:
Once a band records a satisfactory performance, captured in your audio sequencer, you will presumably have every instrument on its own, separate track. Ideally, you'll also have the drums split into channels (one for hats, one for the kick, one for the snare, etc, etc). Analogically, each additional instrumental and vocal performance will have its own separate track(s) as well.
So let's focus our example on drums. And let's assume that your drum kit is like most "indie" drum kits, meaning that you can easily imagine it sounding a wee bit better...! Or perhaps you just weren't able to capture its live sound dynamically enough. So, what do you do to add some life and power to your drum mix?
Enter "sound replacement." This is particularly easy if your drum tracks have already been split. If not, I'd advise you to split them manually, although this too can be quite time-consuming (unless you have a good tool like ReCycle or similar).
Okay. So you open up your drum track, say, your kick drum. This is the original, recorded sound and you're not happy with it.
Look through your sound library (or go on the web or... indeed go through your records and CDs) until you hear exactly the kind of sound you like. Ideally it should be a stand-alone sound (as opposed to a kick mixed with other sounds, as in when you sample it from a record!). Isolate the sample in a separate sound file. Label it so you don't forget what it is!
Now, using your sequencer you can paste in your replacement sound underneath your existing sound (on a separate track of course). You can align the two visually, or some sequencers can actually place it in perfect alignment with your existing part. Often manual placement works better than automated.
You can now listen to how the new kick sounds together with the rest of the drum kit, by muting the old one and listening only to the new one. You can also experiment and see what happens if you leave both in! Sometimes sound layering works great and you might even develop a sound everybody else will want to sample from you!
Using sound replacement does NOT relieve you of the responsibility of EQ'ing your bass-drum track, although some producers might argue that the sampled sound already has the "perfect" EQ. In reality, while the EQ might have been perfect for the original recording from which it came, it might be inadequate for yours! But - who knows.
Still, if you made the right choice, chances are that your replaced sound will vastly improve the sound of the whole original drum performance. Note that using sound replacement in this manner you will not affect the feel of the original drum part, but only optimize the way it comes across! Just be sure to reflect the DYNAMICS correctly, i.e. don't place max-volume kick sample on top of EACH original kick part. Unless your drummer is an automaton, his kick dynamics will vary!
Naturally, you can do the same with a one-man band, where you can take each sound and look for alternative samples. You can then either replay them with your sampler or paste them in one-by-one from WAV or AIFF files.
And what about OTHER instruments...?
Well, drums are the easiest ones to tackle with the above sound replacement technique. Other instruments need different approaches which often come down to EQ, special effects and other such things. You can always overdub overly thin or uninteresting sounds if you can't find any other way to deal with them. But that might be a separate subject for another day!
LISTEN TO: 225-Q/Wednesday Jun 03, 2009
Sound replacement can be a pretty laborious process, but if done well it will be well worth the hassle. It can be used by bands as well as solo performers who record everything by themselves. If done well, it can completely transform your mix, making it sound "the business!"
In order to explain how this works I'll use a band as an example. This technique is very well known to professional producers, so if you're one of them it will be old news to you. But if you're not, have fun:
Once a band records a satisfactory performance, captured in your audio sequencer, you will presumably have every instrument on its own, separate track. Ideally, you'll also have the drums split into channels (one for hats, one for the kick, one for the snare, etc, etc). Analogically, each additional instrumental and vocal performance will have its own separate track(s) as well.
So let's focus our example on drums. And let's assume that your drum kit is like most "indie" drum kits, meaning that you can easily imagine it sounding a wee bit better...! Or perhaps you just weren't able to capture its live sound dynamically enough. So, what do you do to add some life and power to your drum mix?
Enter "sound replacement." This is particularly easy if your drum tracks have already been split. If not, I'd advise you to split them manually, although this too can be quite time-consuming (unless you have a good tool like ReCycle or similar).
Okay. So you open up your drum track, say, your kick drum. This is the original, recorded sound and you're not happy with it.
Look through your sound library (or go on the web or... indeed go through your records and CDs) until you hear exactly the kind of sound you like. Ideally it should be a stand-alone sound (as opposed to a kick mixed with other sounds, as in when you sample it from a record!). Isolate the sample in a separate sound file. Label it so you don't forget what it is!
Now, using your sequencer you can paste in your replacement sound underneath your existing sound (on a separate track of course). You can align the two visually, or some sequencers can actually place it in perfect alignment with your existing part. Often manual placement works better than automated.
You can now listen to how the new kick sounds together with the rest of the drum kit, by muting the old one and listening only to the new one. You can also experiment and see what happens if you leave both in! Sometimes sound layering works great and you might even develop a sound everybody else will want to sample from you!
Using sound replacement does NOT relieve you of the responsibility of EQ'ing your bass-drum track, although some producers might argue that the sampled sound already has the "perfect" EQ. In reality, while the EQ might have been perfect for the original recording from which it came, it might be inadequate for yours! But - who knows.
Still, if you made the right choice, chances are that your replaced sound will vastly improve the sound of the whole original drum performance. Note that using sound replacement in this manner you will not affect the feel of the original drum part, but only optimize the way it comes across! Just be sure to reflect the DYNAMICS correctly, i.e. don't place max-volume kick sample on top of EACH original kick part. Unless your drummer is an automaton, his kick dynamics will vary!
Naturally, you can do the same with a one-man band, where you can take each sound and look for alternative samples. You can then either replay them with your sampler or paste them in one-by-one from WAV or AIFF files.
And what about OTHER instruments...?
Well, drums are the easiest ones to tackle with the above sound replacement technique. Other instruments need different approaches which often come down to EQ, special effects and other such things. You can always overdub overly thin or uninteresting sounds if you can't find any other way to deal with them. But that might be a separate subject for another day!
LISTEN TO: 225-Q/Wednesday Jun 03, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Develop Your Hooks, or: If a Song is Worth Doing, It's Worth Doing Well
Another more general topic today, but also one which is tremendously powerful in its simplicity. Pop music is all about hooks. But, if truth be told, it's not just "pop" music. Just about "any" kind of music, to be widely accepted or respected must be able to "hook" its target audience. Mozart wasn't above "hooky music" either! Quite the contrary.
So, what is a "hook"?
Most people think it's the "chorus." True, a chorus should be "hooky" but it's just one of many possible hooks a song can have. A particular sound; a cool riff; a "sticky" melody somewhere in the verse; a sound effect; a cool word; a hooky break... and the list goes on.
In fact, "anything" in a song CAN be a hook. It's just something which grabs the listener's attention and invites him to have another listen. A well-contrstructed song will have multiple hooks. The way is starts, the way it goes in the verse, the way it transits to the chorus, and so on. And, as I already said before, DON'T make the mistake of thinking "hooky = cheap commercial crap." Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the most ambitious and demanding music in the world has CLEAR hooks. Except that some of those hooks might be aimed at more demanding audiences!
The thing about hooks is that they're actually not all that difficult to write or arrange - as soon as you realize that they're needed. The trick, of course, is to come up with something original or quirky or... "you."
But you should start by analyzing established music for its hooks, and see if you can come up with something comparable for your tracks. Perhaps it's a few notes on the piano as you transit from one part to the next. Maybe it's an insanely hooky guitar riff which you've rehearsed for 10 hours and finally got it to work. Or maybe it's a crazy, soaring chorus which just needed a couple of notes flipped out here and there to really rule...
Making great music is ALWAYS a process of REVISION. Do not believe in those stories on divine inspiration which resulted in a classic. While they may or may not have happened, believing in them will distract you from what really matters: spend the TIME it takes. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing GREAT.
LISTEN TO: 225-Q/Tuesday Jun 02, 2009Monday, June 1, 2009
Playing To Your Strengths
Today's "tip" is more of a general word of advice than anything technical. But it's extremely important nonetheless. From my personal experience as well as from watching countless others, I believe that this just has to be one of the most important bits of advice I can only wish I had gotten back when I was starting out.
While it goes without saying that as indies we tend to "have to" do everything ourselves, it's equally obvious that no matter how good we might be in more than one area, there's typically just one area where we well and truly excel. So, if you're a great rapper, for example, but not a great singer, one of the most important things you'll ever do is RECOGNIZING that fact. Because if you do, you won't be hung up on seeking out a BETTER singer, will you now?
The same goes for songwriters. Too many songwriters dream of being "singer/songwriters," whereas their true strength might lie in songwriting itself. They might "feel" their music better than most singers, but can they really deliver it better? In many cases, they can't but they try anyway. And then they get frustrated because people don't hear the song quality first. The FIRST thing your audience hears is the performance. You could argue that the "first" thing people notice is the "mix" but... performance is by far the most important aspect of any production. Get that right, and all of a sudden your dodgy mix seems to sound a little better and even your average song suddenly starts sounding like a potential hit.
It's perfectly fine to do everything yourself in the initial stages. Pre-develop and pre-produce your songs all by yourself. But when the time comes to show it off, start making some calls and find the best people you can find to help you finish it off! There's no shame in being a great collaborator. There's no REAL pride to being the lone wolf! On the contrary - of the dozens of the most successful artists I know i can't think of one who's done it ALL by him or herself!
Why should all this matter?
Well... if you didn't get it yet, let me tell you the difference: if you don't play to your strengths you will remain an unfulfilled, perhaps bitter, artist until the day you throw in the towel. If you play to your strengths and associate yourself with the best people you can find, you'll fast-track your career like NO contacts and "industry ins" could ever do.
And pretty soon, you'll be soaring with the eagles! Wanna be a pro? Do as the pros do!
LISTEN TO: 225-Q/Monday Jun 01, 2009
While it goes without saying that as indies we tend to "have to" do everything ourselves, it's equally obvious that no matter how good we might be in more than one area, there's typically just one area where we well and truly excel. So, if you're a great rapper, for example, but not a great singer, one of the most important things you'll ever do is RECOGNIZING that fact. Because if you do, you won't be hung up on seeking out a BETTER singer, will you now?
The same goes for songwriters. Too many songwriters dream of being "singer/songwriters," whereas their true strength might lie in songwriting itself. They might "feel" their music better than most singers, but can they really deliver it better? In many cases, they can't but they try anyway. And then they get frustrated because people don't hear the song quality first. The FIRST thing your audience hears is the performance. You could argue that the "first" thing people notice is the "mix" but... performance is by far the most important aspect of any production. Get that right, and all of a sudden your dodgy mix seems to sound a little better and even your average song suddenly starts sounding like a potential hit.
It's perfectly fine to do everything yourself in the initial stages. Pre-develop and pre-produce your songs all by yourself. But when the time comes to show it off, start making some calls and find the best people you can find to help you finish it off! There's no shame in being a great collaborator. There's no REAL pride to being the lone wolf! On the contrary - of the dozens of the most successful artists I know i can't think of one who's done it ALL by him or herself!
Why should all this matter?
Well... if you didn't get it yet, let me tell you the difference: if you don't play to your strengths you will remain an unfulfilled, perhaps bitter, artist until the day you throw in the towel. If you play to your strengths and associate yourself with the best people you can find, you'll fast-track your career like NO contacts and "industry ins" could ever do.
And pretty soon, you'll be soaring with the eagles! Wanna be a pro? Do as the pros do!
LISTEN TO: 225-Q/Monday Jun 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
