KVR Audio

Bulbizarre · Post by **Bulbizarre** » Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:52 pm

So I think for the most of us we all have some tracks we spend a hell lot of time on, and others that get wrapped much more quickly, whether they hit the spot of what we expected of them, or they're just close enough to make it.
If there was a sweet spot in-between, how long on average would that be for you ? and what are your ways to cope with frustration that your track is still not finished and you start losing interest in it as you spend so much time on it ?

cryophonik · Post by **cryophonik** » Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:10 pm

I don't think I can put a number of hours to it since it varies a LOT for me and, particularly, since most of my tracks are collabs with singers and they're all over the place in terms of how long it takes them. Sometimes it takes weeks with several recording sessions, then I need to process the vocals, complete the arrangement, and finalize the mix. The quickest instrumentals I've ever completed have been one long evening, probably +/- 8 hours. I'm generally not someone who likes to spend endless hours tweaking away at a composition or mix. I have much more of a "git 'er done" mentality.

Bulbizarre · Post by **Bulbizarre** » Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:22 pm

cryophonik wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:10 pm I have much more of a "git 'er done" mentality.

I think that's the most satisfying mentality. I've tried the other side of the spectrum, rebouncing synths sequences to open 300 more hz on the filter or to change the bpm, and everytime I could have done less time worrying and get cooler results. I think there's always a way of working around nice sounds even if something is wrong with a recording (f.i). Say there's no bass in the voice. Merge the voice with an organic bass synth and drown it in reverb and base the song around that

DJ Warmonger · Post by **DJ Warmonger** » Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:31 pm

I don't have any specific schedule. If it clicks, the track gets done quickly. If it doesn't, I'd rather give up and come back in a week.

Still, once I had unlimited time to finish a remix and it took less than three weeks, working some every day. I tend to create complex arrangements with elaborate sound design and start from scratch every time.

your track is still not finished and you start losing interest in it as you spend so much time on it

It happens either during composition when there are no good ideas coming, or during the arrangement when the parts don't seem to come together as I had imagined.

The mix is actually the most enjoyable part, as the track (already nice at this stage) gets better and better literally every quater. Very satisfying.

foosnark · Post by **foosnark** » Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:29 pm

Typically 2-5 hours for the main process:
- sound design from scratch
- set up for improvisation (this may involve some simple sequences/arpeggiators/generative stuff, drones, and manually played parts, and minimal planning and practice)
- record the master output; once I have one good take, unpatch the modular and never open that DAW project again.

And then 1-2 hours for an editing phase on the full recording. If it needs more than that, it could be a warning that I'm better off just abandoning it.

And then mastering, which at this point, is usually a trouble-free process with my standard plugin chain and a few level and EQ tweaks. About 4x the runtime of the track.

Also, countless hours of learning the gear, experimenting with techniques, noodling, making irritating noises that frighten household pets, etc. The practice that makes the "main" process go quickly.

CrystalWizard · Post by **CrystalWizard** » Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:27 am

Forever it seems lately. i just moved and started finishing or deleting old pieces. wow, stuff there from 2011! Other times i will do a piece start to finish in about 2 weeks, few hrs each day. Sometimes i hit a dead end but years later open up the piece and finish it very quickly. Other times i am working away making a lot of progress and then after a few listens i lose all interest. There is so many variables, i do stuff that's 30mns long and then pieces that are 1.5mn. Some are super dense others super minimal.
i would expect that there are as many answers to this question as there are people.

vouplol · Post by **vouplol** » Sat Dec 11, 2021 3:34 pm

This number fluctuates a LOT since it all depends on what track I'm working on.
Sometimes it can be a few hours, sometimes several days -- it's a really tough question when you think about it!

harryupbabble · Post by **harryupbabble** » Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:06 pm

time pressure can be good? and it can be fun.
oh wait, that's speed scrabble.

but maybe it applies to everything. or maybe not always.

i read somewhere that the beatles were prolific because they were sort of forced to be that way, in the beginning at least.

plus maybe it's like, from john lennon's point of view, "damn, that paul is just cranking out the songs, i gotta keep up".

on the other hand, for one example, maybe some prog rock groups took their time and got great results?

stairway to heaven took a while. yesterday too, lyrics came way later? jon anderson of yes was/is a perfectionist? but maybe most punk groups weren't?

me, i'm fast at scrabble but very slow at making songs. i've only got about 40 songs done it about 10 years. and i'm not happy with any of them. finding the right words to fit the melodies is superhard!!! no?

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:08 pm

anywhere from real-time to several months. Depends on a couple of things, 1) at one extreme, was it something I could nail live, to at the other extreme something I have to invent techniques to even approach execution; 2) if it is more than a couple of instruments and needs an arrangement, how statistically dense is it (con what is feasible).
Because there's a point where one has to devise strategies. So there's no brute number possible, except the first one. The reason things are hard or easy is really down to how much preparation has alredy occurred, besides what is needed going forward.

xoxos · Post by **xoxos** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:30 pm

whatever it takes. i suppose there are product oriented practices, and process oriented where you don't care if you record anything. 20 minutes is great but i've lived long enough to hit the point where i'm letting some pieces take decades to compose. i guess as a synth developer the technologic depth aesthetic is easy to relate to, but musically i like the ease and fluency ellington's band conveyed after decades of playing together. i've been through the time when it was easy to produce a wall of sound, now i'm trying to combine those capabilities with music that takes time to create, because it remains undone for me.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:08 am

Forever usually. I rarely get a track properly finished. In fact most of the time I just dick around making funny noises, try to get aforementioned funny noises shoehorned into a track and get bored of the whole process halfway through and go back to making new funny noises.

In fact I'm kind of vurt-like but more structured. Well, I say more structured, but vurt actually manages to complete tracks so I suppose I'm not. vurt-like in a more structured medium is maybe what I meant to say. Actually not vurt-like at all - I'll extricate myself from that analogy. I'm no muppet weed and I'm probably not addled.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:53 am

Absolutely forever. A song is never finished. As far as I'm concerned, it can always get better. The best thing for me about releasing an album is it forces me to rule a line under it and decide it is good enough. That said, I am currently working to get an EP out early in the new year (too late for Xmas now) and it is basically updated versions of the first two songs we wrote for our first album, plus a couple of covers. In fact, one of the songs dates back to 1996, it was the very first thing we wrote as NOVAkILL and this will be the fourth version of it we've released (the first version was done 100% in hardware). It's still the same song, not a new mix or a reinterpretation, (hopefully) just the best version of it we have done so far (25 years on).

The thing I find, though, is the longer I spend with it, the better it gets. e.g. I can download a MIDI file of an 80s song and get it up and running in a couple of hours but a couple of months later, after playing it through a hundred times and tweaking it constantly, it will be about 100 times better than it was at the end of that first two hour session. Six months later it will be better again. It's just how it works.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that I can finish a song in a night and it will be OK but it will be better in a week, better again in a month, and even better after I spend a year with it. There will never be a point where I think it is as good as it can ever be, so I never stop working on anything.

PatchAdamz · Post by **PatchAdamz** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:25 am

Until its done....
That might be 5 hours or 20 hours.

Its better to not watch the clock.

Synthack · Post by **Synthack** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 9:45 am

.........

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Wed Dec 15, 2021 3:24 am

Synthack wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 9:45 amThis depends usually for me. It's weird I never sit down with a track in mind that I want to make. I just sit down and start fiddling with sounds and then the song kind of builds itself.

Which is very likely why it ends up sounding like that meandering thing you posted that does nothing and goes nowhere. It feels like about one-third of a song, stretched out to 3m30s so that it seems like a whole song. It's OK for what it is but it's hardly what I think of when someone says the word "song" or even "track".

How long do you like to work on your tracks ?