- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Location
- London / Leeds
So I was wondering if anyone else does the same and how they combat it?
its its getting too busy i would turn all the channels right down to 0 then start bringing them up. see which bits ya dont need to make it less busy. if u c wot i mean...
hope that helps.
It can be surprising how little you need to write a track but a general rule of thumb would be no more than 5 parts at once. When you consider dance music will more than likely be mixed, it makes even more sense to keep things simple. Good advice above reference re-evaluating what you have and stripping away unessential parts. Time is better spent trying to get the most from one sound rather than adding another. If you can manipulate a sound well, it almost plays itself when you start tapping out rhythms on the keyboard.
Sometimes the quality of the kit can be at fault here too. If you are getting a thin sound, it makes you want to continually add things to beef the sound up but never really reaching the desired results; a common problem with cheap AD converters. I know we have suffered from this before in the past and it wasn't a cheap fix.
Peace
This is a particular piece of advice I read somewhere before that could apply here
"It has been found that humans can perceive 7 +/- 3 things at a time reliably. This is why many phone numbers are 7 digits + the area code. If you think about the classic 'band' there are basically this many groups of instruments involved: Vocals, Guitar, Bass, Drums +/- 3 other sections (horns, keys, samplers, etc.). You should always keep this in mind when you are deciding how many different sounds to make"
Interesting idea, you'd have to ask yourself if you want the listener to hear everything the song has to offer in one listen?
There's definitely room for a multitude of layers imho, if they don't detract from the whole and if they all have their own space in the mix. (speaking as a listener here: I wouldn't claim to be able to get close to that yet) Nothing wrong with an epic musical saga.
Perhaps the pertinent question is 'When is it finished?' That's a damn hard question to answer I think. I remember from Sunday School that god created the world in 7 days and then said 'It is finished.' And in a way that one end was just a beginning. Music as a medium between artist and listener is never finished it evolves as the participants change. So what is a 'timeless' track? Maybe a sentimental snapshot of a time that one wants to hold onto? Fuck me, I digress.
So is it over-complicated? If it works as a coherent whole (think of 'one' body/forever of parts) then no. It's just a matter of knowing when to push pause on the evolution and take a snapshot that you want to show your mates.
Interesting idea, you'd have to ask yourself if you want the listener to hear everything the song has to offer in one listen?
There's definitely room for a multitude of layers imho, if they don't detract from the whole and if they all have their own space in the mix. (speaking as a listener here: I wouldn't claim to be able to get close to that yet) Nothing wrong with an epic musical saga.
Perhaps the pertinent question is 'When is it finished?' That's a damn hard question to answer I think. I remember from Sunday School that god created the world in 7 days and then said 'It is finished.' And in a way that one end was just a beginning. Music as a medium between artist and listener is never finished it evolves as the participants change. So what is a 'timeless' track? Maybe a sentimental snapshot of a time that one wants to hold onto? Fuck me, I digress.
So is it over-complicated? If it works as a coherent whole (think of 'one' body/forever of parts) then no. It's just a matter of knowing when to push pause on the evolution and take a snapshot that you want to show your mates.