ARRANGEMENTS

[Macc]

For me though, 'experimenting with structures' isn't quite where it's at.. at least, I wanna get away from a conscious approach to doing it.

The last part, yeah - that's what I mean, when you think 'I can't do that thing I was just about to do, cos it doesn't make sense in a typical four/four paradigm' (or whatever terminology your brain uses ), tell that bit of your brain to FUCK OFF and do it anyway, cos you want to. Wu Wei arranging man, it is where it is at.

One thing that I think is ESSENTIAL in this regard is making tunes more sample-based again.... trying to fit in whole chunks of reggae or funk or hiphop in jungle..... or madder shit during the hardcore period (Aled Jones vs Rebel MC anyone?!) - that's why much of it turned out 'weird' IMO - cos they had the sample-collage thing going on properly, giving loadsa room to the samples to breathe properly.

Hmm, maybe, but I dunno if that is really a matter of arrangement, more one of sound selection. And besides, hasn't that been done to death, really? (I understand you may take that as highly offensive to your way of making music, I don't mean it as such). You'd best come with some PROPER original sample usage to take it forward and not just hark back to the 'good old days'.

Y'see, much as I dig that kinda thing, I actually see it as less er... 'revolutionary' than what many producers were doing in jungle and hardcore, where the best stuff generally bypassed the intellect (Hype, SS) altogether. Not that it wasn't complex - often it was indeed pretty complex.... but listening to it didn't feel like sitting down for an exam - which lots of stuff since 96 has felt like to me!

Has it not occured to you that people ARE bypassing their intellect when making these tunes, but you are trying to understand it (maybe your producer brain), and therefore imposing your intellect on it?

If you get me.....

Hmm, maybe, but I dunno if that is really a matter of arrangement, more one of sound selection. And besides, hasn't that been done to death, really? (I understand you may take that as highly offensive to your way of making music, I don't mean it as such). You'd best come with some PROPER original sample usage to take it forward and not just hark back to the 'good old days'.

I hear you Maccinator!! Believe me, I've had it up to the back fucking teeth with hearing the same 'Jungle' vocal samples and whatnot as used 10 years ago... I mean, it's enough that we're hearing Amen, Apache, Think etc. ... THAT I can handle and get into, because of the many possibe interpretations, both sonically and rhythmically... and because I 'em!

But as for eveything else? It's gotta be original sample material. Hence why I avoid sample CDs like the plague... and currently have 36 gigs of original sample material (in a d+b context anyway, AFAIK) on my hard drive!!

Has it not occured to you that people ARE bypassing their intellect when making these tunes, but you are trying to understand it (maybe your producer brain), and therefore imposing your intellect on it?

If you get me.....

No, I don't think so.... I didn't start producing properly until about 4 years ago, and I I'd already felt that way about lots of d+b since the 'fun factor' had been eradicated i.e. since everyone decided that it was 'serious music'... which kinda made the whole thing a bit more conservative than it had been when it had been just knocked out in the ghetto for people to freak out to. IMO!

But even if that is the case, then... I think their music isn't driving right to the core of my nervous system - and so something's not right!

@Macc

In my mind it should be up to the DJ to provide the breathing space - it shouldn't be about each tune! I like to see things holistically, so what if one tune has nothing but drums for 7 minutes, why can't the DJ blend in a little atmospheric bit, or mix straight into the breakdown of the next tune.

Creativity!!!

bwa, imo you'll never mix a tune in for more then 4 minutes...so if there's a breakdown, that's just something extra you could choose to mix in
of course, a breakdown doesnt HAVE to be there, but it's something extra you can use in the mix

tunes should evolve/progress tho so you can really choose what part(s)you want to use in a particular mix

imo

[quote= it doesn't make sense in a typical four/four paradigm' (or whatever terminology your brain uses :D ), tell that bit of your brain to FUCK OFF and do it anyway, [i]cos you want to

Youv hit the nail on the head mate .. i was thinking that as i read it.. you have to almost argue your self out of doing the norm

Just to play devil's advocate: isn't it a basic concept in 'dance music' that the tracks are just tools for a DJ? So the track's arrangement would be very basic and boring on their own, but the DJ could use different records to make all those funny little switches and wacky changes. That would be quite the opposite of Naphtas approach, but could be even more unpredictable because it's done live on the fly.

the thing with the old hard core stuff was that it was made in a time when there was no rules or formats to making a tune.this enabled producers to let their imaginations run wild.certain visionary producers made tunes that other people copied because they sounded so damn good .this has a knock on effect .back then there was only a hand full of people making the music.now that number has grown .there are still visionarys out there , but there is a lot more imitators.this produces a plateau effect in the developement of the music.every now and then you have a surge in evolution followed by a long period of imitation.we are now in the middle of the imitation period .the evolution must come from producers who want to do something different.just like naphta.give it some mate!

FYI : the fact that there's a dialogue occuring on the subject of "arrangement paradigms in dnb" means that we all (participants in said dialogue) conform to these paradigms to some degree or another. throwing tradition completely overboard is rarely (if EVER) a possible alternative.

as long as we can identify that we're all participants in this discourse, we can at least begin to set goals (as i always do) that involve tapping into the essence of whatever "other" concepts your inner self is telling you is a good or better way of approaching the arranging issue. (in this particular case, a better way to organise the sounds and structures in your song)

this is our commonality. we need to maintain our individual agendas to break the binaries that exist now, but the common thread is that we aknowledge this and do something new. (ultimately as a community)

you are not alone naphta.

nemo : no, that's a bad attitude. it actually ties into that post right after you that deckjunkie made regarding the imitator syndrome. (which was spot on by the way junkie!) by saying you should make tunes that are inherently "dj friendly" you are in essence belittling the craft of both the dj and the producer.

lemme break it down :

first; when you say "dj friendly", what you really mean is "dumbed down so that any old tosser can hear the beat cuz it's stuck right in his face". this is a really funny concept to me, because i was a musician long before i was into dnb, and when i got into dnb and started talking to people about beats etc, i realised that when dj's said they couldn't follow the song, what they really meant was they couldn't follow the groove. if you train yourself to feel groove, you know it. you can count out the time signature of whatever it is you're listening to, and decide for yourself where the downbeat falls. the "dj friendly version" involves a loud kick drum on the one.

that being said : if macc wanted to make a tune that had the main bass drop on the 2 of each phrase, and omit the flagrant first beat in your face thing, he's going into "non-dj friendly" territory. *dun dun duuuuuu ) this is lame. i'm sorry, but if you can't teach yourself the remedial musical skill of counting a bar without a beat driving it into your cerebral cortex, than you aren't even capable of what nemo was talking about, (making your mix a cool musical journey blah blah blah....) as you're clearly to stupid and talentless to "do cool switching on the fly" etc etc....anyone who would consider themselves "musical" should be able to count a bar of 4/4 in their sleep without the aid of a metronomic slap the whole way through....this is not up for debate.

I think you got me wrong. A tool track wouldn't have to be dumbed down, it could have a complex 7/8 break an off-kilter bassline or whatever, but the arrangement, would be very basic so the DJ could arrange himself on the fly using multiple records. Of course that would demand much more from the DJ than the usual "mix in and let it roll for 5 minutes" but would go more into a turntablism direction. The end result could be complex and challenging.

BTW, I'm not in favor of this method, just want to stir some discussion. Personally I don't care much about the art of DJing (sorry DJs )

[Macc]

when you say "dj friendly", what you really mean is "dumbed down so that any old tosser can hear the beat cuz it's stuck right in his face".

yes!!! dodz, like you care, but you are permanently alright in my book.

this is a really funny concept to me, because i was a musician long before i was into dnb, and when i got into dnb and started talking to people about beats etc, i realised that when dj's said they couldn't follow the song, what they really meant was they couldn't follow the groove. if you train yourself to feel groove, you know it. you can count out the time signature of whatever it is you're listening to, and decide for yourself where the downbeat falls. the "dj friendly version" involves a loud kick drum on the one.

stop it dodz! you're in danger of annoying loads of people because you are absolutely right! the people you might annoy? all the absolutely shit dj's i have seen over the years who have no fucking clue what to do if the beats have variety. cunts.

that being said : if macc wanted to make a tune that had the main bass drop on the 2 of each phrase, and omit the flagrant first beat in your face thing, he's going into "non-dj friendly" territory. *dun dun duuuuuu ) this is lame. i'm sorry, but if you can't teach yourself the remedial musical skill of counting a bar without a beat driving it into your cerebral cortex, than you aren't even capable of what nemo was talking about, (making your mix a cool musical journey blah blah blah....) as you're clearly to stupid and talentless to "do cool switching on the fly" etc etc....anyone who would consider themselves "musical" should be able to count a bar of 4/4 in their sleep without the aid of a metronomic slap the whole way through....this is not up for debate.

dodz, despite the fact this has gone a bit ot (more about general attitude to making dnb rather than arrangement now i think) -



can't tell you how strongly i agree with you there.

There is the DJing in the club factor (which I think Naphta has mentioned before) - it IS a headache when you haven't got any monitors and the tune hasn't got any hi hats to mix in with (we're not even going onto non 4/4 territory here) etc.

Even if you are a good DJ you can see why that could start to be a pain and you opt for the easier to mix tracks. Of course you can always drop from the top but you have to be careful. I'm sure it's a function of producers becoming Djs though.

[Macc]

There is the DJing in the club factor (which I think Naphta has mentioned before) - it IS a headache when you haven't got any monitors and the tune hasn't got any hi hats to mix in with (we're not even going onto non 4/4 territory here) etc.

Even if you are a good DJ you can see why that could start to be a pain and you opt for the easier to mix tracks. Of course you can always drop from the top but you have to be careful. I'm sure it's a function of producers becoming Djs though.

That's true, but at the same time it's fucking bollox, innit

If you know a track well enough then you know what come where, whether that little blip noise is on the one or the two, or somewhere else or WHATEVER, but you know.


By what you're saying, the reason the music isn't as good as it was is simply because DJ's are too lazy or scared to get to know difficult to mix tracks well enough that they can actually fucking mix them.

So we get tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss tss intros all the way (and yes that is 32 ) and all that load of old piss.



Don't get me wrong Logos, not going at you - your point is totally right, I am just ranting cos of the conclusion I draw from it.

the thing with the old hard core stuff was that it was made in a time when there was no rules or formats to making a tune.this enabled producers to let their imaginations run wild.certain visionary producers made tunes that other people copied because they sounded so damn good .this has a knock on effect .back then there was only a hand full of people making the music.now that number has grown .there are still visionarys out there , but there is a lot more imitators.this produces a plateau effect in the developement of the music.every now and then you have a surge in evolution followed by a long period of imitation.we are now in the middle of the imitation period .the evolution must come from producers who want to do something different.just like naphta.give it some mate!

Hahaaaa, E-Z me old Guru!!!!!

The Deckjunkie speakth the truth... once you become aware of The Rules, it makes it that much harder to break away from them... same applies to anything IMO..

Macc, you should remember that DJs like me (or Deckjunkie even more for that matter) earned our stripes mixing up the music when it was at its most diverse, its most rhythmically complex, its most unpredictable etc.. for the kids who picked it up after 97, it was, sonically and rhythmically, a completely different landscape... small wonder that many nu skool DJs baulk at trying to take on chopped-up breaks, or anything that deviates from the script - they simply never experienced it before - and crucially -THEY NEVER EXPERIENCE IT KICKING THE DANCEFLOOR'S ARSE!!!

If they had, they would be more inspired to take on the challenge.. but they're not going to be inspired by dusty history lessons about the music's superiority in olden times. That's why a club like Technicality is so important - it's living proof that mad beats and brocking out go hand in hand, and that conveyor-belt d+b is only kept that way because it suits the established industry heads - not because the new kids are too unskilled to take on the challenge. You must remember: kids wanna belong, and when you're younger, belonging and identity and bonding with your mates are much more important than taking up a lonely crusade for a style of music that can appear aloof and cerebral...

[Macc]

once you become aware of The Rules, it makes it that much harder to break away from them... same applies to anything IMO..

That's true up to a point Naphta........ It's only learning the rules and then learning to flout and ignore them that allows freedom without confusion in a given context (like your funny edits in dnb, or learning to do kung fu or play an instrument or whatever).

don't get me wrong logos, not going at you - your point is totally right, i am just ranting cos of the conclusion i draw from it.

its just people being lazy basically. lazy lazy lazy bastards.

[Macc]

Macc, you should remember that DJs like me (or Deckjunkie even more for that matter) earned our stripes mixing up the music when it was at its most diverse, its most rhythmically complex, its most unpredictable etc.. for the kids who picked it up after 97, it was, sonically and rhythmically, a completely different landscape... small wonder that many nu skool DJs baulk at trying to take on chopped-up breaks, or anything that deviates from the script - they simply never experienced it before - and crucially -THEY NEVER EXPERIENCE IT KICKING THE DANCEFLOOR'S ARSE!!!

Okay, I wasn't doubting your credentials, man! I agree though, when it comes to interesting stuff for these people, unfamiliarity breeds contempt.

If they had, they would be more inspired to take on the challenge.. but they're not going to be inspired by dusty history lessons about the music's superiority in olden times.

Then stop giving them :P

That's why a club like Technicality is so important - it's living proof that mad beats and brocking out go hand in hand, and that conveyor-belt d+b is only kept that way because it suits the established industry heads - not because the new kids are too unskilled to take on the challenge. You must remember: kids wanna belong, and when you're younger, belonging and identity and bonding with your mates are much more important than taking up a lonely crusade for a style of music that can appear aloof and cerebral...

Your point? Why do I have to remember that?

(note - I only half agree with that last part anyway, I for one have always been aloof and cerebral and listened to aloof and cerebral music - ie I am a cunt)

That's true up to a point Naphta........ It's only learning the rules and then learning to flout and ignore them that allows freedom without confusion in a given context (like your funny edits in dnb, or learning to do kung fu or play an instrument or whatever).

'In a given context'.. yes. Hardcore wasn't in a given context though.. and neither was early Jungle.

its just people being lazy basically. lazy lazy lazy bastards.

yes and no. telling people that they don't play better music cos they're lazy is a bit like accusing people of not watching better tv - they'll only do it if they get sucked into it proper. having it presented to them as a moral lesson in the virtues of hard graft etc. is about as unseductive as you can get!

so, if there was enough fun music about that was 'challenging', 'interesting' etc., then newbie kids wouldn't feel like their teacher is asking them to do extra homework when old skoolers like us bang on about breaks and all that.... the kids gotta be seduced into this stuff like so many of us were, experiencing hardcore and jungle as the soundtrack to mad drugged-up experiences - once it seem like you gotta go to a monastery for a few years before you can understand it, we've lost the battle for new converts.

Your point? Why do I have to remember that?

About Techicality? Er.. we're talking in public here Macc, that's why I reiterated it. I KNOW you know that!

(note - I only half agree with that last part anyway, I for one have always been aloof and cerebral and listened to aloof and cerebral music - ie I am a cunt)

Yes. Yes you are.

Yes and no. Telling people that they don't play better music cos they're lazy is a bit like accusing people of not watching better TV - they'll only do it if they get sucked into it proper. Having it presented to them as a moral lesson in the virtues of hard graft etc. is about as unseductive as you can get!

So, if there was enough FUN music about that was 'challenging', 'interesting' etc., then newbie kids wouldn't feel like their teacher is asking them to do extra homework when old skoolers like us bang on about breaks and all that.... the kids gotta be seduced into this stuff like so many of us were, experiencing hardcore and jungle as the soundtrack to mad drugged-up experiences - once it seem like you gotta go to a monastery for a few years before you can understand it, we've lost the battle for new converts.

Yes - which is why Technicality is important as you say. What struck me about the old days were you basically had 'kids' raving about abstract, expermental dancefloor musc - they were the big tunes on the pirates, Blue Note was always rammed, Omni Trio and Foul Play tunes rocked big crowds week in week out (not once a month like nowadays). Why have people succumed to lowest common denominator music - does their conditioning to simple beats get in the way of their ability to let go and enjoy 'complicated' music, that seems to be what happens a lot.

Anyway we are OT now...

don't get me wrong logos, not going at you - your point is totally right, i am just ranting cos of the conclusion i draw from it.

its just people being lazy basically. lazy lazy lazy bastards.

some times it not the lazyness its just the fact people don't try to be different, they follow rather than do there own thing, thats why this forum is so good, a collection of people that want something different. the producers on this forum can show and prove all the bullshit thats has occured in the last few years needs to change.

i think the 16 year wanna be producers out there (not all of them) may need some education and if they don't care to look at the history and way this music have evolved a lot of them are just gonna be sheep. making clownstep until they change to making gay rage or somthing.

its a bit off topic but its now off my chest

[Macc]

'In a given context'.. yes. Hardcore wasn't in a given context though.. and neither was early Jungle.

Which is why it was so cool, and free of rules - natch (at the risk of sounding like you ).

does their conditioning to simple beats get in the way of their ability to let go and enjoy 'complicated' music, that seems to be what happens a lot.

How the worm turns!! Well put!!!

I know bashing lazy DJs is fun but just to get this back on topic: how do you approach arrangements when writing a track? As I see it dnb is mostly 'loop music', even when you have thousands of edits, variations etc., it's usually adding and taking away from a basic loop.