YOUR signature sound

[ras.s]

The bottom line: what makes up your own signature sound? Have you given any thought about it?


All of us, we got our favorite musical styles, acts, producers, eras - favorite sounds, really. They're all distinctive because of many factors (time, place, individual, instrument, skill, preference, intended audience, ..) and we cherish them because of the details and nuances. Still, looking back at recorded music history, chance has had a big play in it, that is, the right people meeting each other at the right time, using whatever is at hand at the moment. It's amazing really.


What makes up a signature sound anyway? There's the musician (or band leader, producer, whoever), who have his musical vision and his current skill he uses with the equipment and people he has access to to attain that vision. That's about it?


Now what made me think about this, is those few threads going on at the moment, where people say they never use presets and they want nothing to do with them. Now, I symphatize with that, atleast to a degree. If you really synthesize each one of your sounds, heck, that's a massive task and deserves respect. That way, you get sounds that might be familiar, some electric piano for example, but with you having full control over it. Now that's cool. But if you really synthesize each one of your sounds, you never get the same sound twice, and I think music loses certain cohesion; the listener can never expect anything and being constantly surprised can be a bit intimidating for the listener (nothing to relate to, perhaps).

That might be no problem if you compose experimental electronic music or happen to fancy some japanese noise, but then people composing, say, normal music ;), can't really do that, because it quite likely don't fit their musical style. I for example, 9 out of 10 tracks I make is reggae and the rest are some sort fusion with reggae (actually been trying out some cumbia lately), now, in a sense because of genre I'm quite stuck instrumentation wise. I enjoy tweaking sounds and listening to screeching noises in the wee hours of the morning, then I save them as patches, and forget about them, 'ca I really don't have much use for them - when it comes down to composing and laying down a tune, I still take the best available piano sound and start playing with that and it probably also ends up in the track. Now reggae is of course very flexible, you can mix it with many kind of thing and still call it reggae, it's been digital from the moment it was possible to do it digital and every country seems to have developed a own version of it. But there are certain expectations that still have to be met, and most of the time it's simply just more practical to express a emotion in reggae music with notes instead of certain sound.

Genre sets certain boundaries, I suppose. And boundaries, well, they are made to be crossed. I think it's a aspect of being a musician, to listen to others and develop your own ideas upon their music.

Now, still soundwise.. We as musicians are marketed with signature sounds of others, Motown this and Abbey Road that, I can have Sly Dunbar drumming for me inside my computer, which is just, you know, crazy. And NI B4, which is vintage now, is the only option if you want to do Doors' style, you have to emulate the instrument to simulate the feeling. Sort of sad.

And one thing about synthesizers, which I suppose make up a lot of 'signature sounds' for us working in the digital domain.. Some people are expert enough to recognize certain synths on recordings. What about the future? Will people recognize Diva from Sylenth1, 40 years from now? Does it even matter? How do you make a signature sound with synthesizers today, with "any sound can be made with any synth" .. ?




As for me and my sound.. A lot of it has to do with how I learned to play music - by myself. Since I don't have a natural born golden ears for this stuff, I had to learn it in a bit mechanical fashion - being maybe too strict about scales and about what can be played and when .. Minor key is my mood most of the time. And few years back I was jamming with my friends, and for some reason, we had to count some beats, and I realized I counted everything half tempo to others. :P

Soundwise, well, solid bass is number one and I sometimes play rather lenghty melodies on it. Piano is good if it has a certain click in the higher register. I tend to slightly fuzz and distort things and simulate "real world" (making individual channels mono instead of having everything in stereo, for instance). I've developed a drumbeat I call shah reggae, which I occasionally use. Got a soft spot for string synthesizers. And from playing in a afrobeat band, I fell in love with claves clicking a quick ta-ta on every four beats, which I also occasionally use. My best tracks are in the category "epic reggae". ;)






Now ok, that was long and bit aimless at times. The bottom line again: what makes up your own signature sound? Have you given any thought about it?

[qa2pir]

it's got what needs to be there and isn't boring and has melodies and harmonies

[camsr]

Using the same damned synth on EVERY single song.

[itsNano]

YOU make it, which makes it yours... ^^

[maclean]

I have thought about this myself alot and haven't quite found the answer for myself to be honest!

However sometimes its not necessarilly a sound (as in a synthesizer patch) that is unique. For example Deadmau5 (because this is a popular artist many will know), I would say something about his arangment is his signature rather than the sounds... His beats have a kind of slow, calm, heavy march feel to them... And some other artists have some distinct things I can recognise aswell however he is one of the more popular obvious ones.

I think that providing your whole time spent producing isn't aimed at completely replicating your favourite tracks, and you make some room for some controled accidents, then some of your unique little habbits will sneak into your music to develop 'your sound'. Not always necisseraly a unique synth patch but perhaps something arrangement wise also.

I guess the ultimate goal is to make something within your genre but then also have a very new unique something in it - which actually sounds good! I guess this is how new artists are made and how music evolves! It is easier said than done though... Its very easy to mash all the knobs on a synth and make a unique sound, its quite hard to find a truely unique sound and make it work in an established genre, AND make it sound really cool!

[DubChris]

Really cool thread.Keep it up mate

[qa2pir]

hey OP i'd like to hear some of that epic reggae, seems interesting

[quayquay17]

Plenty thought, and I've fretted about how much I should deviate from it as I progress. Even though I'm pleased with the music I make, I still feel like I am maturing.

For me, my sound is partially a natural thing (I like certain kinds of sounds)
I like short, slightly soft, deep, and clean kicks, with a bit of tape hiss.
I like hi-hats that aren't too pitchy
I like flabby snares..
But inside of a DAW, with a new project file open, the possibilities are endless.

So when I know I want to work on a track for an EP or album, I try to use the same set of vst's and hardware. Not limiting myself per-se, but if I used a certain delay effect, I will only use that delay, not switch to another kind.
I suppose as I keep making music, I will do this naturally, certain vst's have a sound or character that I prefer.
Hardware is a different beast, and something I wish I had more of! It's naturally limiting because unlike software, a piece of hardware is only built to do a few things, and often lends it's own sound to my music.

[dark_virus]

I have a certain pad patch that I use whenever is possible.

I suck at synth programming, so I'm really proud of that patch.

[waltercruz]

To me, maclean nailed the point: it's not just some kind of specific patch, some kind of common use of effects and ambiente, but something greater.

I liked the deadmau5 example (pretty popular, and I like some of his songs). They have a commom mood, a way of make the arrangment, a way of use the breaks, and when you listen you realize pretty faster that is him.

There's a producer that I like a lot, Gui Boratto, and I can recognize his style pretty soon, as his tracks are almost ever centered about melodies, and after listening to some of his tracks you can recognize his way of make these melodies (he said on a interview that he almost always begins his tracks though the melodies, and being a melody fan like me this sounds pretty impressive). His sound has other kinds os signatures like a peculiar snare that I can hear on hist tracks, his way of mixing.

To me, it's pretty long way tough. I have a kind of melancholic feel, a inward way to process and express my emotions that I think that reflects on the way that I make music, but I haven't ever thought about it on a conscient level. But I'm pretty shure that almost anything that I do has some kind of.... hopeless hope.

Well, I write a lot but I can't think that this is a good response But I would really like to hear your responses here.

[Perimeter Sound]

Interesting topic/responses. It made me think of a question that is sort of related, hopefully I don't derail the thread but maybe add to it. The question is, do *you* think it's harder to copy an arrangement style, as opposed to say a sound or instrumentation style ? And if so, then is that the biggest difference when it comes to choosing favorites within a genre (a genre that uses nearly the same tempo or set-of-sounds in it) ?

[ras.s]

"I guess the ultimate goal is to make something within your genre but then also have a very new unique something in it - which actually sounds good!"

This is crucial. It shows the musician has passion for the genre in question - not only he knows how others have done it, but for the love of music, he's also able to bring something new to the table, maybe even exceed earlier works. In some cases, they actually are there to redefine the music itself. Like there was jazz well before Miles Davis or Herbie Hancock, they very well left a mark that's going to stay there long after both of them are gone.

Musicianship is very well at the core of things here. We could be given a certain chord progression and set of sounds and all of us would approach it differently. Music is very personal matter. It's not only about how skilled you are at your instrument, but very much about how you personally approach notes.

"So when I know I want to work on a track for an EP or album, I try to use the same set of vst's and hardware."

I think this one is essential as well for "signature sound", atleast a very good tip to consider. A lot of the music I listen to, wasn't/isn't made on computers and thus, there are more limitations to the actual producing process. Like a keyboardist may have only two keyboards, saxophonist has one sax and the man mixing the music has carefully selected the components he uses. In digital environment, we can just change patches or throw in different compressor - cost, physical space or amount of mixer channels really isn't as limiting factors as they are in hardware. In some coveted studio, with "that" sound everyone loves, there's one piano there in the corner and not 60 gigabytes of samples varying from honky-tonk to 50 feet uprights.


One thing also to consider here is I guess is how the roles of musician, arranger and producer are so tightly connected to each other when working alone with a computer. On just about every record, there's the music group's own sound and the studio sound and both of them should have their own uniqueness to make up something special. Computer musician has to be all three (and not to forget the recording engineer and the apprentice making coffee). The computer itself is a endlessly fascinating instrument.


I'm having a terrible memory lapse here, but there was a thread some time back about this famous guy (who was it?), who was prompted by his management to leave his old Atari and change over to Ableton. Must have felt devastating. He crafted his music with that one thing, learned it inside out, made hundreds of thousands of people dance worldwide - and then he's instrument, his whole workflow, his signature sound, is for some reason obsolete the next day.



qa2pir, maybe I'll upload something later on, the only thing I have online right now is this awfully loud and lo-fi six year old mixtape, some epic emotion in there I think. Now listening to that again, I think I had found my sound back then already. I don't mix versions as much as I used to, though.



"...so I'm really proud of that patch." THIS.

[ras.s]

Perimeter, I personally.. I haven't studied arrangement as much as I should have. But yea, for me it is very much about arrangement, when something becomes interesting. The arranger is like the movie director.

[Tarekith]

One thing I've noticed over the years is that it doesn't matter what gear I use, software, hardware, you name it, my tracks more or less have the same feel when I'm done. I think we just tend to favor certain sounds and frequency spreads, and that subconsciously that comes out when we write music.

[quayquay17]

Thanks OP for such an interesting topic, looking forward to reading more responses!

To respond to the note about the guy and his atari:
Garren Epley, a guy on my label, uses an mpc, sp404, and alesis keyboard, and it still sounds cool! Relevance doesn't matter!
(We make fun of him a lot at jams/shows, but we are all secretly jealous that he doesn't deal with crashes and wifi and passwords and authentication and.. and...)