Another song made primarily with loops from the Cymatics Chaos Beta pack, using Reaper.
What do you think? Does it work?
So, this is the third song I've come up with using a sound library pack. I get a kick out of it while putting the tracks together. Somehow, however, while the end product seems to work, I feel like using melody loops composed by others reduces the overall level of satisfaction and accomplishment.
At the same time, there are literally thousands of loop libraries out there. So it appears that this way of doing things is entirely acceptable. What is the conventional wisdom in creating music this way?
What is the conventional wisdom in creating music this way?
Is there such a thing anymore? At this point hands-on people are countered probably at least 1:1 by loopers that despise any smug instrumentalists.
I'm personally in DIY camp, if someone says my bassline is crap at least it lands at the right person instantly, I don't need to think where do I should forward the roast when the loop was someone elses.
__________________
AM bient, rund funk and heavy meteo
my bandcamp+youtubings
Is there such a thing anymore? At this point hands-on people are countered probably at least 1:1 by loopers that despise any smug instrumentalists.
I'm personally in DIY camp, if someone says my bassline is crap at least it lands at the right person instantly, I don't need to think where do I should forward the roast when the loop was someone elses.
Many thanks for the insight, zeekat! Did not realise that looping (?) is so mainstream, and that there is such rivalry. I am finding that using loops allows me to explore genres that I would otherwise never consider, so it adds variety. Still between two minds though...
You will hear wildly varying opinions on this topic. My own opinion is that any tool or material can be used to make wildly creative art. It is all about the mind, hard work, and execution. Back when I studied art, one of the most satisfying works I ever did was a collage of images cut from magazines that I was required to do as an exercise. It was more interesting and creative than 99% of the drawings and paintings that I labored over for years.
It is easy to make crappy music with loops and samples. But there is nothing to stop a genius from taking the same material and creating something miraculous. I suspect that with the capabilities that we now have to transform sounds, it would be possible to take a recording of water dripping in the sink and make into something akin to a symphony.
The human mind is a mystery. We do not know the limits of what we can imagine. And we cannot know what genius and hard work can yield, even when working with loops.
You will hear wildly varying opinions on this topic. My own opinion is that any tool or material can be used to make wildly creative art. It is all about the mind, hard work, and execution. Back when I studied art, one of the most satisfying works I ever did was a collage of images cut from magazines that I was required to do as an exercise. It was more interesting and creative than 99% of the drawings and paintings that I labored over for years.
It is easy to make crappy music with loops and samples. But there is nothing to stop a genius from taking the same material and creating something miraculous. I suspect that with the capabilities that we now have to transform sounds, it would be possible to take a recording of water dripping in the sink and make into something akin to a symphony.
The human mind is a mystery. We do not know the limits of what we can imagine. And we cannot know what genius and hard work can yield, even when working with loops.
T
Many thanks for sharing your views, tspring. I fully agree that any artist could use any tool or material to create their art, whether painter, storyteller or musician. I agree that ultimately it is the final product that counts, and if that results in an original work that creates desireable emotions in the beholder, then indeed the artist would have achieved his/her goals.
The issue I struggle with, when talking about loops, is that these were conceived of by other artists, and it is they who exercised their industry and creativity to come up with something original.
Your example of the collage is a pertinent one, but I'll bet that none of the scraps that you used became a feature by which your work is identifiable. With loops, especially with melodic loops, these are often featured prominently (e.g. in the verse or chorus or main rhythm) of the final work - they shape the character of the music. They become a distinguishing aspect of the music, and they were 'borrowed'.
What if I were an author, and 'borrowed' a prominent character from another literary work (perhaps changing the name) because it fit in my story? Could I claim ownership or originality, and would it be acknowledged as such? So why in music?
Having said this, I fully understand what you mean, and tend to subscribe to your view. I am just trying to understand how such music is generally perceived.
Many thanks for sharing your views, tspring. I fully agree that any artist could use any tool or material to create their art, whether painter, storyteller or musician. I agree that ultimately it is the final product that counts, and if that results in an original work that creates desireable emotions in the beholder, then indeed the artist would have achieved his/her goals.
The issue I struggle with, when talking about loops, is that these were conceived of by other artists, and it is they who exercised their industry and creativity to come up with something original.
Your example of the collage is a pertinent one, but I'll bet that none of the scraps that you used became a feature by which your work is identifiable. With loops, especially with melodic loops, these are often featured prominently (e.g. in the verse or chorus or main rhythm) of the final work - they shape the character of the music. They become a distinguishing aspect of the music, and they were 'borrowed'.
What if I were an author, and 'borrowed' a prominent character from another literary work (perhaps changing the name) because it fit in my story? Could I claim ownership or originality, and would it be acknowledged as such? So why in music?
Having said this, I fully understand what you mean, and tend to subscribe to your view. I am just trying to understand how such music is generally perceived.
Thanks again.
If the music that you create truly has merit that's what it will be recognized for, and it won't matter if it is based on loops. Borrowing per se is not an issue, it's how you borrow that matters. I did not invent the pentatonic scale nor the blues idiom but I can borrow them. If I do nothing creative with them I will make crap. Stating the obvious: when using loops, one key to avoiding triteness is to strive for granularity. Borrowing small parts and using them creatively seems much more likely to be successful than taking a 2 minute loop to work with. or maybe start with the longer loop and deconstruct it to give the granularity and make it less obvious that you're indeed borrowing. Just like putting together parts of the pentatonic scale. When people say they don't like loop based music that they hear, what they are really saying is that they're hearing the laziness or lack of skill in the person who is working with the loops, in that there's nothing added that makes it interesting. If you want to do something good, using loops it's not a shortcut. You're just changing what the hard part is in doing the work.
If the music that you create truly has merit that's what it will be recognized for, and it won't matter if it is based on loops. Borrowing per se is not an issue, it's how you borrow that matters. I did not invent the pentatonic scale nor the blues idiom but I can borrow them. If I do nothing creative with them I will make crap. Stating the obvious: when using loops, one key to avoiding triteness is to strive for granularity. Borrowing small parts and using them creatively seems much more likely to be successful than taking a 2 minute loop to work with. or maybe start with the longer loop and deconstruct it to give the granularity and make it less obvious that you're indeed borrowing. Just like putting together parts of the pentatonic scale. When people say they don't like loop based music that they hear, what they are really saying is that they're hearing the laziness or lack of skill in the person who is working with the loops, in that there's nothing added that makes it interesting. If you want to do something good, using loops it's not a shortcut. You're just changing what the hard part is in doing the work.
T
Thanks again, tspring. Appreciate your insights. I won't give up on loops just yet
Many thanks for the insight, zeekat! Did not realise that looping (?) is so mainstream, and that there is such rivalry. I am finding that using loops allows me to explore genres that I would otherwise never consider, so it adds variety. Still between two minds though...
Of course I pulled the stats out my butt, but it's a safe assumption these days I think. Hell Daft Punk's career was kinda kickstarted by other people's hooks, I guess still a viable option if you have sufficient budget for sample clearing
I'm two minds about that, riding other people's talent feels lame(now matter how lawful it was), but on the other hand people like Luke Vibert or the Prodigy could put samples together into something cool that's reealy far from the borrowed material. Even the earliest Porcupine Tree stuff I adore is actually ripe with some lifted Dead Can Dance or Van Der Graaf bits.
__________________
AM bient, rund funk and heavy meteo
my bandcamp+youtubings
When I hear a song for the first time, the question is always: does it
somehow move me? Is there anything fascinating? I don't care how the
song came about. If you've taken a lot from someone else's canned food,
you have to deal with yourself.
Your song is interesting in development, but still a bit fragmentary,
so whether it is not finished yet or as if the main motif is still to
come.
Give It Up
Linear Mode
