Reference tracks

[Lost to the Void]

I dont think anyone here has suggested polishing turds.
This is a production forum, where we give production advice.
It really is that simple.

[Mattias]

If you're a photographer wanting to put emphasis on dirt, you just can't take a bad picture and say "oh hey that DIRT".

[Lost to the Void]

But conversely you can inject a load of paint up your arse, projectile shite it on to a canvas and call it art...
Postmodernism ey.......

[Lost to the Void]

I say be the man with a paintbrush and at least one idea, and not the guy with half a litre of dulux pure silk magnolia up his arse... In musical terms obviously.

[Mattias]

Haha very good

[christianmdp]

This thread reminded me when an uncle said that michael jackson's and madonna's music were the best to test soundsystems.. This was said some 15 to 20 yers ago.
Anyone agree with that?

and yes.. i think reference tracks really helps to improve the mix. I will try to use some non techno tracks, like massive attack's and kryptic mind's.

[td3l]

Learning to produce well is a worthwhile skill. Aspiring to higher levels is a good thing. That's why we're (mostly) all here in this forum- learning.

Yes it is definately a worthwhile skill but when your focus becomes production more than the actual putting together of tracks....then you may want to re-evaluate.
Techno for the most part is about energy, drive, tone and texture. Constructing rhythms/fx and atmosphere that denote certain densities and feeling is the the most important aspect of it.
You can put together a boring track with amazing clarity and production values but it is still going to be boring.
A track with smart/ideosyncratic use of rhythm/fx drive etc with subpar production will translate. Not total shit production but not pristine.
This is what always gets me about forums and youtube tutorials. (Yes i read and watch them) The guys showing how to compress a kickdrum or some elaborate chain of ableton fx etc usually the tracks they make are boring as hell. Too 'nice.'
I'd much rather listen to a banged out regis or slater track from the 90's both at home and out.

I'm not sure why this argument perpetually occurs. The notion that having "smart" or "interesting" elements in a track is somehow separate from and superior to quality production values just baffles me. It's like making a meal out of a great recipe but using sub-par ingredients and poor preparation/cooking--no matter how great the recipe your meal will never be as tasty as it could've been. Try asking any decent chef whether they think ingredients and correct cooking techniques are overrated and they will probably laugh in your face.

The reason there are loads of forums and youtube tutorials dedicated to infinitesimal details of production is because production is, by and large, a technical skill which can be conveyed. It's as simple as that.

Yeah, classic Regis/Slater tracks are legit but go listen to stuff they've put out in the last 5-10 years--the production values have improved substantially with their general experience and access to quality gear. And while you're at it, listen to some Rrose, Mike Parker, VFTL, etc tracks pushed through a quality sound system too, and then try and tell me the 90s were better...

[Lost to the Void]

It's a weird meme right?
As if good production technique and great musicality cannot be present in the same piece of music.
My music collection would disagree.
The people who make these arguments tend, in my experience, to have bad production and are making excuses.

[The_G]

The one part of the argument I think is valid is the idea that sometimes--sometimes--people can focus so hard on the production side of things that they cease to be as creative as they once were, or might have been. In that context, worrying less about frequencies clashing or the stereo image can be liberating. In rock, there are tons of examples of bands that lose their edge once they upgrade the production values. But that's a psychological thing, and also an age thing, and it only happens *in some cases.*

So yes, there is some great "lofi" music out there, and some really drab, dull but well-produced product as well. On the other hand, lots of well produced music is also deeply musical. And a shit ton of poorly produced music is also shit music. Correction...*most* poorly produced music is also shit music.

[christianmdp]

some examples of people who like to sound as if they didn't shape much their work were the beastie boys on their last album and swedish forest psychedelic trance acts ka-sol and battle of the future buddhas.

Their music are cutting edge and in a good way don´t sound thaaaat polished.

[Lost to the Void]

Well, using the beastie boys for example. This has still been produced properly.
The skills on display there are still above thst of average bedroom techno producer land.
They recorded and engineered that, and it sounds great, but it wasn't thrown together in ableton in a day with a "that will do, I don't need to know how to produce" attitude, clearly.

I can't speak for the pay trance, but I doubt it is cutting edge. I imagine it's naff kick drums and Noodley arpeggios like all psy.

[christianmdp]

Well, using the beastie boys for example. This has still been produced properly.
The skills on display there are still above thst of average bedroom techno producer land.
They recorded and engineered that, and it sounds great, but it wasn't thrown together in ableton in a day with a "that will do, I don't need to know how to produce" attitude, clearly.

I can't speak for the pay trance, but I doubt it is cutting edge. I imagine it's naff kick drums and Noodley arpeggios like all psy.

Give it a try listening to the schlabbaduerst rekkords compilations, specially the "07" (botfb - am radio) or ka-sol "fairytale" album. They are, imho, far beyond standard psytrance. And they like to sound harsh and dirty.

[christianmdp]

ahh... and of course there is also Catatonic Despair and Celsung !!

[Lost to the Void]

Just sounds like generic, albeit badly produced, psytrance to me.

[christianmdp]

I have a question that might be silly, don't make sense being asked for being obvious or i may not be able to explain myself correctly.

When listening to a reference track, i tend to think it is a bit flattened in that good sense of already being compressed, mastered, etc.

So, when taking as reference, i.e. the hats or the kick n bass, until which point should i go and feel comfortable to know that my eq, fader volume, pan, is ok or at least going in the right direction? Should i try to replicate the characteristics I'm listening or is it completely monitor, soundcard, direction of the track dependant? Anything related if I should put everything 10 or 5% "less" than what I'm listening or just keep following close the -6db master, low channel volume and good sound choice advices?

Although the tracks below are not techno at all, i think they might talk to each other in a freestyle set or something and also serve as a refference for what i have in mind to start next. I just listened along with mulero's disinformation.

youtu.be/RCa01aQfBWc

youtu.be/jQ35WPdAO94

youtu.be/uzxtKnceQK0

What you experienced fellas think?

[Lost to the Void]

Well for good reference you want good production.
Those tracks you linked are pretty amateurish. I wouldn't use them as a reference at all.

What you do with referencing is first, you work out what a well produced song sounds like in you monitoring environment. Then you use that as a guide for mix balance. In some cases dynamics too, unless the mastering is terrible, they should also be well represented.
Thats it really. Just reference lots of pro stuff so you get used to proper mix balancing.

Low channel volume? That sounds like weird advice you are following.

[christianmdp]

Well for good reference you want good production.
Those tracks you linked are pretty amateurish. I wouldn't use them as a reference at all.

What you do with referencing is first, you work out what a well produced song sounds like in you monitoring environment. Then you use that as a guide for mix balance. In some cases dynamics too, unless the mastering is terrible, they should also be well represented.
Thats it really. Just reference lots of pro stuff so you get used to proper mix balancing.

Low channel volume? That sounds like weird advice you are following.

Thank you, Voidloss. This enlightened some things. By low channel volume i meant keep them warm, not so hot in the red.

[Lost to the Void]

Ah yeah. Red = stop.

[bioniceye]

This thread reminded me when an uncle said that michael jackson's and madonna's music were the best to test soundsystems.. This was said some 15 to 20 yers ago.
Anyone agree with that?

and yes.. i think reference tracks really helps to improve the mix. I will try to use some non techno tracks, like massive attack's and kryptic mind's.

remarkable i read more people mentioning kryptic mind and massive attack as reference tracks
i enjoy both but never use them as reference

[quest]

youtu.be/mR7N18DIPq0

Here's a good reference for bass - clean and full.