Dubstepforum.com

I see so many people on here go on about massively complex techniques for production, and in my tunes iv yet to use over 10 tracks in the sequencer. Basically, why do some producers feel the best way is a tech heavy workflow, and others like myself go for simplicity? this is more of a discussion btw.

Its all personal preferrence I think.

If you took two guys to try to make the same sound, one guy might only need 2 or 3 effects while the other guy might need to use 7 or 8 effects.

Cheeky wrote:why do some producers feel the best way is a tech heavy workflow, and others like myself go for simplicity?

more diverse sounding music from diverse artists, dunno if its a cause or an effect of those differences but its a positive thing.
Otherwise some people just hear things orchestrated densely.. heavily layered, wide, little to no silence
Others hear a tune in their head and orchestrate minimally. Whether by virtue or laziness. As long as it sounds good, i dig it.

I tend to go both ways.

I try to use as little tracks as possible or I'd get confused. I have about 4 drum loops, 6-8 perc loops, and 2-3 different breaks per song but keep them in the same patterns when I see others have patterns for just kicks, just snares, ect. I can't do that.

Idek what half the people talk about on here but I still think I'm confident in my work. Just not ready to share yet. Still learning some mastering techniques.

well shit. sometimes i need 30 tracks because 20 wasn't enough to fill the sound with everything i want to be in there. i think it's a simple enough concept. and sometimes I just want it to be super simple and spacey, like a couple days ago I made a minimal hip-hoppish tune that had like 4 tracks. when I made LFO'd FM bass wobblers, sure, I could by on 6 instruments. as I grew as a producer, so did the average size of my projects. it just happens, it'll probably happen to you to.


it's the difference between this (aforementioned hip-hoppish thing)

Soundcloud

and this

Soundcloud

narcissus wrote:well shit. sometimes i need 30 tracks because 20 wasn't enough to fill the sound with everything i want to be in there. i think it's a simple enough concept. and sometimes I just want it to be super simple and spacey, like a couple days ago I made a minimal hip-hoppish tune that had like 4 tracks. when I made LFO'd FM bass wobblers, sure, I could by on 6 instruments. as I grew as a producer, so did the average size of my projects. it just happens, it'll probably happen to you to.

I started with hip-hop. Just basic piano, bass, and drum loops. My songs were 5-6 tracks at most. Now mine are like 18-25. I could never do 50+ or 150+ like I've seen on here. At least not anytime soon.

As soon as I start getting shittonnes of vst tracks for my bass, I resample, resample, add effects, resample, compress, resample, resample. Oh, and resample. Ableton makes it so easy to resample stuff. Then I take all my effected/compressed/distorted bass samples, line them up into ONE audio track, wasting NO cpu. how great is that? A track without resampling that I make might take up 35 tracks and 90% cpu (I currently produce on a laptop, teaching me to resample) takes up 5 or 6 with like 5 audio tracks and maybe 1-2 midi tracks for stuff like sub bass that doesnt really need resampling.

I used to have like 30 instruments with 45 mixer tracks and all the shit with like 80 patterns, but I'm trying to minimalism that. It makes my stuff come out better and I don't get as confused. Now I just throw in some drums, maybe 7 samples, just put them all on one mixer track, compress them a little bit, done. Then I just use like 4 synths and then I'm done.

ChadDub wrote:I used to have like 30 instruments with 45 mixer tracks and all the shit with like 80 patterns, but I'm trying to minimalism that. It makes my stuff come out better and I don't get as confused. Now I just throw in some drums, maybe 7 samples, just put them all on one mixer track, compress them a little bit, done. Then I just use like 4 synths and then I'm done.

i used to have y stuff be all minimal, now Im cramming 30-70 instruments onto the mixer.

all about what your making.

when I diet started I had about 30- 40 tracks and now I have about 90+ tracks because I of how I want everything doing something and having extra layers and sounds modulated in certain ways. I think after a while it naturally got bigger for me my last song launch is 95 channels and if doesn't sound like that but some channels are used for other reasons to trigger things. it's all about workflow as well imo

Depends on the track; I think some people make amazing music without having much to it - while there are others whom love fully, crammed tracks with loads of different b-lines, melodies, automation, drums, percs, etc, etc..

I mean - copying high-hats, so one has a delay on it eventually adds another 10 tracks once you get into the swing of it..

I barely make a track under 40 mixer tracks these days but I condense the arrangement into around 10ish tracks.

most of the time i have about 60 - 90 channels. can't make music with about 10 channels i dunno how that would be possible (for me at least)

I think it's more about workflow than it is musical complexity. The last two tunes I've made, one is super minimal, one is fairly maximal, and the minimal one has three times the tracks.

I think for me as well, technical limitations force me into minimalism. My laptop cries and shits itself if i use even one instance of ohmicide for example, which forces me to use as little as possible so i can actually work on the tune. interesting points being made here across the board as well, I do agree a lot with narcissuses point on using more as you grow as a producer, you just seem to see the need for more stuff where you wouldn't before.

I do lots of resampling and my basslines are arranged by a bunch of audio clips. Each audio clip gets its own channel so there's lots and lots of channels. I route them all to a bus though, so if you count that as one (plus all the drums as just one) I won't have that many. Drum bus, resampled bassline bus, hats and stuff, a few effects, a few synths/subs/pads, that's it pretty much.

Depends on the tune really, certain genres, like jungle, can get away with very few tracks because the main interest is in the variations in the break. I tend to only have like 6 main elements in my songs. I could probably leave it there but it doesn't feel as polished or 'finished' to me unless I add in 15-20 subtle layers of atmospheric effects, extra percussion lines, sweeps, risers, vocals etc That's cos most of my songs are ambient/weird IDM/hip hop/garage/whatever things that need loads of different layers to build the atmosphere up. With jungle it has the opposite effect. Put too much randomness on in the background and you can't hear the complexity of the way the drum and bass play off each other.

Most of the time I got about 30, or even 40/50 if I record live vocals for the track.

I also do a lot of tunes with about 10 tracks tho'

My main rule when producing is that if you add something to the track, mute it, and it didn't make the track sound any worse, then you don't really need it, do you?
K.I.S.S.
Keep it simple, stupid