Some rules to catologue sounds

[Galleoneer]

Hi you mighty sound designers,

I not sure if you had this allready but since I am sometimes confused about this I would like to ask if there are any strict rules or definitions on how to catalogue a sound.

It would be nice if we could make some definitions and maybe work some kind of bible to stick to.

So what makes a lead or pad or texture, sweep, poly, sequence, bass, chord, brass, key, ambient, bell, swell, string etc.

Sometimes bass played on c5 sounds like a lead or a lead played on c3 like a bass. Or the difference between poly and sequence or string and pad, tricky or clear?

Do I have a bad perception or are these things not distinct and have intersections? Is there any scientific approach or formula to apply?

-cheers

[shamann]

Why not build a taxonomy based on base components of sound? That way you avoid subjective categories.

For example: long attack, short attack, sustained sound, etc. Like in loop sample libraries where everything gets categorized by BPM.

Some reading here might help give you some ideas.

[Galleoneer]

Why not build a taxonomy based on base components of sound? That way you avoid subjective categories.

So you mean the other taxonomy is subjective. That is what I wanted to hear.

Your link shows a more scientific approach: thats quiet my taste thanks.

But 90% of all banks of patches are named on the classical terms. Most people only know this and only want to hear them and they usualy talk using this terms. So I am afraid we still need to know them to communicate with other musicians.

So it would be nice to bring some light into the (classical term) darkness.

[nibbzious]

well a pad sounds like a pad, a bass sounds like a bass, a poly sounds like a poly. It possibly couldn't be any less vague.

my best advice would be go through the banks of synths that have these types of sounds categorized. you'll soon learn the convention used in the naming scheme. a good type of synth would be any rompler. mostly all romplers stick to this sort of scheme. go to your local keyboard shop and scroll through the e-mu's, motif's, and triton's.

[shamann]

Best suggestion I have would be to download the demo of Arturia's Minimoog emulation. If memory serves, it was very heavily categorized.

These terms are really undefined marketing lingo or user shorthand, so there a no set definitions. For instance if you play a sustained "bass" patch two octaves higher, does it become a lead?

And the terms pad, texture or sequence could be applied to the same sound, as some pads sound as though they are sequences of discrete steps. Once you have the general area marked out, you have a fair amount of license with the specifics.

[shamann]

Also, my personal favourite are the [Synth] synth patches. As opposed to the non-synth synth patches, of course.

[Galleoneer]

well a pad sounds like a pad, a bass sounds like a bass, a poly sounds like a poly. It possibly couldn't be any less vague.

my best advice would be go through the banks of synths that have these types of sounds categorized. you'll soon learn the convention used in the naming scheme. a good type of synth would be any rompler. mostly all romplers stick to this sort of scheme. go to your local keyboard shop and scroll through the e-mu's, motif's, and triton's.

Don't get me wrong I seen many sounbanks and I also made a few patches. I can distinguish between sounds in allmost 90% of all cases. This is more like a details discussion. But as shamann said these are subjective things I guess. If a sound can be called string or pad then it is up to you to call it szring or pad. A shame that they are no rules or conventions of classifications.

[Galleoneer]

These terms are really undefined marketing lingo or user shorthand, so there a no set definitions. For instance if you play a sustained "bass" patch two octaves higher, does it become a lead?

Yeah like vogue or music styles in general.

Like a ambient house triphop raggamuffin speedrock meditation folk track.

[Dave Blakely]

Theres enough pigeonholing in music, must we now apply these terms to sound design? Especially where synth tones are concerned.

[Galleoneer]

Theres enough pigeonholing in music, must we now apply these terms to sound design? Especially where synth tones are concerned.

If you are looking for a particular sound and you have 5000 patches to search from. Could you find it faster if they are trown together randomly or sorted by some kind of criteria?

[Dave Blakely]

Theres enough pigeonholing in music, must we now apply these terms to sound design? Especially where synth tones are concerned.

If you are looking for a particular sound and you have 5000 patches to search from. Could you find it faster if they are trown together randomly or sorted by some kind of criteria?

I see your point but personaly i never use presets, though thats no excuse as i understand that some kind of loose rating would help people, at least until they sorted the wheat from the chaff in any patches that were provided with a new synth, but the whole genre of synthesised sound should in theory resist categorisation as its pure use is to come up with tones that havent been heard before.

[shamann]

Theres enough pigeonholing in music, must we now apply these terms to sound design? Especially where synth tones are concerned.

I agree with you, Dave, but sadly it has been done for years. Be interesting to find out where the use of specific labels of pad, lead, etc came from. Presumably Roland or Yamaha or Korg or Casio in the 80s decided all these new saved presets needed categorization.

I'm generally in favour of a descriptive taxonomy rather than functional in cases like these, because there's no arguing the physical descriptors of the sound. Application of sound is muddy waters, your pad sound could be my lead, etc.

[Galleoneer]

I see your point but personaly i never use presets, though thats no excuse as i understand that some kind of loose rating would help people, at least until they sorted the wheat from the chaff in any patches that were provided with a new synth, but the whole genre of synthesised sound should in theory resist categorisation as its pure use is to come up with tones that havent been heard before.

Yes its like every rule retricts freedom. But like in any field in life we must admit rules can be necessary and we probably never get rid from all of them.

Any attempt to categorisation can kill creativity because people start thinking in this categories. But what can we do?

Plus the fact that today synths have got classical roles in every music style. Like delivering sweeps in techno or or ppads in film scores.

But this should never hinder us to make something new

[tconrardy]

I have been naming catagories with capitals: 3/4 letters which can include :

PAD ( pad sounds)
LED ( mono lead)
SYN ( poly synth)
KBD ( for keyboard type sounds; piano's organs, ect)
STG: strings
BAS: bass ( centered around c3)
SFX ( sound effect type of sound: non-concert pitch )
ATMO ( atmosphere: like SFX but has it's own character or ambience)

You can also make up other catogories as need.

Example: "PAD Brain Salads"

That way you can take a look at a patch name and know exactly what it is. I guess thats why M42 users like the patch banks. I try to stick to this rule for any synths I do.We also tend to follow this rule at Patch Arena in our monthly competetions.

[Galleoneer]

I have been naming catagories with capitals...

Nice trick. Thank you Tim, I keep this in mind