Producing A Modern Sounding Pop Song

[Opaque]

A direct insight into some contemporary pop production, might find it useful. You can find a bunch of breakdowns like this one.

[wagtunes]

A direct insight into some contemporary pop production, might find it useful. You can find a bunch of breakdowns like this one.

Thanks. Gonna watch it ASAP.

[wagtunes]

A direct insight into some contemporary pop production, might find it useful. You can find a bunch of breakdowns like this one.

Okay, so I started watching it and 6 minutes in he says this isn't the finished mix. It's the session he sent in to get mixed. So it's not going to sound that great because he sucks at mixing.

So what exactly am I supposed to get out of this? It's an hour and 20 minute video. I don't want to waste my time on something that's going to sound like crap and won't help me make afinished pop production.

[wagtunes]

Well, after an hour, I turned it off. Did you actually watch the video? If you got something out of it, God bless you. But what a waste of an hour of my life.

[Opaque]

This guy is a master troll. If I'm wrong, I apologize for misjudging...

[wagtunes]

This guy is a master troll. If I'm wrong, I apologize for misjudging...

I'm a troll because I watched an hour of a video that I got nothing out of? Again, did you watch the video? He spent half the time rambling on about stuff that had nothing to do with the song. He spent 10 minutes alone on the high hat pattern and the guy who played the drums. Ultimately, not very useful and quite irrelevant to the "sound" or a modern pop production. He didn't even go over the whole song or even play the whole song once through so I can hear what it sounds like.

So again, what was I supposed to get out of this before you start calling me names?

[Opaque]

Ok, I noticed you have 23k posts, so I'll bite this time. It's really not that important what he rambles about, or the fact that the track is not mixed yet.
First, it's obvious just from skipping around a bit that it already sounds very close to the finished track, which tells you how important sound selection/sound design/arrangement are in modern production. Also, you wouldn't sit in a mixing session to learn jazz, you'd spend it observing the players, same here - so it's doubly relevant, despite the song not being mixed.
So, what's useful are the things he shows - you can hear that it's already there mostly, there are a ton of clips that are chopped and shortened - no long passages left with reverb tails, etc. in order to leave room for ear candy and keep everything clean and tight. Also, there's a ton of layering on everything - snares, claps, ambiances, etc., so e.g. the hits are wider, spread out in both timing and panning/frequency, by extension denser - now just compare this to the (as someone above called it) early '80s electronic pop, which would leave long passages of played synths/arps and simple drum machine or sampled drum sounds without much layering or tight editing on individual layers.

So what does your process look like - if it's the latter, then that's something you could maybe take away from this, without even going into the details of his sound choices or the moves made (if your intention is to really imitate the sound closely).

For example, I found it interesting that he's treating the sound fragments taken from the song itself and working with them almost as an acousmatic/sound art composer would, taking them beyond just ear candy and forming entire sections or rhythmic/tonal passages which sit somewhere in-between melodic and textural, and overall serve a significant part in the whole thing. Even in modern pop production, that's something quite unique to this guy, at least in how far he takes it in his productions for Dua Lipa.

[wagtunes]

Ok, I noticed you have 23k posts, so I'll bite this time. It's really not that important what he rambles about, or the fact that the track is not mixed yet.
First, it's obvious just from skipping around a bit that it already sounds very close to the finished track, which tells you how important sound selection/sound design/arrangement are in modern production. Also, you wouldn't sit in a mixing session to learn jazz, you'd spend it observing the players, same here - so it's doubly relevant, despite the song not being mixed.
So, what's useful are the things he shows - you can hear that it's already there mostly, there are a ton of clips that are chopped and shortened - no long passages left with reverb tails, etc. in order to leave room for ear candy and keep everything clean and tight. Also, there's a ton of layering on everything - snares, claps, ambiances, etc., so e.g. the hits are wider, spread out in both timing and panning/frequency, by extension denser - now just compare this to the (as someone above called it) early '80s electronic pop, which would leave long passages of played synths/arps and simple drum machine or sampled drum sounds without much layering or tight editing on individual layers.

So what does your process look like - if it's the latter, then that's something you could maybe take away from this, without even going into the details of his sound choices or the moves made (if your intention is to really imitate the sound closely).

For example, I found it interesting that he's treating the sound fragments taken from the song itself and working with them almost as an acousmatic/sound art composer would, taking them beyond just ear candy and forming entire sections or rhythmic/tonal passages which sit somewhere in-between melodic and textural, and overall serve a significant part in the whole thing. Even in modern pop production, that's something quite unique to this guy, at least in how far he takes it in his productions for Dua Lipa.

Well, if you got all that from that video, you're a better man than I am. Maybe I was listening for the wrong things. Maybe I was distracted by his rambling. Maybe I didn't like his approach. All I know is I walked away from that video after an hour thinking to myself that's an hour of my life I'm never getting back.

Everyone responds differently to each style of teaching. His, I just don't respond to.

[Opaque]

Of course, but it's just a stream, no need to religiously study every second of it, the above are just some of my takeaways in general.

[TechHaus]

Good summary, Opaque.

I wanted to talk vocal patterns with wags earlier in the thread and he was equally dismissive. Not sure he really wants to do the work, or even understands what he is trying to achieve.

[wagtunes]

Good summary, Opaque.

I wanted to talk vocal patterns with wags earlier in the thread and he was equally dismissive. Not sure he really wants to do the work, or even understands what he is trying to achieve.

Assuming I don't want to do the work after what I've already done in the 12 years I have been here (go listen to some of my earlier tracks) is not only unfair but ridiculous. Nobody puts in more work into his music than I do. As for the vocal thread, where was I dismissive? I made note of all the suggestions and am going to try them out. What else am I supposed to do?

That I don't know what I want to achieve or for that matter even what I'm doing in general, no argument there. My biggest problem is hearing something I like and want to emulate and not having a clue how to go about doing it. That's why I have to constantly watch video instruction or I'd never get anything done. Even getting a certain guitar sound. I have no idea where to begin to get that sound. So I go to Google and type in "How did XYZ group get their guitar sound for ABC song?" And then I write down all the amps and FX they used and see if I have something close. For me to hear something and say, "Oh, that's a Marshall Stack" isn't not only impossible but also laughable. I wouldn't know a Marshall sound from a Peavey sound. That much I admit. I am clueless when it comes to duplicating sounds whether they be instrumental or vocal. That's why I come here and ask. NO one has ever said to me "Use this amp to get that sound" and I then dismissed them saying it won't work. So you're just not being fair.

But whatever. If that's how you feel, don't help me anymore. Problem solved. I'm not forcing anyone to help me. If they want to, great. If they don't, that's fine too.

[ghettosynth]

Well, after an hour, I turned it off. Did you actually watch the video? If you got something out of it, God bless you. But what a waste of an hour of my life.

 

I never watch videos cold anymore unless I really know who's producing them and I know that it will be worthwhile. I first take the transcript to AI and ask it to summarize.

My exact prompt: "First summarize the process describing key takeaways and insights."

Process

The track began from a very small musical core, principally the bass line, with chords and melodies developed by ear during the writing session. The initial production did not need to be complete: sessions might begin with only chords, a drum groove, or a short loop, and most such ideas never become songs. Once the writing worked, the production expanded over roughly a week of intermittent revision, including several rounds where choices were added, judged the next day, and removed again.

The rhythmic identity came from feel rather than a conventional grid. The delayed hi-hat placement was inspired by Nate Smith’s drumming: it sits somewhere between straight and triplet timing, producing a push-pull sensation that can make the snare seem early even though the hats are late. Other parts were similarly left relaxed or deliberately moved off-grid to restore organic timing after digital editing.

The arrangement was then built by controlled accumulation. Different kicks, percussion, atmospheric noises, guitars, subs, synths, and vocal effects appear as the song progresses. Each later section contains slightly more information than the previous one, culminating in the largest final chorus. The point was not for listeners to hear dozens of distinct tracks, but for those layers to fuse into a few coherent musical objects.

A particularly important step was editing recorded material into precise shapes. Bass notes were aggressively cut to create silence between phrases; guitar parts were chopped to follow the bass; crowd noise was reshaped into percussion; tiny fragments of speech, vinyl noise, and vocals became transitions or rhythmic accents. Reverbs and delays were often printed to audio so their tails could be cut exactly where required rather than behaving continuously.

Key takeaways and insights

The central concept is rate of information. Repetition needs some new information to remain engaging, but filling every empty space produces clutter. The working method is therefore additive first, subtractive later: explore freely, then return with fresher ears and remove anything that does not serve the song.

Layering is functional rather than numerical. One kick layer supplies transient attack, another supplies low end, and another might contribute room tone. The same logic applies to snares, bass, chords, and vocals. A layer earns its place by adding a frequency range, texture, timing quality, or spatial characteristic that is missing.

Tiny details matter, but mostly below conscious attention. A clock tick, open hat, clipped noise, single vocal delay, or quiet organ swell may be almost invisible in isolation, yet it changes the perceived movement of a section. The objective is subconscious progression without distracting from the vocal and songwriting.

Human performance is treated as the authority when it produces a better musical gesture. In the pre-chorus slowdown, the singer performed the deceleration freely, and the tempo map was subsequently shaped around her phrasing rather than forcing her onto a predetermined click.

The broadest insight is that production here is less about inventing one spectacular sound than about managing perception. Many messy, accidental, or modest ingredients are edited until they behave as a single memorable phrase. Complexity remains backstage; the listener receives clarity.

 

Then I asked for some tips for you: "Now write a bulleted list of ten tips for someone new to modern pop production but with years of experience in older styles, e.g., 80s prop production, to use when trying to achieve a modern pop sound."

• Treat timing as sound design. Do not quantize everything rigidly. Delay hats, percussion, or ghost notes slightly to create push-pull while keeping the kick and vocal structurally dependable.
• Build one perceived sound from several purposeful layers. A kick might combine transient, sub, and room layers. Each layer should solve a specific frequency, texture, or spatial problem rather than merely making the track larger.
• Increase the information rate across sections. Let the first verse and chorus establish the song, then introduce small new elements in later repetitions: a guitar accent, shaker, sub layer, vocal response, or atmospheric sound.
• Edit recorded parts far more aggressively than older production conventions suggest. Cut bass and guitar tails, remove noise between notes, tighten attacks, and reshape performances until several tracks behave like one intentional part.
• Use silence as an active production element. Modern pop often sounds large because sounds stop decisively. Print reverbs and delays when necessary so you can cut their tails and create sharp spatial contrasts.
• Let tiny background details carry progression. Clock ticks, crowd noise, vinyl fragments, breath sounds, filtered voices, and quiet swells can make a section feel new without competing with the topline.
• Design around the vocal performance, not merely the grid. Tempo-map expressive slowdowns or accelerations after the singer performs them naturally. The DAW should follow the musical gesture when the gesture is stronger than the click.
• Add freely, then subtract ruthlessly. A productive workflow may temporarily become overproduced. Return later and remove anything that does not strengthen the songwriting, groove, or section-to-section development.
• Make complex production read as a few simple objects. The listener should hear “the drums,” “the bass,” or “the hook,” not fifteen disconnected layers. Complexity belongs inside the sound, not in the listener’s attention.
• Keep the older strengths and modernize the framing. Strong bass lines, chord voicings, arrangement instincts, and live feel remain valuable. The modern character usually comes from microscopic timing, selective layering, detailed editing, controlled low end, and constant but unobtrusive evolution.

It is really beyond me that people don't realize how easy it is to extract tailored information about other information today. If you spend more than ten minutes getting the gist of something today then you are doing it wrong. Note, I often will watch a video after gaining a summary first. It depends on the quality of the source. This one is worth watching.

Now, you might argue that this is incomplete, and it is. You might also argue that you don't agree with certain things. That's fine, treating LLM output as an authority is a problem with the user, not the model, models are gonna model. I then fed it opaque's post and ask it to integrate and summarize.

My prompt: "Now, without giving too much detail, reconcile the advice given here with your own, discuss similarities, elements you missed and then give a final paragraph to help someone orient to modern pop production."

The advice largely agrees with mine. Both emphasize that the modern sound is established before mixing through selection, arrangement, layering, tight editing, controlled tails, and continual small changes between sections. My points about functional layering, silence, ear candy, information rate, and making many tracks read as a few coherent objects are essentially the same production model described here.

What I underplayed was the contrast with older production practice. The shift is not simply “more layers” or “better editing.” It is a move from letting complete performances and sustained instrument parts occupy the arrangement to constructing the record from many bounded fragments. Modern pop often distributes density across timing, stereo position, frequency, texture, and section-specific details rather than allowing one synth, arpeggio, or drum-machine part to carry a long passage.

I also missed the more distinctive compositional use of sampled fragments from the song itself. He is not merely decorating transitions with vocal chops and noises. He repeatedly turns source material into hybrid rhythmic, melodic, and textural structures, so production becomes part of the composition rather than something placed around it. That is more specific than generic ear candy and probably one of the clearest signatures of his work.

For someone coming from older pop production, the useful orientation is this: retain your sense of harmony, hooks, performance, and large-scale arrangement, but stop assuming that parts should remain intact once recorded. Think of every sound as editable material. Shorten it, layer it, redistribute its functions, reuse fragments elsewhere, and make each repetition reveal slightly different information. The modern sound is less a particular plugin chain than a method of constructing a dense, evolving record that still feels sparse and immediately legible.

There, now the resident humans with expertise on modern pop production, can critique this. Keep in mind, that AI can check your answers, anyone's answers, and it can reference it against what the world knows.

[wagtunes]

@ghetto: Man, you really didn't have to do all that work for me. I can't even begin to tell you how much I appreciate it. So I was supposed to get all that out of that video? I must be an idiot then. There is no other explanation.

I will read though all you posted and make notes. Hopefully, some of it will sink in.

Thank you again.

[ghettosynth]

@ghetto: Man, you really didn't have to do all that work for me. I can't even begin to tell you how much I appreciate it. So I was supposed to get all that out of that video? I must be an idiot then. There is no other explanation.

I will read though all you posted and make notes. Hopefully, some of it will sink in.

Thank you again.

It wasn't a "lot of work", which was my primary point. It's easy to summarize and learn from other people's stuff today.

[wagtunes]

@ghetto: Man, you really didn't have to do all that work for me. I can't even begin to tell you how much I appreciate it. So I was supposed to get all that out of that video? I must be an idiot then. There is no other explanation.

I will read though all you posted and make notes. Hopefully, some of it will sink in.

Thank you again.

It wasn't a "lot of work", which was my primary point. It's easy to summarize and learn from other people's stuff today.

Provided you know what questions to ask. You obviously really understand this AI stuff.