[Synth/Dance] Fever (mp3)

Oliwerko · September 19, 2009, 21:32:08

Hello there again,

Last few weeks I've been putting some big effort to make this one sound nice, and this is what I ended up with.
I have taken very big care for every detail, for every slightest volume change and structural factors.

I am now ready to be taken down by some serious issues you will reveal to me that surround this song, and I'm hungry to hear them. So please, try and give me some pointers what I've done wrong and what I've done well; I am grateful for any feedback.

Here is the song:
http://download.modplug.com/uploads/files/125339522904%20-%20Fever.mp3

Thanks for help in advance :wink:

Sam_Zen · September 20, 2009, 00:44:49

Better than 'KRM', I think.

This is quite a classical approach, which makes it somewhat predictable here and there.

The bass line of the three repeating notes going up is too monotonous.
But maybe it's supposed to be like that in this genre, I dunno.
Otherwise you could change one of these notes to its quint or octave, up or down, once in a while.

And this short transposition at the end of the song is a poor attempt to vary something. Better not.

But the instruments are well balanced in volume and the panorama.

Oliwerko · September 20, 2009, 08:23:29

Thanks for listening, Sam.

Yeah, I kind of sticked to the ordinary layout, but nevertheless it's a success in this phase of learning.

I've had issues with the bassline from the beginning. I've tried to change the notes up or down, but either way the sample just sounded a bit weird. So I just altered the volume so it wouldn't be so loud, but...yeah, it's monotonous, but I just couldn't give up that cool sample.

I'm glad to hear that the volume is balanced, it was some hard work and I wasn't able to judge anymore after few hours of work

And by that transposition you mean the whole melody from 4:17; or just the 5:09 one where the last "trumpet" melody merges with the fast one?

Sam_Zen · September 20, 2009, 23:37:46

I meant the transposition of the bass line from 4:09

Oliwerko · September 21, 2009, 05:59:17

Oh, yeah. That sounded a bit weird to me too, but in the end I decided to keep it there. Well, I know for next time.

What do you think about the duration/ideas ratio?
I always have major dilemmas considering how much time is good for some amount of ideas, and this was not an exception. Is it OK playing time-wise ?

Sam_Zen · September 22, 2009, 00:15:32

I suppose you don't mean : the more duration, the more ideas it contains..

In the beginning there's often the tendency to make things too long for one's own listening pleasure.
Also because in tracking it's very easy to duplicate patterns.

Oliwerko · September 22, 2009, 18:54:04

No, it's that I'm afraid that the duration is excessive compared to the amount of ideas it possesses.

This is a problem I keep bumping into, asking "Isn't it too boring, too long without change?" or "This is pretty fast-changing, should I make it a bit more repetitive to keep it stabile?"

Exactly like you said - it's very easy. The problem is - when it's needed and when it's not. Actually, I changed this track quite drastically. Now there is each melody repeated twice (i.e. the long synth lead repeats the same thing twice, then the high-pitched short "ping" lead does the same). Originally, it was only two patterns for each, not four like now. But everyone told me to double it, and I myself considered it more stabile.

Harbinger · October 01, 2009, 15:12:12

Notes as i'm listening:

Volume needs to be diminished by about 30%, perhaps with a compressor.
If a chiptuner decided to branch off into EDM, this would be his piece. VERY basic timbres and rhythms, simplistic melodic progression, spartan song design (though the layer progression is decent). Overall it sounds uninspired, but i think that's because everything is kept from being overly complex. Or perhaps the composer could use a refresher course on music theory, especially the chapters on melody and voice-leading, then a pamphlet on modern Trance techniques, like filtering and sonic progression.
For a rookie, it's okay. For an experienced tracker, it's amateurish.

Saga Musix · October 03, 2009, 11:24:02

This tune has two big problems, which can be fixed more or less easily:

It is horribly distorted. No need to use a compressor as Harbinger suggest, just simply turn down that mixing volume!
The usage of samples. This becomes very obvious in the first minute of the tune. It sounds very static and you use the same synth hit all the time, with no variation in volume or aftertouch. This could easily remedied by using VSTis or at least a couple of different synth samples of the same instrument.

Apart from that, it sounds pretty oldskool and has a nice vibe.

Oliwerko · October 03, 2009, 21:30:12

Thanks for responses.

Quote from: "Harbinger"
Or perhaps the composer could use a refresher course on music theory, especially the chapters on melody and voice-leading, then a pamphlet on modern Trance techniques, like filtering and sonic progression.

Well, I don't really know anything about these things (which is a bit weird after having music theory classes for 7 years :lol: ). What would you recommend doing?

I'm taking it step-by-step, I'm still a beginner (this is approx. my 12th song), and leave filtering and similar stuff after I learn the basics.
Same with the usage of samples. I'm focusing on the structure and melodies, I'll move on to VSTs when I'm more "prepared".

Oh, and also, Harbinger - if I understood correctly - the simplicity of the melodies used is a bad aspect of the song? It didn't seem too bad to me.

Harbinger · October 05, 2009, 15:16:34

Quote from: "Oliwerko"Well, I don't really know anything about these things (which is a bit weird after having music theory classes for 7 years :lol: ). What would you recommend doing?

I'm taking it step-by-step, I'm still a beginner (this is approx. my 12th song), and leave filtering and similar stuff after I learn the basics.
Same with the usage of samples. I'm focusing on the structure and melodies, I'll move on to VSTs when I'm more "prepared".

A class is one of the last places one should learn Music Theory. Just get a textbook on it, and read bits and pieces of it, applying what you know to your compositions. When you see how voice-leading helps melodic progression, and how inverted chord progressions help define a listener's musical expectation, it will become clear when YOU apply it for yourself in something you created. That's when it really makes sense.

uncloned · October 05, 2009, 16:05:19

Hi,

Dance is not something I usally like so I stayed away at first.

When you mentioned having theory classes I became curious.

The following is IMHO:

It is noticeable how dry most of the the synth parts are. Some reverb would go a long way.

A good application of classical theory could breathe new life into a genre such as this - some polyphony in the lead instruments would be great. I heard some harmonization in the middle register - this is good - I suggest doing that in the higher register as well.

The bass is a sort of cantus firmus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantus_firmus

I have to agree with Sam in that the direct modulation of piece doesn't work so well - I think that is because it doesn't happen enough to establish a pattern - it just sort of hangs out there as a one time experiment and seems lonely. I'd either get rid of it like Sam suggested or do it more. However, most music of this type doesn't modulate so... approach this with some caution and ingenuity.

Oliwerko · October 05, 2009, 16:51:07

Harbinger - Anything in particular you would recommend? Any particular book, or better - an internet source (if I'm not overexpecting :? )
I really want to learn more, but the thing is I don't know where to do so.

uncloned - Thanks for listening and valued feedback.
Yeah, the dryness of the whole piece is something that I overlooked somehow. I don't know why.

I also don't really know what you mean by the middle register harmonization, for as I said, I do it all by ear and feelings (wheter being a classical instrument musician counts or not).

And yes, the modulation was a mistake and the easiest fix would be removing it.

I really thank you very much for this help, I really learn a lot from it.

uncloned · October 05, 2009, 16:56:59

some reading I recommend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28music%29

how much theory background do you have?

I believe Harbinger has a music degree - and so do I - there were some other folks that were active a year ago or so that were classically trained / educated as well.

Not that having a music degree makes you any better because you can't learn creativity - the training provides a common language that when used makes things go faster.

Oliwerko · October 05, 2009, 17:51:29

Well, I don't know if that's a "degree" in our language (I guess not), I have had flute classes for 6 years and then clarinet for 2 years, including 7 years of musical theory/history. But then the theory classes taught me pretty much nothing.

We call the basic 7 years the "elementary musical school" here, and if you want more, you then have to study on a musical high school, which is pretty rare here. So I have the "basic" 7-year "degree", so to say, and a little bit more.

As for now, I have pretty extensive experience in playing the flute, I have played in a folk ensemble for at least 5 years, so I know the basics.

But as you said, I don't know how much this helps when tracking. I guess there are both people that are musically educated and people who do it just by ear.