How Can We Make Rap/Hip-Hop Music Better???

[Trailerman]

Stop compressing the shit out of it would be a good place to start!

What is the current obsession with having everything permanently slammed up against 0db? It's not just Rap, RnB is worse, Pop and Dance just as bad. I swear to god I can't listen to CD's for more than 10 minutes any more, because of the obsessive limiting. Who gives a f*** if your record is louder than the next guys?

L1, L2, L3 have pretty much destroyed dynamics in popular music amd now everything is just a loud blur of crap.

Guys, please, everyone here, back off on the limiter when you master, and lets try and bring some life back to music again.

Jules

[TVD]

Stop compressing the shit out of it would be a good place to start!

What is the current obsession with having everything permanently slammed up against 0db? It's not just Rap, RnB is worse, Pop and Dance just as bad. I swear to god I can't listen to CD's for more than 10 minutes any more, because of the obsessive limiting. Who gives a f*** if your record is louder than the next guys?

L1, L2, L3 have pretty much destroyed dynamics in popular music amd now everything is just a loud blur of crap.

And it's all Rick Rubin fault?

[Amberience]

Heh... Jules, thats down to shit websites like this one where everyone insists there are "rules" to music production!!

The only truth in life: KvR is full of cocks.

[Trailerman]

Jeez, that'll teach me to make a serious heart-felt point!!

Ironically, the people who overcompress are often either:

a) people who have no understanding of what the traditional "rules" of music production and mastering are, they just think louder MUST be better, or

b) people who don't have the balls to deliver a mix to a client that isn't smoking the meters. Even great mastering guys will admit that on ocassion they've been forced into mastering hotter than they really wanted to because of some pushy jerk A&R guy.

You're right, there are no real rules, but the obsession with loudness betrays a deep misunderstanding of many of the fundamental qualities of music - ALL music, even Belgian Hardcore Goth-Metal Tek-Hop, or whatever else you're into. Just because it's some new cool strain of Spitting, doesn't mean nothing applies any more.

This is not a rule, but if you try and master so that you're limiter isn't attenuating more than 3 or 4db's max, that would be a start. A dynamic range of around 12-14db would also be a really "good" thing to hear. People who listen to it have this amazing hi-tech loudness feature of their own - called the 'Volume Knob', so you're not actually making stuff louder, you're just making it more boring.

I'm not professional in mastering, but I've done alot of mix and remix work for majors and sat in on as many mastering sessions as I ever could, with some great mastering guys. I know people here perhaps don't want to hear about 'dynamic range' and dB's, but without a basic understanding of what makes music good to listen to, we're all going to be listening to 3 minute bursts of 0dB pink noise in a few years.

Alternatively, maybe people should be barred from making music unutil they've read Bob Katz's book!

Jules

[Amberience]

we're all going to be listening to 3 minute bursts of 0dB pink noise in a few years.

Qualifies as music to my ears. There are no rules, only conventions. Sure, some conventions have held long enough to be considered as some sort of pseudo-truth, but in actuality, you're doing the same thing the guys who can't find the OFF button on their L1 limiter are doing: sticking to a personal set of musical beliefs.

Let them overcompress, you don't have to live their life - they do. If they make shit loads of money for making shit music, more power to them. Just another icon of how much of a sheep-pen the world is.

You do your thing, I'll do mine. I like white noise.

[Trailerman]

Man you're way too ecclectic for me!

There are no rules, only conventions. Sure, some conventions have held long enough to be considered as some sort of pseudo-truth, but in actuality, you're doing the same thing the guys who can't find the OFF button on their L1 limiter are doing: sticking to a personal set of musical beliefs.

Well my ears tell me that louder is better. That's not a rule, that's just a basic human response. Fortunately, my experience and what expertise I have tell me that louder and dynamically limited is also more fatigueing, meaning eventually your brain will tire of listening more quickly, the emotional response to sound will be reduced, the market will not want to buy the stuff any more etc. It's not a convention or a rule, it's just a physical reality born out by facts.

Let them overcompress, you don't have to live their life - they do. If they make shit loads of money for making shit music, more power to them.

Problem is, they're not making any money, practically nobody in music is, the industry is on it's knees. So everybody who loves music, either making or listening to it, loses. The blind insistance on immediate aural gratification is damaging music. It's like the joke about the old bull and the young bull standing at the bottom of a hill: young bull says "hey Dad, let's run up that hill and f**k one of those cows", Dad says "no son, let's walk up the hill and f**k all of them!"

You do your thing, I'll do mine.

I think that's a given.

Jules

[Amberience]

Well my ears tell me that louder is better. That's not a rule, that's just a basic human response.

I'm not sure I agree. Ambient music was born out of a desire to have music that just "sat" in the background, music that didn't interfere, but just highlighted the environment.

Brian Eno himself has said before that he discovered ambient music whilst lying in bed with broken legs (I think) and his friend or wife or whoever put a record on, but they left the volume too low.

That was how he got his idea for his ambient projects.

Problem is, they're not making any money, practically nobody in music is, the industry is on it's knees. So everybody who loves music, either making or listening to it, loses. The blind insistance on immediate aural gratification is damaging music. It's like the joke about the old bull and the young bull standing at the bottom of a hill: young bull says "hey Dad, let's run up that hill and f**k one of those cows", Dad says "no son, let's walk up the hill and f**k all of them!"

I'm not sure I get the joke, but I'll let you into a secret. Not everyone LOVES music!!

Most people *think* they love music, but in actuality they merely consider it as ear candy. This is why record labels are able to churn out the ultimate SHIT that they do, because people don't give a shit about the quality of their music, as long as their radios are blarring away with dumbass DJ's with stupid jokes.

This is merely an observation of mine however, and it could easily just be fuelled by cynicism than impartial observation - but hey, no one is impartial these days, we all have our biases.

So... Britney Spears can have a "Greatest Hits" album simply because there are so many small minded people around who don't value their aural input. Busted can get a record deal because people don't give a shit that their guitar music intake consists of three pubescent boys, barely out of school with no experience of life.

Do these arseholes even know who Jimi Hendrix is?!?!

And don't get me started on Avril Lavigne.

So, coming back around to my point (hehe), its not the people who overcompress or the people who stick to 2osc trance leads, who are ruining the state of music. Its not even the record labels, because they're doing what every single animal in the universe does - exploiting a weakness.

Nay, its the audiences fault. On a global scale people are listening to SHIT music.

See, I go through phases where I think one of two things:

A: all music is valuable. Everyone has the right to their own tastes.

B: Most people are pinheads with no f**king taste!

I'm sort of meddling with the idea that maybe, just maybe, MAYBE I'm right. I've given people the benefit of the doubt for far too long, and I hardly ever see anything that proves me wrong.

People don't value their lives. They don't value the music they listen to, the books they don't read, the films they never see, or the people they exclude from their lives.

All people want in this day and age is MacDonalds, MTV, Coca-Cola, and some shitty little kids to infect with ideas about aforementioned labels.

[Amberience]

As a second poin, maybe its become part of our nature to scrutinize the shit parts of life?

Hell, this thread has reached 9 pages and still going strong!!

[xoxos]

Problem is, they're not making any money, practically nobody in music is, the industry is on it's knees.

humanity is on its' knees.. the industry is artificial. in other words, if it was a massive money loss, it would still be there to tell consumers how to think.

[Sicklecell666]

It's kind of funny how the concept of a musician not being successfull unless they make a few million only caught on in the last few decades..

I read a Black Sabbath autobiography years ago where they were talking about this big Swedish event or something like that they were participating in..Anyways, there was a shitload of all the best acts in music at the time there; Jethro Tull, B Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc..

All the acts were blown away when the audience voted Mongo Jerry the best band. Everyone knows who Black Sabbath is, but how many of you are aware of Mongo Jerry?

[herodotus]

in other words, if it was a massive money loss, it would still be there to tell consumers how to think.

You know, I am not sure that that is true.

An interesting parallel can be found in the hollywood studio breakdown circa 1955-1960.

A handful of major studios had total power over movies: who saw what and when. The contracts that actors and writers signed were slave contracts:lucrative, perhaps, but they put their whole life in the hands of the studios. Studios like MGM not only owned the writers, actors, and directors, they owned the theatres that people saw them in, the reviewers who wrote about them...everything.

And then things began to fall apart: Profits dived. More and more money was spent to generate fewer and fewer dividends. The all powerful studio heads fell from grace as television allowed people to be entertained for free at home.

Sound familiar?

And so maybe this painful period in entertainment history is just a necessary transition to a better world.

I hope so

[xoxos]

And so maybe this painful period in entertainment history

good hope, but...

i think you're kinda missing the big picture here, eg. that the implication of 'entertainment' is a big bloody one-sided.. doesn't it belie that the function of 'entertainment' is to create centralised referentialism????

the medium changes, and sure, just about anyone can get "in," but you don't stay around for long unless you honour the medium/fact.

it's like the european colonisation of america.. sure.. there can be a frontier.. let them run around, do what they like.. eventually the "european urban mass" will outweigh any opposition and the game will still serve it's purpose regardless.

why the hell do you think there's free tv production in tucson.. "sanctuary.." ?

[xoxos]

sorry.. didn't need to put it all "why the hell.."

it's just that reluctance to admit the implication of any sort of control is extremely dangerous to all life on earth and really, really, really, really, really, really... really scares me something serious

[herodotus]

And so maybe this painful period in entertainment history

good hope, but...

i think you're kinda missing the big picture here, eg. that the implication of 'entertainment' is a big bloody one-sided.. doesn't it belie that the function of 'entertainment' is to create centralised referentialism????

the medium changes, and sure, just about anyone can get "in," but you don't stay around for long unless you honour the medium/fact.

it's like the european colonisation of america.. sure.. there can be a frontier.. let them run around, do what they like.. eventually the "european urban mass" will outweigh any opposition and the game will still serve it's purpose regardless.

why the hell do you think there's free tv production in tucson.. "sanctuary.." ?

What?

I am afraid I don't understand.

"Centralized referentialism"

Who, pray tell, is motivated by a desire to create "centralized referentialism"?

I realize that this is probably some sort of conspiracy theory, but could you be more specific?

[xoxos]

for sure.. 'western cultures' are founded on centralised referentialism.. eg. rome if you know the importance of rome and christianity to 'western' history

following a 'medium is the message' dynamic, and as suggested in another thread, the way you use language and ..well, do things.. creates parallels within experience.. the more dynamic your stimulus is, the more 'pathways are created for conjection'

eg. 'argument by authority..' heirarchy in culture.. these are manifestatons of centralised referentialism - thoroughly permeates the construct of western civ..

perhaps it is somethnig you can only fail to understand unless you have has some experience living with preference to "localised referencialism.." because it is everythnig that you know.

perhaps you'll jsut say "well.. yeah, throughout culture people have this behaviour where they wish to cite authority, connect themselves to the larger structure as a statement of integrity, et c. but that's just how life is.." in which case i don' think you're looking too hard. these bahaviours are motivated by fear.

just take the concept.. the "urge to reference authority.." (i use the term centralism to avoid the automatic block people have to "those who argue vs. authority") and watch people in your life. you will see, if you look for it.. and with an open mind, you will also realise that is it not necessary or necessarily the best choice..

it is there because we are governed! and being governed is a very different concept from organisation and interaction.