Sound Design - Theory and Technique

[Lost to the Void]

In painting, i would argue that if you can master realism, then you would be prepared with skills to be more abstract, knowing how to present imagined scenes or create moods and atmospheres, etc. (sort of dali territory).

So, in the same vein, would mastering true instrument tones/percussive sounds/bass tones, etc lead to finding skills to create more abstract imagined sounds with more accuracy??

Just a theory, I'm not too sure if it holds any water though! ..

<< oink oink wtf?

I agree with the first paragraph, but this is a rather old fashioned view. I was trained in traditional art (figure study, still life, oils etc) and then went on to paint abstract. And I do think having prior knowledge of various techniques, colour temperature, foreshortening, negative space etc etc does give you more ammo.
But modern thinking is less this way, post modernism is all about the idea and deconstruction ("recycling" other peoples ideas), whereas the technique is shopped out to "craftsmen". I suppose it is the results that count, but I do think if you understand the rules more fully, then you can break them with more effective results.

2nd paragraph, good question.
I do think some musical knowledge and production knowledge and experience is invaluable, as long as, and I think this is key, you remain open minded and not too caught up in rules and such. Be prepared to question everything, including yourself and your own beliefs.

As it relates to sound design, I`ve never really thought about it, but I would say having the ability/mastery to create "real instrument" tones and timbres is not going to be detrimental, as above, knowing the rules allows you to break them/mess with them more effectively (maybe efficiently is the word?).

I think a good example is the sound designers who worked on star wars, referencing real world sounds and making otherworldly stuff from them (part of the sound of the Tai fighters was an elephant trumpeting, for example)

[strawMan]

it's an interesting point referencing sound vs painting.

I've always wondered about the validity of being able to 'model' real world sounds (by whatever manner, synth+fx, sample manipulation, etc).

In painting, i would argue that if you can master realism, then you would be prepared with skills to be more abstract, knowing how to present imagined scenes or create moods and atmospheres, etc. (sort of dali territory).

So, in the same vein, would mastering true instrument tones/percussive sounds/bass tones, etc lead to finding skills to create more abstract imagined sounds with more accuracy??

Just a theory, I'm not too sure if it holds any water though! ..

<< oink oink wtf?

I don't think it would hinder anyone - it would be a focused mode of practice, which as has been discussed, is the best policy.

Another angle could be that many of the best (my favourite) tones are close to instruments or concrete sounds, yet just far off enough to provoke an uncanny feeling. In this way I should think learning physical modelling would be very beneficial.

It really does depend on what type of synthesis you want to use to model your instruments - the additive alogorithms in Alchemy will import any audio I feed it, and make a perfect copy with up to 600 sine partials, like a sampler, but you can bend it like a synth. It could be argued that I've synthesised say a perfect Violin, but I wouldn't have learned much from the process...

Somewhere on SoS online there is a series of quite in depth synthesis tutorials dealing with synthesis of instruments

[Hades]

I do think if you understand the rules more fully, then you can break them with more effective results.

...

Be prepared to question everything, including yourself and your own beliefs.

I've always shared this belief.
I can't count how many times over the years I've seen people on fora argue if knowing music theory or knowing how to play keys aren't "limiting" you if you make electronical music.
I never understood that.
I'm a classically trained pianist originally, and I always experienced that as a big advantage.
I mean, if I play the keyboard, my fingers will try out new keys on the keyboard, but if your hands aren't trained to play, your chances of that happening won't exactly be as big, right ?
Although, of course, one could say my fingers will be more inclined to hit keys that are in the right key and stuff, just because I had a typical classical training.
You can always find arguments pro and contra, so I feel the discussion is a bit tiresome at times.
For me, the extra knowledge works, but for some it might limit them, I guess it's a personal thing at times too...
But anyway, breaking the rules, yes, always !
I just feel like Void : you're probably more efficient at breaking them if you know them better.

And always question everything, absolutely.


Btw, Void, you say that it's better not to listen to too much techno if you want to make techno, and I can understand why you say this, because you'll sooner or later be copying certain sounds/production methods/...
But I do think that if you're pretty new to this, it might be better to listen to techno quite a lot, just because you'll learn a lot by actively listening to all these tracks.
You know, you can learn so much by taking the time to properly listen to tracks you admire. Sometimes, it's all there right in front of you for your ears to hear. (and sometimes not of course)
I feel it's kind of like part of this getting better at the rules so you can be better at breaking them (or leaving them behind completely) afterwards.
I know I learned a lot by actively listening over the years.
But I also feel it's just as important to listen to all kinds of music. It gives you such a better open mind.

You know what I sometimes miss in techno ? More non-electronical sounds.
I mean, if they use real world sounds, they usually use the more mechanical/futuristic stuff, or they have mangled the sound up so much you can barely recognize the original.
("look at me, I made a great snare sound by combining it with a sound of someone biting an apple !!"
great stuff of course, but it's still all used in order to get more "electronical" sounds)
There are so many beautiful real world sounds and definitely so many different instruments in this world, why don't they use that a bit more from time to time ?
I mean, technology gives us the opportunity to just get good samples of any kind of instrument which we haven't even seen in real life (let alone the fact that we can't play it at all), why don't we use it more in techno ? We do we have to be out searching for all these "electronical" sounds constantly ?

anyways, just a thought...

[Lost to the Void]

Btw, Void, you say that it's better not to listen to too much techno if you want to make techno, and I can understand why you say this, because you'll sooner or later be copying certain sounds/production methods/...
But I do think that if you're pretty new to this, it might be better to listen to techno quite a lot, just because you'll learn a lot by actively listening to all these tracks.
You know, you can learn so much by taking the time to properly listen to tracks you admire. Sometimes, it's all there right in front of you for your ears to hear. (and sometimes not of course)
I feel it's kind of like part of this getting better at the rules so you can be better at breaking them (or leaving them behind completely) afterwards.
I know I learned a lot by actively listening over the years.
But I also feel it's just as important to listen to all kinds of music. It gives you such a better open mind.

You know what I sometimes miss in techno ? More non-electronical sounds.
I mean, if they use real world sounds, they usually use the more mechanical/futuristic stuff, or they have mangled the sound up so much you can barely recognize the original.
("look at me, I made a great snare sound by combining it with a sound of someone biting an apple !!"
great stuff of course, but it's still all used in order to get more "electronical" sounds)
There are so many beautiful real world sounds and definitely so many different instruments in this world, why don't they use that a bit more from time to time ?
I mean, technology gives us the opportunity to just get good samples of any kind of instrument which we haven't even seen in real life (let alone the fact that we can't play it at all), why don't we use it more in techno ? We do we have to be out searching for all these "electronical" sounds constantly ?

anyways, just a thought...

Oh yes I totally agree, I think to learn the genre you like, then emulating and listening to it a lot is quite a valuable learning tool. But once you have the skill to be able to do it competently it is time to broaden your pallete. I think techno does attract overly devoted followers, being niche, and artistically this is unhealthy. But yeah, I learned a lot myself through construction and emulation of stuff I respected. Still do.

And I agree about the natural sounds. It's all about providing the sheen and the context to allow the use of more natural sounds, why takes some sill/artistry as iris easier to just use "electronic" sounds on their own.

It is something I am trying very hard to do more and more. For my album I am going everywhere with my field recorder as I really want to incorporate my world into my music.

[chrisso]

I do believe overall it's better to know 'the rules' before breaking them.
My evidence on this is based on incredible music by Miles Davis, Stravisnky etc... Also (painting-wise), Picasso's early work was pretty conventional but technically very good.

I've worked with a lot of musicians who knew nothing of theory. I admit, the music they've come up with I've very much enjoyed, even though they didn't understand how they got there.
In the end, it tends to be limiting. The untrained, but innovative musicians I've worked with have tended to be limited to one type of innovation, albeit being very good at it. Whereas people like Miles Davis, David Bowie, Eno etc, have all been able to keep evolving.
The end game for me though is knowing how to break the rules.
I envy guys who are endlessly fascinated by a C major chord. I'm so over it I can't see any interest in something so obvious and basic. But the innovative writers I've worked with have played the C Major chord over and over again, then overdubbed a riff in F# or something crazy and the whole thing has come to life in a way I probably never would have thought of.
They don't know why they've done it. They don't know they SHOULDN'T do it (in theory), but they know it sounds right - to them.

[Hades]

For my album I am going everywhere with my field recorder as I really want to incorporate my world into my music.

This reminded me of Robag Wruhme's "Thora Vukk" album.
Such a nice album. He uses all kinds of real world sounds and recordings in the album, and it never sounds forced in any way, not in the slightest bit.
I especially like the last track "Ende", with him and this very little kid (his kid or a friends or a nephew ??? doesn't matter) singing at the end.
It gives you the feeling as if you're enjoying a real home cooked meal where they used say pesto they made themselves instead of something from a jar, and made their own bread, plus served you a nice apple pie at the end.
I really like that feeling...

youtu.be/Eg7TtSBR1sA

[Lost to the Void]

I do believe overall it's better to know 'the rules' before breaking them.
My evidence on this is based on incredible music by Miles Davis, Stravisnky etc... Also (painting-wise), Picasso's early work was pretty conventional but technically very good.

I've worked with a lot of musicians who knew nothing of theory. I admit, the music they've come up with I've very much enjoyed, even though they didn't understand how they got there.
In the end, it tends to be limiting. The untrained, but innovative musicians I've worked with have tended to be limited to one type of innovation, albeit being very good at it. Whereas people like Miles Davis, David Bowie, Eno etc, have all been able to keep evolving.
The end game for me though is knowing how to break the rules.
I envy guys who are endlessly fascinated by a C major chord. I'm so over it I can't see any interest in something so obvious and basic. But the innovative writers I've worked with have played the C Major chord over and over again, then overdubbed a riff in F# or something crazy and the whole thing has come to life in a way I probably never would have thought of.
They don't know why they've done it. They don't know they SHOULDN'T do it (in theory), but they know it sounds right - to them.

Is any of your own music online?

[Críoch]

Robag..

youtu.be/Eg7TtSBR1sA

Yeah.. thats a really nice Album. I love his music.

[helloitsmeagain]

For my album I am going everywhere with my field recorder as I really want to incorporate my world into my music.

This reminded me of Robag Wruhme's "Thora Vukk" album.
Such a nice album. He uses all kinds of real world sounds and recordings in the album, and it never sounds forced in any way, not in the slightest bit.
I especially like the last track "Ende", with him and this very little kid (his kid or a friends or a nephew ??? doesn't matter) singing at the end.
It gives you the feeling as if you're enjoying a real home cooked meal where they used say pesto they made themselves instead of something from a jar, and made their own bread, plus served you a nice apple pie at the end.
I really like that feeling...

youtu.be/Eg7TtSBR1sA

i made my own pesto last weekend. it was awesome.

just thought i'd share.

[strawMan]

I absolutely love fresh pesto.
And Robag.
Love Robag.
He's a daddy of men.
This thread has taken a turn...

[Cloaked]

You know what I sometimes miss in techno ? More non-electronical sounds.

Absolutely, I constantly try to incorporate acoustic sounds in techno tracks but it's surprisingly difficult to make work.

I still love Styro 2000 - Liver Donor because of one sound, a wicked funky guitar stab in amongst the noise... sounds so simple, but try using a James Brown sample in your latest techno track and tell me how it sounds!

Therein I think lies the rub, the problem I and many others have is this "tyranny of good" - making stuff that sounds genuinely interesting and even pushes boundaries means un-learning what you think sounds good and forcing yourself to accept what sounds "wrong".

After a decade of pursuing good that's really fucking hard, though, at least for me.

[arc]

I think acoustic instruments sound good in dubtechno or tech-house, but they don't really fit in with the harder stuff. That's not to say I'm against using them in harder techno, it's just more difficult to do so. I honestly can't think of many techno songs off the top of my head that make good use of acoustic instruments that aren't dubtechno or tech-house.

But I guess when it comes to sound design in techno, it's more about finding new ways to be creative. Instead of trying to find a "formula", or trying to achieve a certain sound, you should focus more on creative experimentation. Don't fall into a routine when starting tracks, but rather trying something that you would normally think is a bad idea. Pretty much all of my best tracks were created spontaneously by just twiddling around in a synth and coming up with something that, by accident, sounded good. I know my way around my synths pretty well, even though I can't create specific sounds on purpose. But like you guys said, it all comes down to experience and knowing what combination of parameter settings will yield which types of sounds.

Also, regarding Voidloss's statement about not listening to too much techno. I honestly feel like that's bad advice. Of course you need to listen to other music, if for no other reason than keep your sanity. But I think it's essential to be an avid listener of techno because it inspires and motivates you to try your best. We were all drawn into this music because we have a keen sense of sound design. When most other people like traditional music because they enjoy the stories and complex song structures, we are attracted to the sounds. It's the driving force behind why any of us even post on this forum to begin with, because we want to create the sounds we hear in techno. So, I think it's important to listen to techno as much as possible as it makes you more critical of your own productions. Now of course that doesn't mean you should constantly compare your music to other artists, but you should have a sense of where your music fits in with the bigger picture. I've never been inspired by a hip-hop song to create techno, only listening to techno inspires me to make techno.

[Lost to the Void]

Noooooo, you think Thom York listens to bands that sound like radiohead all the time?
You think Gerhard Richter goes to galleries to see artwork similar to his own?

All you learn from listening to techno as much as possible, is how to place yourself within narrower boundaries.
This is exactly why techno is so narrow these days. Everyone lacking the ability to see their way out of a narrow set of parameters that "define" what is techno.

Derrick may took inspiration from kraftwerk, disco, motown, moroder,, george clinton and african rhythm
Surgeon is influenced by the atonal works of coltrane, whitehouse, cabaret voltaire, coil, sun ra
Regis/Sandwell takes influence from Can, The Situationists, musique concrete, post punk etc

I can go on, you notice that the most unique techno artists tend to have diverse musical influences, and those that reference techno, tend to, well, sound a bit generic.

Here is a nice little summation by Surgeon himself taken from an interview with little white earbuds

How far do you see techno as continuing a boundary-pushing musical lineage? Do you even see yourself as a “techno” artist?

Techno in itself doesn’t do any boundary pushing. For me techno has always been a vessel or carrier wave to transmit other ideas. “Techno” is another word like “industrial” that I don’t really identify with. At its most specific, I think of what I do as electronic music.

I think if you truly want to stand out, you need to widen your musical pallette, especially now, when techno as a whole is becoming drearily predictable

[arc]

Techno by it's very nature is limited. You aren't given much musical freedom since it's based on the four-to-the-floor beat. There isn't much room for innovation in the way of song structure. You'll never hear a techno track with a 3/9 time signature, because then it wouldn't be techno. So, if you try to be too innovative, you quickly end up with something that isn't techno at all. (In which case being a techno producer is not what you truly want to be.)

Now of course you have to have a worldy perspective in order to create anything that's truly innovative. Techno has grown stagnant because of the proliferation of music technology. We have way too many producers out there that are making music for the wrong reasons. Everyone wants to be a famous techno producer or DJ nowadays, and the quality of their craft takes a toll because they're concerned with beating everyone to the punch instead of truly innovating.

You can't look at special cases like Thom Yorke or Surgeon and expect that if you simply copy what they've done that you too will be a legend. I think the innovators of the world are people who simply got caught in the right place at the right time. The rest of us have to settle for making the same old shit. Not everyone can be Derrick May or Jeff Mills. But we all collectively contribute to a body of music that will continue to grow and evolve with or without our help.

It's definitely important to have a wide pool of musical knowledge when you consider yourself a musician. But being able to draw inspiration from techno when you are attempting to be a techno musician seems like the right thing to do. You have to start with the fundamentals and work your way up from there. Only then can you make music that stands out against the masses of cookie cutter crap.

People give Bumload and The Advent a bad wrap because their music has changed so much over the years. At this point, they are doing the only thing they can do, which is to merge their musical style with other styles. Their sound has gone more mainstream but as artists, they can't make the same music for their entire careers. Techno at this point can only move horizontal, the vertical domain has reached it's capacity.

For me, it's more about being passionate about the right things. I know people that DJ and they do it for the wrong reasons. They do it to impress people, to gain social status, when they should be focusing on track selection and mixing skills. They are missing the point.

I make techno because I love the art, the craft. I rarely share my tracks with anyone because I usually think they suck. Which in most cases they do. But it's my ability to be critical of my work and continue to build upon my shortcomings is what makes me an artist. I do it because I love tweaking synths, and building template projects, and all the stuff that a techno artist does. Of course I want to be innovative and create the next big thing, but I can't simply force myself to do that through hard work and perseverance. That's not a decision that's up to me.

I'm like you in that I find inspiration in a lot of different places. You mention Star Wars and how they created the Tie Fighter's sound from animal noises. I am always amazed by the kind of things. I always watch behind the scenes documentaries to see how movie producers did their tricks. The world amazes me every single day, I can't believe how lucky we are to be living in such amazing technological times.

[Lost to the Void]

Techno by it's very nature is limited. You aren't given much musical freedom since it's based on the four-to-the-floor beat. There isn't much room for innovation in the way of song structure.

Wow, what techno do you listen to?

[arc]

Ok man. You win.

[mjudge]

Hey everyone, first post here (besides the new members saying hi thing).

Arc and void:

Not to be overly diplomatic, but maybe both approaches are valid for different applications or stages in a producer's development. For example a total newb who wants to start making techno might be smart to really steep him/herself in it, past and present, to get a good feel for the genre's techniques, trajectory and supposed boundaries. Once they have their chops down, know the "rules", they can start pushing boundaries in their music and gradually shed the rules as their inspiration dictates. At this point they don't really have a need to stay on top of the genre because they're off on their own tangent.

I will say that some of my favorite artists, electronic or otherwise, tend not to be genre-obsessed, and often their greatest influences have little to do with the genre they work in or pioneer. But at the same time, these guys don't come from out of nowhere -- they usually get their start doing more derivative work within a genre that they gradually transition out of. On a practical level, maybe this is necessary in order for them to first get accepted in a music community and establish credibility. Once that's done they can start leading the pack instead of following it.

[chrisso]

Is any of your own music online?

Only some tv stuff from ten years ago.
One of the best (TV) things I did was a film about the last few days of the Millennium Dome.
The place was such a cacophony of sound. I just walked around for a day recording the sounds I heard, then I went back to my studio and created new music sampling and mutating all the found sounds I'd recorded.
The film-maker shot images only. No commentary or interview. It was shown on C4 News.
Working on a tachno EP right now. Nothing finished.

[Hades]

Techno by it's very nature is limited. You aren't given much musical freedom since it's based on the four-to-the-floor beat. There isn't much room for innovation in the way of song structure. You'll never hear a techno track with a 3/9 time signature, because then it wouldn't be techno. So, if you try to be too innovative, you quickly end up with something that isn't techno at all. (In which case being a techno producer is not what you truly want to be.)

I feel techno is one of the most free electronical music genres I know. It has almost no real rules at all. You're so free to use whatever you want. (whether or not the crowd will like it is something else, but that's besieds the point in my opinion)
This four-to-the-floor-beat is probably one of the only rules that is almost always followed by 90% of the producers. But even that rule gets broken (or better : left behind) by some producers.
When I checked out Voids music I was glad to hear tracks that didn't have the 4-to-the-floor beat.
I'm always happy when I hear a track where this hasn't been used, even if I like the track or not, just because I feel it's a rule that should get broken more often.

The problem is, like someone above mentioned, that a lot of techno is made rather "narrow",
even though they're not forced to stay in this strict and narrow landscape, most producers still do, and I guess a lot comes from the fact that they still want to please the dancefloor, no ?

anyways, just my 2 cts (take it with a dead sea of salt)

[strawMan]

Hades, are you Tom?