trying to become a better producer

[bluezcruizer]

Hi guys!I've redone the tune using the new gear. I decided to try my wavelab software for the first time on it as well. I've uploaded it to www.myspace.com/soundkeyzproductionsSong: A Lilly WeepsPlease take a listen, and let me know what I can do better (and if possible, how I would do what you recommend). Thank you very much for your time and considerations. bluezcruizer

[mazz]

Hi bluezcruizer,Your piece has a passionate melody and chord progression. I think your composition is well structured and cohesive.I have a few comments about the production.I would suggest panning the high strings so they more resemble where they would sit in an orchestra or at least spread them out so they cover the entire stereo field. Then the piano and cello's panning would work better because the mix would be more balanced from left to right.The cello solo sounds like it uses the same articulation all the way through. A cellist would never bow every note, they would play some notes legato, in other words, a few notes under the same bow stroke. Also, the notes of a cello never cut off abruptly, there is some fade out or ringing in a real cello. Attempting to simulate these aspects of string playing will help you master your orchestra library. Use controller 11 or controller 7 for fades in and out and swells during held notes (controller 11 is preferred if possible). Listen to recordings of strings and listen closely to how they manipulate every note, even when they are holding a note for 4 bars. There is always some movement happening, either in volume or tone or both.Your mix also sounds a bit dry to my ears. Try placing the cello in a bit of a room reverb and see if it helps.You have a bunch of nice tools to work with and they are quite powerful and as a result, will take some time to master. Keep going and let us hear how it's going.Cheers,Mazz

[bluezcruizer]

Thank you very much Mazz! I really appreciate the feedback. I did do some panning (piano 70% left, doublebass 35% left, cello center, violins 35% right, and "atmosphere" 70% right), and did use 3 different articulations with the cello (legato, portamento, detache...legato being the largely used articulation). Thinking about it, vibretto is often used in sustained notes as well. I think you're right Mazz. I need to revisit that track completely. I couldn't quite get the VST to do what I wanted though. Perhaps because I'm not overly familiar with all the MIDI controllers; what they do. (Most of my background on keys rarely, if ever, used MIDI believe it or not. If anything, it was used to layer sounds from one board to the next.) I'll redo the panning; perhaps it'd be better to move the "atmosphere" to where the violins are and move the violins to the far right to give that more balanced sound and feel.I'm almost certain that CC7 is volume; what's CC11? Can it be routed to a slider control, or do I need an expression pedal of some sort?How are the frequencies on the song? I'm going for that warm dark feel...I didn't want it too bright. Do you guys think the EQ is fine? How about the levels?I'll do the recommends that you gave and try to repost it soon. bluezcruizer

[bluezcruizer]

Hi all.In case someone who reads this post is like me and needs some more information on MIDI and what the CCs are all about, here's a quick overview site I found some useful information on.http://www.tweakheadz.com/midi_controll ... uezcruizer

[bluezcruizer]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback. I really appreciate it. Best of luck to you all on your projects. bluezcruizer

[bruciekins]

Hi, the best explanation I ever heard about the difference between controllers 7 & 11, is to see them as the volume controls on an organ. There is a master volume, that would usually be set and left, and the volume pedal, which the organist would use to supply "expression". They both do the same thing (change the volume), but in a different context. The advantage of doing it this way, is that you'd set your mater volume(7) and then do your changes on the pedal(11). Then, at a later stage when you realize that your mix sucks, because the track is at the wrong level, all you have to do is raise or lower controller 7- and all the controller 11 data remains intact, so you don't have to do it all again. And no, you don't need an expression pedal. You can draw controller 11 data the same as you would any other. Hope this helps.

[backtalkunlimited]

Dear Taxi Boarders: I'm shoehorning into this thread primarily due to the fact that my previous thread on this subject is now out-of-date. Indeed, the topic "how to become a better producer" truly is appropriate.Based on comments and suggestions that I received a couple of months ago from mazz, matto, gitarrero, et al, I have made a real effort to render my arrangements more "lifelike" and, hence, possibly of greater interest to production music library developers, particularly those who thus far have found our music to be eminently resistible.So, if you have time and patience, I respectfully request that you please access our website once again, http://thorpe.bravehost.com, where you will find 11 new-and-improved mp3 files (most recorded at 320 kbps). Our music is produced by using a combination of live instrument performances with our DAW. And, gitarrero, per your suggestion we have focused upon improving production methods WITHOUT resorting to expensive software (read: Colossus and related EastWest software packages). So, the "electronic" components of our music still rely exclusively upon GM soundfonts. This doesn't mean that I won't eventually part with my hard-earned $$$ - - I simply want to find out how far one can advance, production-wise, before one must roll out the heavy artillery.Have your way with me - - I'm looking forward to receiving comments, suggestions, etc.Alan (backtalkunlimited)* * *

[mazz]

Hi Alan,I did a sampling of your cuts and some aspects of your productions have improved for sure. The overall sound is more cohesive and balanced.Your compositions are very good and are right for the jazz idiom that you obviously specialize in. To me, the most successful pieces were the ones with the live Bari Sax. There were some recording issues with the sax but I'll get to that below.Now for the feedback: The sequenced parts still sound overly quantized and mechanical. Part of what makes them sound like that, other than the fact that they're rhythmically too perfect, is that all the velocites sound the same. No piano player will ever play the same note at exactly the same velocity twice. And great piano players know how to bring out certain notes in a chord or if they're playing chord melody, as a lot of yours are, the top note (melody) is always able to be distinguished from the other notes in the chord. If you don't play those parts yourself, then you have a lot of editing in front of you to get a more human feel from those piano parts. Your Bari player has nice phrasing and you could analyze that and apply some of that to your rhythm section parts, particularly bass and piano. The issue with the bari recordings is distortion. I hear distortion on the accented notes and the notes higher in the register. I would imagine bari is not that easy to record but you really have to watch your levels so you don't go in the red on any notes, particularly with digital recording.One more thing: on a couple of pieces the decay on the vibes sounds unnatural. Vibes pretty much start decaying as soon as they are struck, even with the pedal on. Your vibes stay at the same volume for too long before decaying. With a few of these tweaks, you may be able to squeeze more mileage out of your soundfonts.That's all for now, keep up the good work!Mazz

[backtalkunlimited]

REPLY TO MAZZ: Right on the money, as usual. Many thanks!Just a couple of comments: First, most of the piano solos and backgrounds were performed "live" on Roland FantomX7, saved as midi files, and then rendered into wav files for mixing. My next step probably will be to save Fantom's output directly onto my hard disk as wav files. This should allow me to make use of Fantom's built-in sounds, which in turn should free me from the tyranny of GM soundfonts!In the past, no one has ever accused me of too-perfect timing, so that's kind of a backhanded compliment, I suppose. Nevertheless, your observations concerning velocities are spot-on. Particularly when the piano serves as background, I usually trim back the velocities, and it turns out to be easiest to do this by moving all velocities down to the same level manually for the duration of the solo.I plan to return to some of the piano solos and emphasize the "melody" - this can be done easily, but tediously, by editing note-by-note.Vibes may be somewhat more problematic. I'll investigate decay times to see if I can shorten the "ringing" effect.I appreciate your comments about the bari sax parts. So, now it's time for me to try to deal productively with distortion-issues. Will do.If future efforts appear to be making progress, I'll drop you a line on this thread and post some new files on my "thorpe" page. And, once again, thanks for all of your help!Alan (backtalkunlimited)PS: As for "squeezing more mileage out of my sound fonts", it seems to me more like squeezing blood out of a turnip. Nevertheless, we persevere.* * *

[mazz]

Alan,You really need to learn how to record your Fantom sounds back to your computer. You're doing your music a big disservice by using only those soundfonts. You're wasting the resources of your Fantom by basically using it only as a controller. I bet the piano sound of the Fantom is TONS better than that soundfont. Also, what timing resolution is the sequencer for the Fantom set to? If the resolution is set too coarse, all your performances will be overquantized as you play them!!Don't make all the velocities the same! Even on background parts this will stiffen up the sound. If anything, just turn the piano down during the solos. Better yet, use some percentage of change or if you have it, velocity compression, rather than the blunt instrument of making all velocities the same!!!!! Mazz