Am I the only one who doesn’t write, arrange, produce, mix, master in a specific order?

[Superology]

You guys are very ordinary in terms of attitude. That's ok. Don't worry about it. I repeat.

[integerpoet]

You guys are very ordinary in terms of attitude. That's ok. Don't worry about it. I repeat.

How DARE you! You need to get your manager here RIGHT NOW.

[Superology]

You guys are very ordinary in terms of attitude. That's ok. Don't worry about it. I repeat.

How DARE you! You need to get your manager here RIGHT NOW.

[selig]

I would have to say everyone using a DAW is mixing as they go. If you start with two sounds and adjust one to sit well with the other, you’ve “mixed”.
The difference between the tape vs DAW based workflow is when you call up a new song on tape you don’t get any mix levels saved with the song. But with a DAW you get levels (the “mix”) saved with each song just as you left it last time you listen. This is one of the biggest workflow time savers in the progression of technology in my lifetime.

The tape workflow for switching songs during production was to ask for 10-15 minutes between songs to setup a decent rough mix. The DAW workflow is ‘give me 30 seconds to load the next song” and BAM there is the rough mix (or even better) and off you go.

In some cases, and because this is how I learned, I will strip a song back to the raw tracks and do a new mix from scratch. Of course if mixing for someone else I always do this as it’s much easier than trying to figure out someone else’s mix and then make changes from there.

But for folks working alone in their own home studio, it really comes down to “whatever works” IMO.

[guitfnky]

The technology informs the workflow in most cases in my experience.

including the cost-effectiveness of that technology...back when recording meant you had to go into a recording studio, pay for the use of the space, pay for the expertise of an engineer, etc. you didn't have the luxury of spending time to get tweaky and specific about how things sounded during tracking (unless you had a major-label budget, and even that wouldn't be a guarantee). yes, you could probably count on getting technically 'good' sounds, assuming the engineer knew what they were doing, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're getting the exact sound you want. you typically had to go into the building prepared to perform with the sounds you wanted ready-to-go, or be prepared to pay a hefty overhead. having no choice but to pay for the use of a facility, an engineer, and the equipment within made it cost prohibitive to spend time playing around and exploring sounds throughout the process.

that's the real benefit of home recording software, in my eyes--it allows the creativity of the musician and their decision-making/production ideas to extend all the way through to the very last moment of the project, instead of being a mostly up-front part of the process where you then rely on an engineer to finish things up.

[guitfnky]

People say that you don't need music theory and blah blah blah, but it's a lie. Face it.

unequivocally false.

music predates music theory.

[selig]

The technology informs the workflow in most cases in my experience.

including the cost-effectiveness of that technology...back when recording meant you had to go into a recording studio, pay for the use of the space, pay for the expertise of an engineer, etc. you didn't have the luxury of spending time to get tweaky and specific about how things sounded during tracking (unless you had a major-label budget, and even that wouldn't be a guarantee). yes, you could probably count on getting technically 'good' sounds, assuming the engineer knew what they were doing, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're getting the exact sound you want. you typically had to go into the building prepared to perform with the sounds you wanted ready-to-go, or be prepared to pay a hefty overhead. having no choice but to pay for the use of a facility, an engineer, and the equipment within made it cost prohibitive to spend time playing around and exploring sounds throughout the process.

that's the real benefit of home recording software, in my eyes--it allows the creativity of the musician and their decision-making/production ideas to extend all the way through to the very last moment of the project, instead of being a mostly up-front part of the process where you then rely on an engineer to finish things up.

That’s the up side for sure. The down side is you now have to wear ALL the hats and be good at every job along the way.
For me, this was the attraction. Guys like Todd Rundgren were doing this in the 70s and are one reason I studied engineering - so I could make/record my music without having to wait on (and pay) a studio/engineer (which is what I remember Todd saying in interviews). Learning engineering as my day job was possibly one of the smartest things I ever did, as it allowed me to be ready for the technology explosion that was soon to come.
When I started, tape machines were over $50k for analog and closer to $100k for digital machines (1st generation 3M 32 tracks), and $250k for an SSL console (the price of a really NICE house in the early 1980s). That’s not even starting to include the microphones, outboard gear, the physical space plus the sound treatments and wiring etc.
Studios in that era were typically $1200/day not including 1st engineer, and albums typically took around 4-6 weeks of studio time, and even small projects on big labels had a +$100k recording budget.

20 years later you could get a full high end Pro Tools system for less than one analog multi-track tape machine.
20 more years later (literally next year for me) you can fit an entire studio on a lap top and get much of it almost for free.

The big thing that is different now IMO is that the amount of knowledge required to pull this off has exponentially expanded, since now you are studio owner/manager/house engineer/producer/song writer/arranger/musician - and are also still the artist, which can be a full time job on it’s own.

[selig]

People say that you don't need music theory and blah blah blah, but it's a lie. Face it.

unequivocally false.

music predates music theory.

Indeed it does, by potentially millions of years in fact!

One thing theory can provide is a common language for documenting music. That said, the more folks work alone, the less they need to learn a common language to communicate their ideas. You can use your own language or no language at all if you like.

I WILL say that ear training, which is often dumped in with learning “theory”, has been incredibly useful for me over the years. I left the “rules” of theory behind long ago but.I literally use my interval recognition all day/every day. When I hear a melody/chord change in my head, I recognize the intervals to find the notes in my head on a keyboard. I also do this when working with others and they are showing me an idea, or when scratching out a quick chart as a musician plays the song down on guitar. But even when working alone, the ability to recognize what you imagine or hear is GOLD, as it allows me to move quickly and make a reliable ‘connection’ between my ephemeral ideas and the physical/real world.

Beyond that, I quickly found that actually ‘writing’ using music theory was a dead end for me. Theory is based on analysis, which requires music to exists first before it can be analyzed. Music predates theory indeed.

[guitfnky]

The down side is you now have to wear ALL the hats and be good at every job along the way.
For me, this was the attraction.

same here. I grew up screwing around with computers and my dad was a painter and musician, so the technical side always had a great pull on me. it took me literally decades to finally accept that some (many?) other musicians don’t care at all about most mixing decisions or other more technical stuff. it would always perplex me that I could share a mix and the people on the recording would be like “yeah, that’s good”, and have no feedback whatsoever. when I interned in a studio way back when, musicians sitting on the couch would invariably be there arguing about whether the guitars should be a couple DB louder, or the piano sounds too thin, or whatever. so I got used to people having strong opinions on that stuff. my band now are like “IDK sounds good to me ‍♂️”. they just sort of assume the mix engineer knows what they’re doing—something I’ve proven incorrect on numerous occasions.

[guitfnky]

unequivocally false.

music predates music theory.

One thing theory can provide is a common language for documenting music.
…
Theory is based on analysis, which requires music to exists first before it can be analyzed. Music predates theory indeed.

yep, exactly. theory is an incredibly useful tool for categorization and analysis, but theory requires music to exist for *it* to exist—not the other way around.

[integerpoet]

People say that you don't need music theory and blah blah blah, but it's a lie. Face it.

unequivocally false. music predates music theory.

Well, sure, in theory. (See what I did there?) But in practice it depends on what you want to do. I know almost no theory and even I know that in order to be able to write in a group setting there needs to be a common means of communication. But I could keep (verrrrry slooooowly) improving my compositions in a vacuum without any theory if I wanted.

[integerpoet]

I WILL say that ear training, which is often dumped in with learning “theory”, has been incredibly useful for me over the years. I left the “rules” of theory behind long ago but I literally use my interval recognition all day/every day. When I hear a melody/chord change in my head, I recognize the intervals to find the notes in my head on a keyboard. I also do this when working with others and they are showing me an idea, or when scratching out a quick chart as a musician plays the song down on guitar. But even when working alone, the ability to recognize what you imagine or hear is GOLD, as it allows me to move quickly and make a reliable ‘connection’ between my ephemeral ideas and the physical/real world.

OK, but that dumping-in isn't just intellectual sloppiness on the part of theoreticians. There's history behind why we have the intervals we do and what the Master Tune slider in Reason's preferences window does, and it turns out that was all invented -- or at least recognized-and-accepted -- by humans rather deliberately, and there was even a time when things didn't work that way and/or there was actual controversy about it. And it goes beyond cultural differences like which scales are popular in which cultures and into weird fights between psycho-acoustics and religion and… oy. All of which kind of blew my mind, but in retrospect seems obvious that it would have happened.

[integerpoet]

I would have to say everyone using a DAW is mixing as they go. If you start with two sounds and adjust one to sit well with the other, you’ve “mixed”.

Sure, but by that definition mixing pre-dates recording, which is a kind of weird inversion of how people normally think. Like, orchestration is mixing and mastering for an opera house? You could argue that, I suppose, but...

[integerpoet]

... married a professor.

Best career move ever

So true. Like this morning I was absently humming the bass line for a piece I have in progress right now, and she heard that -- unbeknownst to me -- it has syncopation, which is literally what she is teaching me about right now. I thought I was just "adding interesting-ness" by pushing little boxes around in the main sequencer in Reason, but it turns out I was syncopating because I am apparently a genius/savant . So she writes down the bass line in traditional notation and turns it into a lesson. Words are insufficient to describe how cool this is.

[integerpoet]

There is no music anymore in the songs today. Of course exceptions exist, but they only prove the rule.

*groan, facepalm*

Yes, but as a broad generalization, chart pop music really has gone downhill because what lands in the charts now has been left to executives, whose mindset of course is to make money rather than music. To find good fresh music you basically have to ignore the "legacy" media like terrestrial radio, which is where chart pop music still gets played.

I realize there are other charts. For example, in the US, the country charts are where rock has gone to die, and although Nashville executives have way too much influence I actually don't hate the country charts like I do the US pop charts. But the US pop charts? Awful. Truly awful.

(This message might belong in the "What have you been listening to" thread, which I have never looked in on but probably should.)

[selig]

I would have to say everyone using a DAW is mixing as they go. If you start with two sounds and adjust one to sit well with the other, you’ve “mixed”.

Sure, but by that definition mixing pre-dates recording, which is a kind of weird inversion of how people normally think. Like, orchestration is mixing and mastering for an opera house? You could argue that, I suppose, but...

I've long argued the Conductor in an orchestra/ensemble is the "mixer". Can't tell you how many times I've been "turned down" as a percussionist in an orchestra/band!

[guitfnky]

unequivocally false. music predates music theory.

Well, sure, in theory. (See what I did there?) But in practice it depends on what you want to do. I know almost no theory and even I know that in order to be able to write in a group setting there needs to be a common means of communication. But I could keep (verrrrry slooooowly) improving my compositions in a vacuum without any theory if I wanted.

sure, there are theory-dependent types of music/songs, but the insinuation I responded to was that theory was necessary--it's not.

I've been writing in a group setting without knowledge of music theory for well over 25 years (good grief). I still can't even tell you the notes on my guitar fretboard without working them out. it would undoubtedly make communication of ideas easier for us, so on that point, I wholeheartedly agree, but there are arguments to be made about the added perceived freedom on the creative side that to us outweigh the occasional hiccup with getting on the same theoretical page. and we still write (IMO) some pretty solid tunes.

[Superology]

People say that you don't need music theory and blah blah blah, but it's a lie. Face it.

unequivocally false.

music predates music theory.

Ok, you can discover bicycle if you want...

[guitfnky]

unequivocally false.

music predates music theory.

Ok, you can discover bicycle if you want...

thanks!

[dvdrtldg]

*groan, facepalm*

Yes, but as a broad generalization, chart pop music really has gone downhill because what lands in the charts now has been left to executives, whose mindset of course is to make money rather than music. To find good fresh music you basically have to ignore the "legacy" media like terrestrial radio, which is where chart pop music still gets played.

I realize there are other charts. For example, in the US, the country charts are where rock has gone to die, and although Nashville executives have way too much influence I actually don't hate the country charts like I do the US pop charts. But the US pop charts? Awful. Truly awful.

(This message might belong in the "What have you been listening to" thread, which I have never looked in on but probably should.)

It's not so much what he's saying that makes me groan, as the style of argument. "I think [x], of course examples of [not x] exist but somehow they magically reinforce [x]". Sure dude, whatever

But I also disagree about the state of the music industry. When haven't the mainstream pop charts been dominated by music designed primarily to make money and machine-tooled by large record companies? Go back to some golden year - I don't know, say 1969 - and have a look at the charts. You'll be amazed at the volume of absolute dreck that people were listening to. The tide of history recedes, and from today's perspective it seems like 1969 was all about Abbey Road and Nashville Skyline. But most popular music back then was shitty landfill crap, which is why nobody remembers it today

There's "good" chart pop music today (e.g. Taylor Swift, an immense talent), it's just that old farts like us don't happen to like it. And why should we? It's not meant for us, just like the music of our youth wasn't meant for our parents

[selig]

Yes, but as a broad generalization, chart pop music really has gone downhill because what lands in the charts now has been left to executives, whose mindset of course is to make money rather than music. To find good fresh music you basically have to ignore the "legacy" media like terrestrial radio, which is where chart pop music still gets played.

I realize there are other charts. For example, in the US, the country charts are where rock has gone to die, and although Nashville executives have way too much influence I actually don't hate the country charts like I do the US pop charts. But the US pop charts? Awful. Truly awful.

(This message might belong in the "What have you been listening to" thread, which I have never looked in on but probably should.)

It's not so much what he's saying that makes me groan, as the style of argument. "I think [x], of course examples of [not x] exist but somehow they magically reinforce [x]". Sure dude, whatever

But I also disagree about the state of the music industry. When haven't the mainstream pop charts been dominated by music designed primarily to make money and machine-tooled by large record companies? Go back to some golden year - I don't know, say 1969 - and have a look at the charts. You'll be amazed at the volume of absolute dreck that people were listening to. The tide of history recedes, and from today's perspective it seems like 1969 was all about Abbey Road and Nashville Skyline. But most popular music back then was shitty landfill crap, which is why nobody remembers it today

There's "good" chart pop music today (e.g. Taylor Swift, an immense talent), it's just that old farts like us don't happen to like it. And why should we? It's not meant for us, just like the music of our youth wasn't meant for our parents

Was going to say this, but you said it better (and first!).

[Superology]

Yes, but as a broad generalization, chart pop music really has gone downhill because what lands in the charts now has been left to executives, whose mindset of course is to make money rather than music. To find good fresh music you basically have to ignore the "legacy" media like terrestrial radio, which is where chart pop music still gets played.

I realize there are other charts. For example, in the US, the country charts are where rock has gone to die, and although Nashville executives have way too much influence I actually don't hate the country charts like I do the US pop charts. But the US pop charts? Awful. Truly awful.

(This message might belong in the "What have you been listening to" thread, which I have never looked in on but probably should.)

It's not so much what he's saying that makes me groan, as the style of argument. "I think [x], of course examples of [not x] exist but somehow they magically reinforce [x]". Sure dude, whatever

But I also disagree about the state of the music industry. When haven't the mainstream pop charts been dominated by music designed primarily to make money and machine-tooled by large record companies? Go back to some golden year - I don't know, say 1969 - and have a look at the charts. You'll be amazed at the volume of absolute dreck that people were listening to. The tide of history recedes, and from today's perspective it seems like 1969 was all about Abbey Road and Nashville Skyline. But most popular music back then was shitty landfill crap, which is why nobody remembers it today

There's "good" chart pop music today (e.g. Taylor Swift, an immense talent), it's just that old farts like us don't happen to like it. And why should we? It's not meant for us, just like the music of our youth wasn't meant for our parents

The vast majority of songs last ~20 years are not music. Not like it was before. There are reasons for it. You can google it by yourself. If you don't agree with it anyway, ok, no problem. But I don't see real arguments in what you say.

[selig]

The vast majority of songs last ~20 years are not music. Not like it was before. There are reasons for it. You can google it by yourself. If you don't agree with it anyway, ok, no problem. But I don't see real arguments in what you say.

Noted, and added to the growing list…
That’s not music, that’s noise (modern music a la Stravinsky)
That’s not music, that’s screaming (Rock-n-Roll)
That’s not music, that’s talking (Rap/Hip Hop)

[Superology]

The vast majority of songs last ~20 years are not music. Not like it was before. There are reasons for it. You can google it by yourself. If you don't agree with it anyway, ok, no problem. But I don't see real arguments in what you say.

Noted, and added to the growing list…
That’s not music, that’s noise (modern music a la Stravinsky)
That’s not music, that’s screaming (Rock-n-Roll)
That’s not music, that’s talking (Rap/Hip Hop)

No, I am not talking about new genres. I am talking about hits which contain any musical ideas (e.g. drum rhythms are musical ideas too). Good music lives forever. And good music is good music. Not less.

[guitfnky]

The vast majority of songs last ~20 years are not music.

now I know you’re trying to rile people up. this is just absurd on its face.