Technical Skills vs. Theoretical Skills

[5COPY]

Mixing is fucking anoying. But well lately I have asked myself the question; "How come this and that and this song etc, with such a weak point in theory, be signed?/popular/liked a lot"

The answer were pretty obvious I must say. Because it was mixed well. The reason I'm making this thread is because it raises a very valid question in my opinion, and that is the question about what to put in practice the most.

By that I mean, simply find your weak point. And I really do think it's important to put things in Categories in order to really have an over-view on what to practice. This isn't really about "how to do this and how to do that" kind of thing, I want to discuss.
I want to discuss what really is the most important things to put in practice.

When I listen to some of the music around here I always notice there are specific weak points we all have and need to put in practice. And when I go listen to "professional productions" I always hear an extreme balance between "technical skills" and "theoretical skills".

And I think it's very important to bring awareness to people about what to practice the most. However the major problem is that it raises a very big debate with phrases such as:
"Is this mixing technique technical and a rule? or is it desireable?"
or things such as
"This is just a bunch of notes in order, it seems more technical than theoratical."

It also brings us to one of the most valid debates a lot of us seem to have on this forum and that is the debate about synthseizing. And if it's a theoretical point or technical.

And I really think it's extremely important to know the difference between Theoratical and Technical in terms of music. Especially because, as it seems nowadays "Professional music" puts a ton of weight on, what I would assume is, technical for the most part. And the thing put most weight into weight seems to be mixing. (for the most part) And it only becomes harder and harder to keep up.

Also sorry if this seems less techniquish and more debatish But I though it belonged in Technique

[the4thImpulse]

Well you need both to do anything music related just by yourself, you could have a lot of theory and hire some one to mix all your ideas together into a song but I think this thread is more for the individual.


This guy has amazing theory skills to write the music he does, he is a top class musician no doubt about it. The song however is not mixed well, I know he is independent so he may have done all the mixing and recording himself rather hiring someone else. People like him will almost certainly never become famous because regular people don't recognize the intricacy in the writing. Simple melodies that repeat over and over get stuck in the heads of the simple minded and they like it (most of the time), the more they hear a song the more it grows on them.


This video discusses how the radio influences out music interests which is related to the subject imo.


My answer: practice both, and depending on genre (anything popular; pop, most EDM ect..)spend more time working on the mix as you are there for the larger audiance of non musicians who have little care for your AMAZING theory and crazy time signature and key changes. If you do want to appeal to the musicians that focus on theory, you likely wont get much attention outside of those small communities though.

[5COPY]

But simply paying someone for mixing your stuff for you. does this mean it really is that technical? because I have always seen a sligthy big curve going through the creative parts of this and the technical.


Also that video about radio stations have a very strong points

[GhostXb]

Most mainstream artists write the music themselves, and then hand it over to a professional mixer, and then to a professional for mastering. That's three stages of production, each with their own years of experience.

However, the majority of individual artists (such as the brony musician community) usually do all of these things themselves. It is very difficult to do, and the end result isn't as good as it would be if it went through the traditional stages of production, but that's just the trend of current artists, mostly do to lack of resources.

I think it's always been a given, that if a track isn't mixed well, it doesn't influence people as much. If James Brown (RIP) and a group of highly talented studio musicians recorded a session from a single budget microphone, and then released with no effort of mixing or mastering, then it simply will be disregarded... except for the novelty of it being recorded by James Brown XD! Mixing and mastering is an art in itself, therefore, unless an artist wants to invest in mixing and mastering services, it is simply necessary to take the time to study and practice it themselves.

That is, if they took their music seriously and wanted to make an impact with it. Some musicians do it as a hobby or for fun, but if you accept that you are creating something to be listened to by an audience, then you should consider the listening experience of your audience. I've been producing music for about seven years, terms like mixing and mastering didn't enter my brain until about four years, and then I didn't start taking it seriously until about six years.

My earlier days focused on theoretical skills. Even in the past year or so, I've learned so much about the mixing and mastering stage, that my music has improved leaps and bounds since my earlier days. When you combine great song writing skills with great mixing and mastering, that's when you create something that has a lot of impact with your audience.

Look at it this way, would you rather watch your favorite movie in full 1080p HD format, or in 240p youtube format? The content is the same but its not as an enjoyable viewing experience if you watched in in 240p with bad sound.

Also, like I said, mixing and/or mastering is an art in itself. Some people make their careers simply doing mixing. Take Chris Lord for example. He lives and breathes mixing. When Green Day won the Grammy Award, Chris Lord was celebrating with them, because his hands were just as dirty as Green Day's was. If you don't want to take the time to mix/master it yourself, or study/practice it, then you need to work with someone to do it. Think of it like a collab. Each mixer will have their own tastes, techniques, and signature sounds. If you do it yourself, you will develop your own sound, which will run right along side your own unique style of song writing.

Seminar with Chris Lord, it's a very insightful seminar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGUcBhby ... plpp_video

Also some cool videos on his website.

http://chrislordalge.com/videos/

[the4thImpulse]

But simply paying someone for mixing your stuff for you. does this mean it really is that technical? because I have always seen a sligthy big curve going through the creative parts of this and the technical.


Also that video about radio stations have a very strong points

When I say "pay someone else to do the technical parts" I am thinking of going to a recording studio, using professional equipment in acoustically treated rooms and using high end gear you likely don't have the money for. The engineer there will record and mix your work and if he is good he will help you out with the creative side helping you figure out how you want your song/album to sound and making it all possible. You then can focus all your energy on the theory and performance of your song.

That's all speaking live instruments or a typical 'band', electronic music is where those mixing skills are a must and where theory is not nearly as important because people aren't looking for theory in a 'dubstep' track (or whatever other genre you write in EDM). Put simply EDM is not about theory.

Doing the simple technical stuff is easy, anyone with ears can do it. Getting a radio quality recording (of a band) is much much more difficult as you have to take into account the musicians skill, small timing errors in the recording, tuning of the instruments, pitch of vocalists, mic types, mic placement, room acoustics..

[GhostXb]

electronic music is where those mixing skills are a must

That's also a good point. Electronic music and mixing go hand in hand. However, some artists do still rely on an outside opinion.

Put simply EDM is not about theory.

This I would disagree with, although, you aren't completely wrong. Some forms of EDM do require at least a little theory. Certain ideas about music theory are universal, at least in terms of ideas of what sounds good, and music theory includes ideas of timing. However, if there was a scale of theory skills on the left vs technical skills on the right, EDM would lean to the right, dub step more so, and then classical would probably be on the far left.

[the4thImpulse]

Put simply EDM is not about theory.

This I would disagree with, although, you aren't completely wrong. Some forms of EDM do require at least a little theory. Certain ideas about music theory are universal, at least in terms of ideas of what sounds good, and music theory includes ideas of timing. However, if there was a scale of theory skills on the left vs technical skills on the right, EDM would lean to the right, dub step more so, and then classical would probably be on the far left.

I do this alot; not fully explaining my thoughts which results in people taking me the wrong way.

However, if there was a scale of theory skills on the left vs technical skills on the right, EDM would lean to the right, dub step more so, and then classical would probably be on the far left.

This is more what I was implying. EDM needs theory to make it work, no doubt about it, when I said "Its not about theory" I meant theory is not the focus of the music. Theory is not what your showcasing with EDM (there are always exceptions), EDM is made to make people dance which is why you hear simple melodies repeated for a few minutes. Sound design is where EDM gets its creativity and uniqueness from artist to artist.

I hope that clears it up

[GhostXb]

I do this alot; not fully explaining my thoughts which results in people taking me the wrong way.

I know the feeling, I've run into such situations, sometimes for the worse, which is why over time I've become rather critical with the words I choose. For example, I looked in a thesaurus to determine that "critical" was the word I was looking for XD!

[Friv]

Is it me, or is a lot of modern music judged more on the catchy-ness and commercial-ness of a song, rather than both the technical (mixing) and actual musical-ity (theory)? Yes, I believe that it is all about the sound, but that's why I don't like pop music: it's all over-saturated crap that is just meant to sound the same. How many people would be obsessed over Gangnam Style if the backing track was well made and well thought through DnB instead of mediocre electro pop?

[GhostXb]

Is it me, or is a lot of modern music judged more on the catchy-ness and commercial-ness of a song, rather than both the technical (mixing) and actual musical-ity (theory)? Yes, I believe that it is all about the sound, but that's why I don't like pop music: it's all over-saturated crap that is just meant to sound the same. How many people would be obsessed over Gangnam Style if the backing track was well made and well thought through DnB instead of mediocre electro pop?

I think the better question is, who's going to remember Gangnam Style in a few years besides PSY fans? If money's all you want, money's what you'll get. A friend of mine is a bouncer at a club, and they're playlist changes all the time. They always play the newest, most popular tracks, then older, less popular tracks get pushed out. This is of course, a commercial club, hence, commercial music.

Yeah, commercial music does get more attention then it deserves, and usually, it's the music that screams the loudest to be heard that get the attention, but say, if a lesser known artist was to become mainstream, would the music really be that much more appreciated by the people who really love music?