Page 3 of 5

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:25 pm
by escapes
This why the old boom bap 90s hip hop sounds so good ! All analog hardware and vinyl ! Keep it raw, nun of that sampling mp3s !
Kryptic Minds seem to get it just right they that got that dirty organic yet clean sound.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:47 am
by Ldizzy
no dude... some 90s hip hop sounded like shit...

the one u hear was either mixed in million dollar studios or crafted by VERY crafty people... and the beatmakers we all praise were tight on so many levels...

just type mpc 60 old school rap beat on utube and tell me that shit is dope...

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:47 am
by wub
escapes wrote:This why the old boom bap 90s hip hop sounds so good ! All analog hardware and vinyl ! Keep it raw, nun of that sampling mp3s !
Kryptic Minds seem to get it just right they that got that dirty organic yet clean sound.
KM said in an interview that a lot of their drum sounds were recorded on a mobile phone, sounds of them hitting decaying tree logs with a stick to get a natural lo-fi snare sound.
Ldizzy wrote:no dude... some 90s hip hop sounded like shit...

the one u hear was either mixed in million dollar studios or crafted by VERY crafty people... and the beatmakers we all praise were tight on so many levels...

just type mpc 60 old school rap beat on utube and tell me that shit is dope...
Spot on, which brings us back to the formula;

shit production + amazing tune = raw
shit production + shit tune = shit

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:15 pm
by Ldizzy
haha totally agree!!!

whats the result for

amazing production + shit tune? most radio pop releases??

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:57 pm
by joegrizzly
PERCEPT wrote:Lets be honest if Coki or Jakes were unknown and came in here later on today, we'd probably all be saying sweet tracks but you need to work on your mixdown a lot. But they're both two of my favourite artists, go figure.
I know this was written months ago, but really??? If some unknowns presented the same tunes i'd say good fucking job.. lol

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:27 pm
by wub
Ldizzy wrote:haha totally agree!!!

whats the result for

amazing production + shit tune? most radio pop releases??
Something that is sucked clean of all emotion and feeling. A grey slab of production.
joegrizzly wrote:
PERCEPT wrote:Lets be honest if Coki or Jakes were unknown and came in here later on today, we'd probably all be saying sweet tracks but you need to work on your mixdown a lot. But they're both two of my favourite artists, go figure.
I know this was written months ago, but really??? If some unknowns presented the same tunes i'd say good fucking job.. lol
It does raise a valid point TBH - if some raw tune that was amazing got posted in the Dubs board, no matter how amazing it was there would still be comments along the line of improving their mixdown.


I think it's as much to do with the ease of availability of mastering software as anything else. There is a base shift in the ethos of lot of production, the whole brostep scene is evidence as much of that. The mixdown has replaced the idea in terms of importance in a tune, hence why YouTube is overflowing with identikit sounding polished masses of dullness.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:48 pm
by um4mi
escapes wrote:This why the old boom bap 90s hip hop sounds so good ! All analog hardware and vinyl ! Keep it raw, nun of that sampling mp3s !
they also used 12 bit samplers a lot like the akai 900 or more likely an MPC 60

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:00 am
by hudson
wub wrote:It does raise a valid point TBH - if some raw tune that was amazing got posted in the Dubs board, no matter how amazing it was there would still be comments along the line of improving their mixdown.
I think I disagree... In my experience people rarely mention the mixdown unless I explicitly ask for tips, and my mixdowns aren't usually that great.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:16 pm
by Ldizzy
official releases are often mixed and mastered...

but ive always tried to imagine a raw version of a beat...

i remember watching startrak's skateboarding dvds... beats were produced by pharrell but were not mixed or at least very badly and it was almost shameful... it really made me realize how important a mix can be

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:16 pm
by wub
When the mix takes precedence over the ideas, that's when trouble begins.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:19 pm
by Pedro Sánchez
Jungle as a genre is a perfect example of rawness and crude production techniques creating some timeless magic.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:25 pm
by tavravlavish
Pedro Sánchez wrote:Jungle as a genre is a perfect example of rawness and crude production techniques creating some timeless magic.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:26 pm
by tavravlavish
um4mi wrote:
escapes wrote:This why the old boom bap 90s hip hop sounds so good ! All analog hardware and vinyl ! Keep it raw, nun of that sampling mp3s !
they also used 12 bit samplers a lot like the akai 900 or more likely an MPC 60
I gotz dat 12 bit reverb, no 12 bit sampler dough.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 pm
by leeany

this was the original raw mix of survival of the fittest. sounds pretty horrible.
the real release still sounds raw but way better, proving even raw tracks need a good mixdown

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:43 pm
by hhans
Really interesting thread. As someone who knows almost nothing about tape, how does one go about "running something through a tape"? Like what equipment do I need/how exactly do I do it? ...etc.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:59 pm
by skimpi
hhans wrote:Really interesting thread. As someone who knows almost nothing about tape, how does one go about "running something through a tape"? Like what equipment do I need/how exactly do I do it? ...etc.
well, you need a tape machine lol

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:33 pm
by hhans
skimpi wrote:
well, you need a tape machine lol
I figured as much, but what is the actual process?

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:07 pm
by hudson
hhans wrote:
skimpi wrote:
well, you need a tape machine lol
I figured as much, but what is the actual process?
You record it to tape, then you record it back on to the computer

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:11 am
by hhans
hudson wrote: You record it to tape, then you record it back on to the computer
I should've known I'd have to play 20 questions with you guys. What specific gear would I need? Brand and model names would be great.

Re: The line between raw and badly produced

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:30 am
by hudson
hhans wrote:
hudson wrote: You record it to tape, then you record it back on to the computer
I should've known I'd have to play 20 questions with you guys. What specific gear would I need? Brand and model names would be great.
No, you should have asked "what brand and model of tape machine would I need to do this" instead of "what is the process?". They're two completely different questions.
Anyways, buy one of these and some tape, probably a mixer and a few cables, and there you go...