I have been trying to decifer the Boards of Canada sound recently and was wondering if anyone has been successful in creating a similar sound with vsti's and plugins?

The Triangle wave form seems to be one of their favorite bases for the mix. So I have been using the free Triangle synth, and vintage warmer to get things cooking. My pads taste o.k. but maybe I am missing an ingedient? (Formula/Technique)

Does anyone is know what synth's BOC actually use? I assume its all analoge.

Thanks

slow pitch modulation, to get that old wobbly tape sound.

Damn you kids and your Boards of Canada:

BOC is Blue Oyster Cult!

No respect for history, I tells ya...

- m

[quote="Markleford"]Damn you kids and your Boards of Canada:

[b]BOC is Blue Oyster Cult![/b]

No respect for history, I tells ya...

- m [/quote]

And I came here hoping someone was going to give me some settings for a Buck guitar sound...damn kids

As cellular says, slow pitch modulation is a key ingredient. I like to add a little tape hiss onto it. I read an interview with BOC in which they were asked about how they got their "sound", and they referred to a "secret weapon", which is pretty much an unspecified 1970's era stereo device. What that might be, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's an old tape machine? That's all I can figure.

Here is one of my shameless BOC ripoffs: http://w3.bllvwa.cablespeed.com/~wsfrench/sounds/cosmic_matter_convent ion.mp3

Actually it sounds more like Christ, who is better at ripping off BOC, so it's technically a ripoff of a ripoff!

Willum,

Where did you read this article? Did it talk about any other details of their recording process?

The stereo imaging is an interesting element. Waves has a plugin that could do it, are there any other quality stereo plugs?

some good links here including the xlr8r interview that I think willum is talking about:

http://www.davidac.fsworld.co.uk/boc_links.htm

actually, no (http://mysite.freeserve.com/thule1/intvw/boc_int_hmv.htm):

Mike: It's a mix of old and new technology. About half of our kit is old gnarly broken gear, and the other half is pretty new stuff. We have a lot of cheap instruments, it's like a junkshop. The best way I'd describe it is that our sound sources are almost always something like a real instrument or an analog synth, and our recording techniques and processes are a bit unorthodox. We don't like using digital things or computer effects so we get sounds by doing things like running whole parts through a really bad tape recorder or something like that. Like the intro on 'Julie and Candy' for example, we just played the melody on a couple of whistles and then we bounced it back and forward between the internal mics of two tape-decks until the sound started disappearing into hell. Like when you look at an image reflected within two mirrors forever, in the distance it gets darker and greener and murkier. We record a lot of live stuff, just for fun, most of what we record hasn't been released. We tend to break equipment frequently. We'd probably make professional studio engineers weep if they saw us working. And some of our electronic tracks are not sequenced, we just put them down as samples onto multi-track tape, because it can sound more real and characteristic. We use a hardware sequencer for arranging but it has incredible glitches at the end of every pattern of music, which is interesting up to a point. We usually only use computers for accurate sequencing now, you know, German timing.

They're into experimentation. I think that's a good place to be in, because you feel less inclined to do things "right" and just get into the flow of creating. It also allows for liberal mistakes and unintended side-effects, which are often more interesting than intentionally created elements. I frequently hear music and say "I want my songs to sound like that", but when I make them they never come out like I expected them to. I've given up on creating the sounds I'm hearing in my head, and instead just focus on simpler things and the process of getting into the flow. It is fun to deconstruct BOC, they are certainly worthy of deeper investigation, but somehow I always end up being myself. I'm never happy with my music when I try to sound like someone else anyway.

Interesting link, I had not seen that article yet. I like the sound of their process, old broken equipment is cheap and readily available, and there is no reason not to experiment in similar ways. I like the idea of old tape machines. But it will all end up on my PC at the end of the day.

i've made a nice BoC lead with sync modular's "duality" ensemble and a tweaked instance of sfx machine RT's "alpha double" preset, with some eq and microtonal pitchwobbles (sfx machine does these pretty welll, too). it's straight out of high scores - so much so that i refuse to use it.

I've had that problem too. As soon as I get to something nice, I realize it's straight out of boc. a curse.

I made a song in Reason, and when I was finished I realized it unintentionally sounded a lot like BOC. I named it "Bored with Canada". Haven't had a chance to post it yet, but maybe soon if my baby will just stop screaming for a while.

Really, my take on their sound is that the drums are much more important than the lead. Get that crunchy, lofi drum thing going, and then throw any moody, desolate melody on top, preferably going slowly in and out of tune a bit.

ck wrote:

And I came here hoping someone was going to give me some settings for a Buck guitar sound...damn kids

It would make for a nifty mellotron/loopy sort of thing wouldn't it?

deastman wrote:

I made a song in Reason, and when I was finished I realized it unintentionally sounded a lot like BOC. I named it "Bored with Canada". Haven't had a chance to post it yet, but maybe soon if my baby will just stop screaming for a while. Really, my take on their sound is that the drums are much more important than the lead. Get that crunchy, lofi drum thing going, and then throw any moody, desolate melody on top, preferably going slowly in and out of tune a bit.

Hell yeah, that's about it in a nutshell! crunchy drums, desolate melodies drifting in and out of tune. Don't forget the backward-masking elements, and the sub-audible psychoacoustics.

... and some will to make damn good music

digitalstasis wrote:

... and some will to make damn good music

Well that's something we all share without a doubt! Get lost in the process, bring something unique into the world. Invent a new technique, and don't forget to share it with your friends here.

I just wish they didn't come first. I know, I know, do your own thing, but I suppose it was listening to them that got me into electronic music in the first place. Well, except for aphex twin, autechre, paradinas, orb, and fripp. oh and eno. and steve reich. pretty original huh?

magneto + detuned synth with an eqed verb = BOC style

and yes the triangle waveform is a good one to use.

willum wrote:

Well that's something we all share without a doubt! Get lost in the process, bring something unique into the world. Invent a new technique, and don't forget to share it with your friends here.

I've discovered that its actually extremely easy to invent a new style. All you have to do is establish a set of arbitrary rules. For example, "all my drums will be run through a bit crusher, and all melodies will be played on a CZ101". Stick with those rules, write a whole albums worth of material, and you've got an exciting new style!

So is it fair to say that some level of analog process is needed to give a track organic warmth?

There seems to be a bit of soul missing when using lets say fruityloops by itself to make a tune. If the reason BOC stand out is the analog process what does that say for the current state of computer music technology?

borax wrote:

So is it fair to say that some level of analog process is needed to give a track organic warmth? There seems to be a bit of soul missing when using lets say fruityloops by itself to make a tune. If the reason BOC stand out is the analog process what does that say for the current state of computer music technology?

I wouldn't be so quick to blame computer music technology for any lack of soul. When someone hears your tracks, they don't think "gosh, that sounds like it was produced on a home computer using FruityLoops" unless all you did was grab a couple of someone else's loops and spew out some generic techno elements without actually thinking about what the point of your music is. You can do a wide variety of amazing things on computers, including incorporating sounds recorded using external analog equipment. Nothing is forcing you to stay inside the PC, but there's nothing wrong with it either. The thing about BOC is that they are conceptually deep. The analog techniques are just one part of what they do, but their philosophy is so much more far-reaching. I think most of us would just be happy to make a cool tune once in a while (myself included), but those two (Eoin and Sandison) are definitely on a mission. Their talent and commitment are evident, which is why we are so captivated by their work, to the extent that we want to emulate the sound in our own music.

Willum,
I have been working with computer music for about 4 years now as a hobby. Over the years I have heard a real difference in the quality most of the software synths and plugins. Things are definatly getting better and the technology is far more powerful than the analog equivelant up to a point.
The fact is analog equipment has much more of a presence and most of the big electornic bands swear by certain analog gear. My comments on the technology have to do with the lack of that extra something that seems to be a dividing line between amateur and professional.
Most of the tracks I here from people just doing things thru software seem to be a bit thin. Could you recommend any good IDM bands that work only with software.
thanks-

borax wrote:

Could you recommend any good IDM bands that work only with software. thanks-

Plenty of plaid stuff is made just with software. Nice interview here

Yup, I have no doubt that hardware plays a major role in the gearlists of pros everywhere. Before I started recording music on my PC, I was using a cassette 4-track, so the technology is light-years ahead of that. I also have a few select pieces of outboard equipment that I use regularly. When I had my Waldorf MicroQ, I did notice that it sounded thicker and nicer than some of the software instruments. But I ended up getting rid of it because it was too blame difficult to program, manage patches, etc. Same with my Yamaha A3000 sampler. In 1997, it was the top of the heap. But in 2004, Kontakt kind of makes it look silly. So you can go both ways, and always there is compromise.

The "hardware vs. software" debate is too thorny to get into. My personal opinion is that software is at the point where it is indistinguishable from hardware. I don't think it's fair to compare pro musicians with home hobbyists for several reasons. First of all, they are produced. They have teams of audio specialists making their stuff sound great, and at the very least their material is professionally mastered. You could export any of your songs into raw .wav files, and hand it over to these professionals, and they could make your music sound like it just descended from heaven. So typically, hobbyists lack a) resources, and b) skills to make their music sound as good as professionals. There's nothing wrong with that, that's just the way it is. We write, perform, mix, produce, master, and distribute our own music. That's an awful lot for one person to do!

I can't say with certainty if there are any performers using strictly software, but there may be. In any case, just check the websites of the major software manufacturers, most if not all of them contain some type of celebrity endorsement of their products, so at least we know that they are using some of the same gear we are. Don't just look at IDM producers, the folks doing soundtracks for film and TV are heavily digital these days.

And remember: the typical computer-based recording studio is far more sophisticated than the equipment used by the Beatles, but that doesn't make you love the Beatles any less does it? I'm always amazed at just how good that stuff sounds. And some of my favorite music was just recorded on a simple tape machine in a basement (I'm talking about Guided by Voices) okay, so now I've exposed myself as an indie-rock lo-fi loving geek. Consider the spectrum of sound production quality, from ultra-produced top-40 pop songs, down to a guy with a cheap acoustic guitar recording it into a telephone answering machine. I think it's possible to fall anywhere in that spectrum and still make good music. Okay, I'll get down off my soapbox now.

Thanks for the link, I am a Plaid fan, But the article actually proves my point!

quote: "There was really no outboard gear at all except at the mastering studio, and that was where we added some warmth to the overall sound by going through some really nice digital-to-analog converters [by UK company Audio & Design] that we couldn't possibly afford to buy ourselves.”

This proves that the basic sound of totally computer generated music lacks a warmth that is needed for professional level tracks.

Besides I think that Rest Proof Clockwork and Not For Threes are actually better albums than Spokes. It is comforting to think that they actually used all computer based synths tho..

I love BoC's attention to detail. Despite their apparent superficiality and lofi sensibilities, their sound is incredibly dense, especially on Geogaddi. But for production reference, I'd like to be able to attain the kind of crisp punchy drums they achieve on Aquarius - it sounds so full. It'll be interesting to see how they take their sound with the next LP.

I only got into BoC after a mate pointed out my music's similarity to some of their stuff. It annoys me a little when people point out a 'clear BoC influence' in my music, despite only knowing who BoC were long after I began producing. You'd think they were the first band ever to use the mod wheel, the way some people go on about it.

But yeah, great tunes - they're in quite the enviable position too, with great mass market appeal while still being able to retain the respect of electronica snobs. Still, I know a guy who hates them with a passion, although I'm not entirely sure why...

....and willum you are right on many of the points you made! You can't compair home musicians to professional industry types. Its always helpful to have a team of guys helping you get the best sound.

--Thats kinda why I posted my question here--

My goal is to someday make music that sounds as good as industry guys on my home computer. Just trying to get a handle on some of the techincal issues I am facing. ie.. warm organic audio, on a pc...if its possible?
Sounds like I am going to start playing around with some analog tape decks, then back into the computer..

Hey Chris,
You should post a tune for us to check out.

Hi Borax,

You can check out what's currently available of mine at my website (in sig). Most of what's up there is pretty old, as I'm putting a new album together at the moment for release.

I think the biggest problem people have is composing a part on a softsynth, and considering that part "done". I typically run each part through many delays, reverbs, distortion, eq, filters, etc. to arrive at a finished sound. This is much more akin to the way BOC works, and the digital/analogue debate is largely irrelevant. I do use analogue gear as well, but a better way to look at it is in terms of "textures". You should try to vary your sonic palette texturally, to create a sense of contrast in your compositions. Texture could be derived from the use of analogue gear, but that is only one approach among many. I know this has been mentioned many times, but for an example of a "pro" band using only softsynths, check out VNV Nations "Futureperfect" album.

Another observation: the only difference between a hobby musician and a "pro" is that one got lucky and was signed to a label. Professional production and mastering may or not follow, but don't forget that professional producers, mixers, and masterers are just people too! These are skills which any hobby musician can develop with enough practice.

for some of those preskool/old-skool BOC-like synths, i use Rticul8 and V-box X (Krakli synths).

borax wrote:

quote: "There was really no outboard gear at all except at the mastering studio, and that was where we added some warmth to the overall sound by going through some really nice digital-to-analog converters [by UK company Audio & Design] that we couldn't possibly afford to buy ourselves.” This proves that the basic sound of totally computer generated music lacks a warmth that is needed for professional level tracks.

99% of all music goes through a "box" or a series of "boxes" that add warmth and other desired qualities to the sound.

Personally I'd rather achieve a warm sound just by sending it through a nice D/A converter than go through the trouble of investing into expensive analogue gear (I really doubt that I could even find the synths I'd want to have).

Anyway, warmth is not really the most important aspect of professional records- IMHO first come creativity, originality, composition and playing/sequencing skills and other boring stuff like that. BoC have pretty much got them all- no wonder they've got the money and time to fiddle and experiment with nice toys