[Italodisco] Traves La Nieve (mp3)

[Oliwerko]

Traves La Nieve is another italo-disco track I made in the late 80s Hotsound and Made Up Records style.

Again, it follows the principles of the above-mentioned production, using the same gear and song structure. Everything is here, from lush, digital Korg M1 sounds and irregular, raw analog bass; to mighty saw stabs and plenty of percussion.

Composing was real fun and easy, because I had already made a few italo tracks before, and so it only took a few days. I really enjoyed work on this one.

Oh, and to make the Hotsound Records tradition even more alive, I gave it a spanish title

I guess that's it, finishing on December 5, relaxed just before the exams

http://olivermeres.hobbyart.sk/data/music/Traves%20La%20Nieve.mp3

[Oerg866]

I must say, you've become one of my favourite 80s artists -- and you're not even from the 80s! Great music, I love it! And free to download too, it's so nice All your Italo/Eurodance/etc. songs are ending up on audio tape right now just for the fun of it =P

EDIT: Did you just delete the temp folder? Aw maaan. I was downloading your old songs which are not on the old webspace anymore

[Oliwerko]

Thanks for kind words, it's great to hear that I achieved that 80s sound without even living the 80s myself.

Re. the temp folder - yeah, that was there just for yesterday, I was too lazy to move my music around on flashdisks. I'll put it back there again for you. The thing is that not all the tracks are 320kbs, I have yet to render/convert those which are 256kbps once more.

[Harbinger]

Notes as i'm listening:

While the production quality is much better than previous material by our colleague Oliwerko, his choice of timbres always seem to be his weak point, and i don't think it's something that anyone can help him with. He has a vision for the sound, and he can tell (i assume with hope) that he knows which aural textures go best with the inspiration. Or perhaps it's something he needs to learn how to do (not sure that it can be taught).

If i had to change anything here, it would be to remove the vibrato of the opening instrument and rework the timbre to apply some filter and pan trickery. The simple bell-like tone that starts in at about 1:00 needs to be given filterwork and layering with another contrasting timbre that perhaps changes its prominence in higher registers.  The brass timbres that define the chorus' melody is fine, because it's solid and doesn't distract from its purpose -- to tie the verses together and provide that catchy motif for the listener. However, the secondary instruments in the chorus need to be different waveforms altogether or otherwise panned out away from the chorus brass.

With that said, his thematic development is really taking off and i find myself keeping more of his music because of this one improved trait. In this song, the instrumental progression (the mixing of layers and instruments both in one stanza and in progressive stanza sequences) is outstanding and we can hear a concerto-like consideration being applied here.

Overall, i'd classify this as a keeper. It has character and doesn't seek to shake up my senses as i listen. It is a fine example of our colleague transitioning out of that amateur sound to a more sophisticated style.

[Oliwerko]

Thank you very much for a very thorough review Harbinger!

First, the vibrato and panning: The vibrato is there to emulate a kind of analog irregularity. I probably failed at that. Did I overdo it? The secondary instruments in the chorus ARE panned away from the brass. One of them is halfway left and the other halfway right. Maybe it is the delays on both the brass and these two instruments that mix them together? I guess panning them AFTER driving them through delay could solve this issue.

Now my cursed timbres. I'm not completely sure what exactly you mean my weak point is. If I understood all your comments correctly, it's the static nature of the timbres (i.e. too simple sounds); and I would need to use more effects on them (phasers, filters, flangers, moving EQs,...). Correct?

If yes, I know this is where I need to do more work and experimentation. I can really feel that I learn a lot (and I mean A LOT) of things in composing every single song. More than I would ever think I can. And some things come sooner, some later. There was a leap in production quality for example. I now actually can sense which parts of the spectrum I need to make more/less prominent. A year ago I didn't know how to use EQs at all. In simple terms, I learn new things one at a time.

I often find myself looking for an interesting sound by searching through synthesizer presets forever. That's when I feel there's something wrong. I should be able to choose one and MAKE an interesting sound from it. But I'm not sure how to.

Could the reason because I'm too "lazy" to take the time to employ post-processing effects on the instruments?

[Harbinger]

Now my cursed timbres. I'm not completely sure what exactly you mean my weak point is. If I understood all your comments correctly, it's the static nature of the timbres (i.e. too simple sounds); and I would need to use more effects on them (phasers, filters, flangers, moving EQs,...). Correct?

Correct. In the 80s and early 90s your "weakness" would not have been noticeable because there was not too much filterwork applied to timbres. But today's modern sound not only applies the standard even "classical" technique of chord progression, rhythmic structure, melodic lines, voice-leading etc etc ad infinitum, but also a new compositional technique can be used -- "timbral progression." This is where each instrument has its timbre changed over time, on various parts of the beat (filter arpeggiation), or during riffs (transitional bridges). Even as late as the mid 90s, it was too much work to get this timbral shifting to be part of a song. Now today's synths and VSTs can easily manipulate it during the tracking or sequencing process.

I have also had to learn to open up my horizons to this facet of composition, since i was classical trained. As a matter of fact, they would teach us that to apply what we now call this "timbral shift," one would descrescendo one instrument while crescendoing a second, like a flute fading out in volume while an oboe faded in, running the same melodic line. So, you're not alone, but you'll find it just as challenging as creating the song structure and can be just as satisfying.

My counsel would be to (after completing your track but before doing the post work on it), play the track again with only one instrument (the one you think would sound good having its timbre morphed) and maybe the drums and bass channels on. Does the melodic progression seem to offer an opportunity for the instrument to change its texture? Perhaps applying a distortion would make a particular musical phrase sound more forceful or angry. Or maybe the timbre needs to separate from its mono-like signal to a more wide open stereo space (in which case, double the voice, add a slight delay on one side, and perhaps a slight amount of reverb). Listen to some of Psishock's music -- he's big into timbral progression, and one his most notable techniques is to repeat a melodic line with different, often morphing, synth run-thru's.
You'll actually find there is a quite a lot you can do with timbral shifting that does not take an instrument out of its primary role in the track, whatever you've assigned it. Using presets is fine, but pick a VST with a wide variety of presets in which the timbres shift in many of them, and then tweak it to something unique. Using FX like flanging and phasing is also a good idea, but that's actually a more primitive way to do it and are usually confined to the audio signal AFTER it has been sent to your tracker -- you want to morph the instrument's signal DURING its processing.
In a general vein, just keep an ear open for timbral progressions, and get inspired by listening to more modern dance tracks, especially dubstep and progressive trance.

I look forward to your future attempts at this part of the composition talent!

[Oliwerko]

Thank you for elaboration!

Now I know exactly what you mean. I just didn't get to experiment in that area so far.

I guess the primary reason I tend to repeat omitting this aspect of music in my compositions is that I listen to authentic 80s/90s recordings, and do my music in their style. So basically I'm replicating what was modern that day, not what's modern now. Moreover, I use the very same synthesizers in their VST versions, which have basically the same architecture and interface. So getting some timbral progression from them might turn out quite difficult after all...

The question is: should I employ timbral progression in 80s style music? I mean - you don't use those 80s crowded automated percussion tracks today either.

[Saga Musix]

I guess the primary reason I tend to repeat omitting this aspect of music in my compositions is that I listen to authentic 80s/90s recordings, and do my music in their style. So basically I'm replicating what was modern that day, not what's modern now. Moreover, I use the very same synthesizers in their VST versions, which have basically the same architecture and interface. So getting some timbral progression from them might turn out quite difficult after all...

I don't think that technical limits are a reason here. Even old synths can f.e. use the key velocity to change filter and other settings, so if you actually play melodies on a synth with a keyboard (so you actually get varying velocity), you can even get some variance with those old synths.

[Oliwerko]

Yeah, it surely is possible, from LFOs to velocity as you say. I was just comparing it to really "modern" synths with the presets being almost "ready" to use with no post-processing (which is rare with the "old" ones).

I'm not hiding my laziness by making up technical limits.