Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:37 pm
The calm before the storm....
DZA wrote:The calm before the storm....
Dubstepforum.com
worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Page 2 of 3
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:23 pm
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:07 pm
A tune is only as good as its ambiance & breakdowns.Dacks wrote:I finished the tune in my sig off not long ago and sent it around to some people, i got a lot of good feedback however one piece of advice that stood out to me was that I needed to put in a break down and take the bass out in the middle somewhere. my idea of a break down in the track was where I took out the main wobbley synth but kept the sub.
so tell me what's your view? are breakdowns 100 percent necessary in dubstep today? do we have to completely cut out bass to let the ravers know that there is a breakdown?
would be good to hear what other producers think on this subject!
peace.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:29 pm
Basic A wrote:Do what feels right.
Fuck em if they say otherwise.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:39 pm
breakdowns are not always necessary, especially if it's a chilled track. There are some tracks around where all they do is buildup, very progressive.
As said before, it comes down to the feeling of the track. My breakdown in my track in my sig is just as you've said - removed the main synth but kept the sub
As said before, it comes down to the feeling of the track. My breakdown in my track in my sig is just as you've said - removed the main synth but kept the sub
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:40 pm
My thoughts on the subject: Nothing is necessary. However, breakdowns are good in the proper context. It's a nice smooth way to finish off a track. Though tracks can be finished in a variety of different ways. When making music I think it's best to not think about the DJ that is going to spin the track, just think about the song as an idea of yours, not as a club-banger. Also, something that your song seems to lack that could make it more exciting is some sort of bridge. Something that is completely different from the rest of the track thrown in somewhere in the middle to help break up the monotony a little bit.
Lastly, you should turn down the limiter/multiband-compressor you are using on the master of that track. It is crazy loud/squashed. Compared it to some professionally-released tracks and it is way too limited. Give your track some room to breathe, you are missing out on a lot of dynamics! It doesn't need to be the loudest thing ever, that's why people have volume controls!
Lastly, you should turn down the limiter/multiband-compressor you are using on the master of that track. It is crazy loud/squashed. Compared it to some professionally-released tracks and it is way too limited. Give your track some room to breathe, you are missing out on a lot of dynamics! It doesn't need to be the loudest thing ever, that's why people have volume controls!
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:48 pm
like everyone else said do your own thing its your music you do what you want with it and i checked out your track and everything sounded fine to me didnt feel as if anything was missing in it so keep it up and fuck what people think is the "right" thing to do with a track
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:12 am
if you want to get philosophical.. dubstep does have some things needed. if you record without oscillation or natrual wobble on any of your tracks, you're just making some brand of techno at 140. if the majority of your beats do not have a snare/clap on 3rd, you're probably not making dubstep.
the breakdown IMHO, is not one of those signature things, although it does definitly bring a track out of the monotony.
If you're like me and you listen to 3-4 hours of dubstep on a daily basis you probably realize that alot of dubstep -CAN- start to sound repetitive after a while. a breakdown serves to help make your track stand out amongst others.
That is not to say a breakdown is the only way to make your track stand out and be unique, it is one method amonst an array of limitless ways to make your music stand out. thats why it is "making" music.
if you FEEL like your track doesn't need a breakdown to realize its fullest potential, then leave it out. if you feel like a track is begging to slam some fcuking faces with a breakdown, then do it up, but don't expect our reggae comrades to be slamming peoples fcuking faces when they talk about casually hitting the pipe in their dubstep.
not a standard, just an option
the breakdown IMHO, is not one of those signature things, although it does definitly bring a track out of the monotony.
If you're like me and you listen to 3-4 hours of dubstep on a daily basis you probably realize that alot of dubstep -CAN- start to sound repetitive after a while. a breakdown serves to help make your track stand out amongst others.
That is not to say a breakdown is the only way to make your track stand out and be unique, it is one method amonst an array of limitless ways to make your music stand out. thats why it is "making" music.
if you FEEL like your track doesn't need a breakdown to realize its fullest potential, then leave it out. if you feel like a track is begging to slam some fcuking faces with a breakdown, then do it up, but don't expect our reggae comrades to be slamming peoples fcuking faces when they talk about casually hitting the pipe in their dubstep.
not a standard, just an option
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:16 am
So wrong... so, so, so wrongJigSaw wrote:if you want to get philosophical.. dubstep does have some things needed. if you record without oscillation or natrual wobble on any of your tracks, you're just making some brand of techno at 140. if the majority of your beats do not have a snare/clap on 3rd, you're probably not making dubstep.
1. Oscillation != wobble. Oscillation, in this case, is just sound.
2. To say that wobble is essential to dubstep is beyond stupid. There's countless tunes out there that don't have a wobble of any kind and are still as "dubstep" as any other.
3. You seem to mistake "electronic dance music" for "techno". Not even close.
4. Again, to say that a snare/clap/etc is "required" on the 3rd beat is beyond ridiculous. There's also countless tunes out there that don't meet that "requirement" and are also still as "dubstep" as any other.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:40 am
it's a generalization. let me spin it to you this way. if you have a 10 track ep, and none of your tracks contain wobble (note my original post says "any of your tracks"), i will not classify you as dubstep even if thats what you would like to be. i agree many tracks that are awesome dubstep do not have wobble, but the same artists as a rule do have wobbly noises, eg oscillation of cutoff filter in dubstep.Phigure wrote:So wrong... so, so, so wrongJigSaw wrote:if you want to get philosophical.. dubstep does have some things needed. if you record without oscillation or natrual wobble on any of your tracks, you're just making some brand of techno at 140. if the majority of your beats do not have a snare/clap on 3rd, you're probably not making dubstep.
1. Oscillation != wobble. Oscillation, in this case, is just sound.
2. To say that wobble is essential to dubstep is beyond stupid. There's countless tunes out there that don't have a wobble of any kind and are still as "dubstep" as any other.
3. You seem to mistake "electronic dance music" for "techno". Not even close.
4. Again, to say that a snare/clap/etc is "required" on the 3rd beat is beyond ridiculous. There's also countless tunes out there that don't meet that "requirement" and are also still as "dubstep" as any other.
so, thats the first two points..
next, i'm using the verbage techno instead of "electronic music". i apologize if doing so has lead you to believe you can debunk the entire post. for the record i take back saying techno and all the feelings and emotions behind it, and hope you can now be onboard.
to the last post, let me again spin it to you this way.
if you have a 10 track ep and NONE of your tracks follow a standard of kick on 1 and snare on 3 (in addition to any other percussive noises), if this basis is absent from EVERY song you make or have made, then i will not classify you as dubstep.
it is a generalization as to the things that one would reference when describing this genre. i am saying that a breakdown is not a part of the standard, in so much as someone would say 140 is a signature of most dubstep. again, you seem to confuse me saying most, or commonly, indicitive as a requirement.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:50 am
Sure, you won't classify it as dubstep, but anyone who knows music would. Listen to Scuba's Triangulation. Twelve tracks, no wobble. Yet I, as well as loads of others would call it "dubstep" (although it's much more than simply that). And there's tons of other albums just like it, wobbleless, yet as "dubstep"-eque as any album that has these wobbles you hold so dearJigSaw wrote:it's a generalization. let me spin it to you this way. if you have a 10 track ep, and none of your tracks contain wobble (note my original post says "any of your tracks"), i will not classify you as dubstep even if thats what you would like to be. i agree many tracks that are awesome dubstep do not have wobble, but the same artists as a rule do have wobbly noises, eg oscillation of cutoff filter in dubstep.Phigure wrote:So wrong... so, so, so wrongJigSaw wrote:if you want to get philosophical.. dubstep does have some things needed. if you record without oscillation or natrual wobble on any of your tracks, you're just making some brand of techno at 140. if the majority of your beats do not have a snare/clap on 3rd, you're probably not making dubstep.
1. Oscillation != wobble. Oscillation, in this case, is just sound.
2. To say that wobble is essential to dubstep is beyond stupid. There's countless tunes out there that don't have a wobble of any kind and are still as "dubstep" as any other.
3. You seem to mistake "electronic dance music" for "techno". Not even close.
4. Again, to say that a snare/clap/etc is "required" on the 3rd beat is beyond ridiculous. There's also countless tunes out there that don't meet that "requirement" and are also still as "dubstep" as any other.
so, thats the first two points..
next, i'm using the verbage techno instead of "electronic music". i apologize if doing so has lead you to believe you can debunk the entire post. for the record i take back saying techno and all the feelings and emotions behind it, and hope you can now be onboard.
to the last post, let me again spin it to you this way.
if you have a 10 track ep and NONE of your tracks follow a standard of kick on 1 and snare on 3 (in addition to any other percussive noises), if this basis is absent from EVERY song you make or have made, then i will not classify you as dubstep.
it is a generalization as to the things that one would reference when describing this genre. i am saying that a breakdown is not a part of the standard, in so much as someone would say 140 is a signature of most dubstep. again, you seem to confuse me saying most, or commonly, indicitive as a requirement.
genres are stupid anyways though. fuck labeling music. but the fact that you reduce an entire type of music to "kick on 3 and wobble" is ridiculous.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:01 am
As long as there's one drop it's good enough for me. 
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:07 am
Labeling is a requirement in order for people to know what it is they like.
"Hey man, you going out on the weekend?"
"Yeah man... gonna try and find something that sits around 140bpm, maybe kinda chill, dark, or foreboding. Know what I'm talking about?"
"OH yeah for sure, I think kylie minogue sings that yeah?"
Case in point.
@phigure - man you can be pretty harsh at times =\
Back on topic - as has already been said, it totally depends on your track.
"Hey man, you going out on the weekend?"
"Yeah man... gonna try and find something that sits around 140bpm, maybe kinda chill, dark, or foreboding. Know what I'm talking about?"
"OH yeah for sure, I think kylie minogue sings that yeah?"
Case in point.
@phigure - man you can be pretty harsh at times =\
Back on topic - as has already been said, it totally depends on your track.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:10 am
man, you get incensed pretty quickly. why do all these nubs post on here ask how to get "wobble bass" if it is not a signature of our genre? why do people ask how to automate filter cutoff, if it is not a distinctive attribute to OUR genre (you also seem to be getting on the hype of degrading me, and as a musician to a musician i'm really not interested in hate.)?Phigure wrote:
Sure, you won't classify it as dubstep, but anyone who knows music would. Listen to Scuba's Triangulation. Twelve tracks, no wobble. Yet I, as well as loads of others would call it "dubstep". And there's tons of other albums just like it, wobbleless, yet as "dubstep"-eque as any album that has these wobbles you hold so dear
genres are stupid anyways though. fuck labeling music. but the fact that you reduce an entire type of music to "kick on 3 and wobble" is ridiculous.
i would be way more inclined to label something with no wobble (haven't heard it, tbh), as "dub" as opposed to "dubstep". not knocking it by any means, i like alot of things i would classify as "dub" also.
genres are integral (especially to our genre) because they allow people (specifically the masses) to be able to identify a "type" of music that they find to be pleasing to the ear, and thereby helping to bring exposure to other bands/artists that label themselves in similar ways, based upon certain signature features of the genre, which again in no way are absolute requirements. it helps us share music with others which i feel is one of the greatest accomplishments us artists try to realize.
if i try to show someone dubstep, i may show them things off beat, things that do not have wobble, and things that do not follow the basic pretense of dubstep, however, if i was to try and define, to the masses, what our music sounds like, breakdowns would not be a part of it, and wobble would be.
one aspect of the rock music genre can be defined as music involving guitar. are there rock songs that have no guitar? yes. are they still rock? yes. but the vast majority of rock -DOES- have guitar.
i'm not reducing this genre by any means, i try to do unique things with music that others do not. i do not aspire to a standard when making music. but people able to describe attributes of songs is an important part of music which doesn't involve creating a standard. just be reasonable.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:25 am
really? you'd call the aforementioned album Triangulation dub?JigSaw wrote:man, you get incensed pretty quickly. why do all these nubs post on here ask how to get "wobble bass" if it is not a signature of our genre? why do people ask how to automate filter cutoff, if it is not a distinctive attribute to OUR genre (you also seem to be getting on the hype of degrading me, and as a musician to a musician i'm really not interested in hate.)?Phigure wrote:
Sure, you won't classify it as dubstep, but anyone who knows music would. Listen to Scuba's Triangulation. Twelve tracks, no wobble. Yet I, as well as loads of others would call it "dubstep". And there's tons of other albums just like it, wobbleless, yet as "dubstep"-eque as any album that has these wobbles you hold so dear
genres are stupid anyways though. fuck labeling music. but the fact that you reduce an entire type of music to "kick on 3 and wobble" is ridiculous.
i would be way more inclined to label something with no wobble (haven't heard it, tbh), as "dub" as opposed to "dubstep". not knocking it by any means, i like alot of things i would classify as "dub" also.
You'd call it this?:
obviously genres act primarily as a rough label with which one can identify music and communicate about it. my point was simply that it starts being obnoxious when people start saying "X GENRE REQUIRES Y ELEMENT"
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:27 am
lol you put down genre labelling then you pull him up on labelling something a genre you don't agree with.
Quality.
Quality.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:29 am
amphibian wrote:lol you put down genre labelling then you pull him up on labelling something a genre you don't agree with.
Quality.
Phigure wrote:obviously genres act primarily as a rough label with which one can identify music and communicate about it. my point was simply that it starts being obnoxious when people start saying "X GENRE REQUIRES Y ELEMENT"
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:42 am
i can't listen to it, i do the majority of my debating at work on the companies dime, and my free time making dubPhigure wrote:
really? you'd call the aforementioned album Triangulation dub?
You'd call it this?:
obviously genres act primarily as a rough label with which one can identify music and communicate about it. my point was simply that it starts being obnoxious when people start saying "X GENRE REQUIRES Y ELEMENT"
i will check it out within the next 48 and give you my grand determination (i hope everyone is syncing their clocks)
i agree with you 100%, it is against the context of music to be rigid about what can and cannot be done. anything can be done. i agree it is very much obnoxious when people are shouting such comments. but this thread is about breakdowns and their relavence in the dubstep genre, and my statement was that whereas things like wobble can help to define this genre, i do not feel that breakdowns are a signature aspect to this genre because it is a very track/artist specific type of affair.
i am glad we were able to reach an understanding
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:54 am
Because they're noobs duh. I think your confusing 'core characteristic' with 'cliche'.JigSaw wrote:why do all these nubs post on here ask how to get "wobble bass" if it is not a signature of our genre?
I'm with Phiggy on this one, dubstep is a feeling, not a sound. The only real themes I'll acknowledge are bass and pace with a bit of space thrown in for good measure. I've made quite a few beats that have no kick on the 1 and no snare on the 3, yet they still have a distinct dubstep flavor. You shouldn't even be talking about what instrument hits where; if anything, discuss accents or emphasis. How you go about achieving that emphasis is part of making music. As for wobble, it's just a vehicle. Likening it to 'the sound' of dubstep is reducing it to something very two dimensional.
Sure both of these things are very common in the scene; the genre is very cannibalistic, partly due to the oversaturation of new producers formulaicly 'giving it a go' without an understanding or passion for the music. This does not mean this is the essence of Dubstep however. I'm sure the majority of photographs taken these days are teenage girls making duck faces and throwing peace bombs to put on facebook, yet I'm sure you would not reduce the art of photography to these shallow elements.
Re: Breakdowns, do we NEED to have them?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:27 am
a recent epiphany i've had with music is that in much the same way that people are stupid about virtually every other aspect of life, so too are they stupid about music. thats why shit like miley cyrus and country are popular with the masses, imo, because people have virtually no concept of music whatsoever past what itunes or their friends listen to.SunkLo wrote:Because they're noobs duh. I think your confusing 'core characteristic' with 'cliche'.JigSaw wrote:why do all these nubs post on here ask how to get "wobble bass" if it is not a signature of our genre?
I'm with Phiggy on this one, dubstep is a feeling, not a sound. The only real themes I'll acknowledge are bass and pace with a bit of space thrown in for good measure. I've made quite a few beats that have no kick on the 1 and no snare on the 3, yet they still have a distinct dubstep flavor. You shouldn't even be talking about what instrument hits where; if anything, discuss accents or emphasis. How you go about achieving that emphasis is part of making music. As for wobble, it's just a vehicle. Likening it to 'the sound' of dubstep is reducing it to something very two dimensional.
Sure both of these things are very common in the scene; the genre is very cannibalistic, partly due to the oversaturation of new producers formulaicly 'giving it a go' without an understanding or passion for the music. This does not mean this is the essence of Dubstep however. I'm sure the majority of photographs taken these days are teenage girls making duck faces and throwing peace bombs to put on facebook, yet I'm sure you would not reduce the art of photography to these shallow elements.
unfortunately, as an artist, we use these "cliches" to describe some of the core characteristics of dubstep to the masses.
i don't want to step on toes here, but using the themes you've detailed, KORN could be labeled as dubstep and i'm sure you are not under that misconception. KORN is certainly not dubstep although it certainly has bass and pace with a bit of space thrown in for good measure.
i have beats as well that do not follow the preconcieved notions of 1st and 3rd, and that doesn't mean they are not dubstep. i also have dubstep without any wobble (which is an aspect i am admittedly passionate about). all of this still does not change the fact that if i were to try and describe the genre to someone, i would use wobble and 1st and 3rd as starting points.
your arguement about photography doesn't float, because you're taking a genre of photography (facebook photos) and trying to generalize the art (photography) with it.
that'd be me saying that wobble and 1st and 3rd is all there is to the art of music.
Teenage girls making duck faces and throwing peace bombs (attributes/aspects/or cliches) is a main part of that genre (being facebook photos), even though i do not do that with my photos on facebook, that is how you would best describe "facebook photos" to someone.
i think that dubstep is a very broad and far reaching genre, and i absolutely agree that there is no absolute characteristics that make up dubstep. i feel like wobble might be best phrased as an "instrument" on its own (eg a noise that is oscillating) because it is an instrument, or vehicle of the dubstep genre, more so then most (if not any) other genres. i am in no way trying relagate dubstep to a standard, just trying to say that a big portion of of dubstep does share elements (i think you understand i'm not trying to put this genre in a box because i know i would be pissed if someone was trying to say that to me, and i'm certainly not)