Should beginers be so experimental?

electrogrimey

jtsuited wrote: »

again, it comes down to what I've said a million times....don't put into the public something while you're learning. It's great for the ego, but absolutely horrific for your long term reputation......
Trust me on that!!:D

This has kind of confused me, I'm still thinking about it.

You were saying that your early releases embarrass you now, so you obviously publicized them when you were still learning, and regret it. I get that basic premise, but it's very much a grey area.

Do you not think you're still learning? I imagine even the best producers are still learning.

Also, if approached by a respectable label wanting to release your stuff, it's going to be impossible to say 'no, I'm still learning, I'll regret this release in the future'.

If you were talking about tracks that didn't get released and were just on Soundcloud or whatever, that's a different story.

jtsuited

electrogrimey wrote: »

This has kind of confused me, I'm still thinking about it.

You were saying that your early releases embarrass you now, so you obviously publicized them when you were still learning, and regret it. I get that basic premise, but it's very much a grey area.

Do you not think you're still learning? I imagine even the best producers are still learning.

Also, if approached by a respectable label wanting to release your stuff, it's going to be impossible to say 'no, I'm still learning, I'll regret this release in the future'.

If you were talking about tracks that didn't get released and were just on Soundcloud or whatever, that's a different story.

A very good point. However I'm sure you've heard about the 10,000 hour rule.
I only really started getting anywhere in the last 6 months (label wise, management wise etc. - although I haven't put out a record in ages). Pretty much down to the fact that my 10,000 hours were coming to an end. Of course I'm learning, but not really from other records, or at a great rate compared to before.

Also, and trust me on this, what you view as a 'respectable' label today will change in 6 months time.

You've been makin tunes about 2 months yeah? Believe me, give it at least 9 months to a year before you even think about starting to release.

If you're producing full time and properly committing to it (50+ hours per week on average), your musical tastes become very very very refined (read: everything starts to sound sh1te because you can hear how lazy and cheap a lot of music is).

You grow quickly if you're doing it right.

Rockshamrover

The good thing about putting stuff into the public arena is, you get third party feedback (mostly).

So putting stuff out could be seen as part of the learning curve.

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

A very good point. However I'm sure you've heard about the 10,000 hour rule.
I only really started getting anywhere in the last 6 months (label wise, management wise etc. - although I haven't put out a record in ages). Pretty much down to the fact that my 10,000 hours were coming to an end. Of course I'm learning, but not really from other records, or at a great rate compared to before.

I'd take Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule with a pinch of salt. There is a huge amount to be said for getting good help. I'm nowhere near having anything that I'd consider presentable but I'm slowly making progress. I could have made progress far quicker with better advice.

Like - earlier this year Arveen & Misk had an Ableton clinic in one of the mobile phone shops on grafton street. In 2 hours they covered a lot of ground, not just on Ableton but on making tracks and stuff. I had learned a lot of the stuff already, but very very painfully and wasting a lot of time. Had I had that 2 hours 2 years ago, I would be much further ahead than now. Instead I've had to find things out the painful way.

I had to buy the dummies guide to drumming just to learn the very basics, because I had no one to tell me - I could teach anyone what I needed to know in 5 minutes. But in the end I had no other way to find out than buying the Dummies guide.

There's such a thing as bad teachers. I think there are more bad teachers than good ones. I once did a night course in electronic music. In several months I learned sweet fff all. Nice guy - but fffing terrible at putting a course together and teaching. I'm really annoyed - Really useless. A dick - telling us we'd need to buy vintage synths and drum machines to be able make anything. I can't produce pro material but I could give a much better course than he was capable of.

But little tiny mistakes and misunderstandings have slowed me down for huge amounts of time.

Also, and trust me on this, what you view as a 'respectable' label today will change in 6 months time.

Hmmm.....what did they make you do. I've heard people have had to do "odd" things to get ahead in the business.

You grow quickly if you're doing it right.

And very slowly if you do it wrong.


I'm still working through it. And knowing about something, and knowing how do something, and being able to do it, are all completely different things.

jtsuited

on that note of good and bad teachers, i do lessons, which a good few people here have done and it's saved them a lot of time and effort (excuse the plug)

Rockshamrover

krd wrote: »

I
But little tiny mistakes and misunderstandings have slowed me down for huge amounts of time.

I'm still working through it. And knowing about something, and knowing how do something, and being able to do it, are all completely different things.

But sometimes the best way to learn is by your mistakes. Knowing what not to do is just as important as knowing what to do.

krd

Rockshamrover wrote: »

But sometimes the best way to learn is by your mistakes. Knowing what not to do is just as important as knowing what to do.

Trial and error is really important. Nearly everything I've discovered has been through trial and error.

I think that's actually a skill in itself. To be able to discover things through experimentation. Still it's a real pain to spend weeks or months (or *cough* longer) trying to figure out something someone could have shown you in a few minutes. But you can really beat the limitations of any piece equipment or software if you're able to use your imagination to overcome whatever the problem is.

I think the most important thing is to learn to work with what you have.

A thing I also keep reminding myself. In the 90s some very sophisticated music was made with very limited equipment. Samplers that could only hold a few seconds. Synths that were not neat and tidy as soft synths. Liam Howlett made all his best stuff on a Roland W30, which is a very limited piece of kit. No nice DAW screen - just a yellow LCD display - floppy disks that could hold Sweet FA. I think even DAWs might force everyone to better and more creative if all you had was a little LCD display.

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

on that note of good and bad teachers, i do lessons, which a good few people here have done and it's saved them a lot of time and effort (excuse the plug)

At the minute I wouldn't be looking for lessons. Although there's a lot I need to learn there's nothing specific I can think of a the minute.

For the minute I need to practice what I know - and find a few ways to work better. I need a better work methodology. In a way I need to also separate the creativity from the technique. At the minute what can start out enjoyable and creative can turn into a real painful mess - especially if it gets out of my control and I don't know how to reel it in. Which is basically what happens to all my tracks at the minute.

I need to get methodical. Have an essential list of techniques that I need to practice and improve or even learn (an actual written list). Do them separately from building tracks. Then build actual tracks quicker with less pain.

Similarly I need to make lists of what I need. For example, I need some samples of metal and stone scraping. An ways of organising my work space flow that I can easily and quickly reuse and do variations of good ideas I've had. Or even spend days creating bunches of fills and sounds, drum machines, that I can reach out and grab quickly. I've got folders all over the place on Ableton. I'd like to have it, so when I come up with genuinely creative ideas I can build something very quickly.

The whole "remix" competition thing. What think would be a good idea if there was an aim to build a track that sounds very contemporary and even commercial.

Say, instead of trying to build full tracks from the word go. Start with some reference tracks - contemporary stuff, in a particular style. Take small elements like few bars off this that or the other, replicate them. And once we'd got the sounds and style down build a full track.

Aim in fact, that all the tracks when laid together should sound like a DJ's set. That the tracks can actually be taken and used.

Everyone can still be creative - but what they create will be usable.

I think that would be a fruitful exercise.

We could have another rule - Everyone has to use a pseudonym for the project.


Jeff, I might come to at some point looking for lessons - bit broke at the minute - might have to pay you in government cheese.

Logical Fallacy

Ha, if there was an agreed template on how to start producing music it would be boring as **** in fairness.

The individual road is the only way to go.

Doge

Just found this thread, and have to say theres some very interesting philosophies and strategies here,
however this one in particular caught my eye.

jtsuited wrote: »

oh and btw, I have no idea if there's anybody here actually experimenting. I mean if you're in the standard setup of a DAW using midi, plugins, etc. , it's not experimental.
If yu're using Max or Pure Data or CSound or whatever then yeah it's experimenting.

I completely disagree here.

You do not need to be programming your own objects in Max MSP or the other programs to make experimental electronic music.

My understanding of experimental, is coming up with a new sound or style, that hasn't been done before, or heard by a wide audience at least.

That to me, can also mean the use of existing technology, instruments or products, but using them in a different way or in a new way to produce a new sound/style.*

With Dub it was the heavy use of Roland Tape Delays, to create a 3D aural landscape, placing mics behind a speaker when recording the bass player, which tended to filter out everything but the sub bass frequencies, the accidental muting of the vocal track (according to King Tubby), etc..

With acid house, it was by using a silver box (that was marketed as a bass accompaniment for a guitarist or drummer), in a way that was completely different from its intended use.

Both examples here, came from men twiddling with knobs, not men who designed or produced the gear, a lot of new music is often stumbled upon by complete accident or ****ing about in other words.

I know both the inventors and the musicians go hand in hand, both are needed for these new sounds to emerge.

I can see where you're coming from though,
and i can see that by creating your own new unique instruments,
you have more control or potential to create new sounds,
as opposed to struggling to come up with new sounds from a basic subtractive synthesizer that has been used by 1000s of people already.


*Obviously these new genres were a progression of those that came before them, or were influenced in some way.
I'm not saying that each tiny element of the style is completely new.