How do I ear candy?

[donkey tugger]

Asking KVRists how to produce anything considered "ear candy" is like asking prog rockers how to be funky.

I'm sure you can show us how it's done. Or are you going to come over all coy and reticent, again?

Well, my grandparents were Satanists. Through them I learned the power of manipulating the environment by sacrificing life to the forces that demand offerings.
In return I got ear candy choruses and chocolate covered versus.
It got so good my life was threatened by those hired by certain big name artists who felt their music was jeopardized.
I never got a serious record contract because of it.
In short, be careful what you ask for. Don't take candy from strangers.

So you've come over all coy and reticent again. Quelle surprise. 'Put up or shut up', is, I believe, the term.

[lfm]

People go nuts for the new Prophet 5, but I’m much happier with my 6 with its voice panning.

Asking about this on Prophet forum I got a tip at least for P10 there is a addon card, 3rd party, that add voice panning for it. Not sure if fixed position or dynamic anything.

One of the things they could have added in reissue.

Voice panning is one of the greatest inventions on synths. It reduces harmonic cancellations too since not all voices are stacked on each other in the middle.

[lfm]

Now maybe for pro musician's it's a bit easier, but when you're running so many different tracks I have to end up bouncing t down and that makes the whole process a bit harder since, if I want to edit something, i have to revert back to the original midi and delete the audio I've created. So anything that can make this process easier would help, but tracks like this are really what I would love to be creating. Repro 5 is lovely. Thanks

Sonar/Cakewalk probably have the smoothest freeze handling of all daws.
- one button press create audio, and release resources
- one press and all is back to original
- and you always have multiout VSTi audio in track view as well

But it's one advantage of hardware synths not needing so much computer resources.
- just record the audio in spots as you please
- you can even use the same track in daw for many things

Apart from being so much fun making sounds and exploring the synth.

I about "how to..." I think enroe said it all
- so imagination in your head
- looking for frequencies missing in the mix and pick the right sound for it

Sometimes it's just a little "ding" from triangel missing etc.

[zerocrossing]

People go nuts for the new Prophet 5, but I’m much happier with my 6 with its voice panning.

Asking about this on Prophet forum I got a tip at least for P10 there is a addon card, 3rd party, that add voice panning for it. Not sure if fixed position or dynamic anything.

One of the things they could have added in reissue.

Voice panning is one of the greatest inventions on synths. It reduces harmonic cancellations too since not all voices are stacked on each other in the middle.

Interesting. I couldn't see any information on cost, or even how to buy it, but I guess if you're willing to void your warranty, that's a way to go. I'm sticking to my Prophet 6, which I honestly don't feel sounds as drastically different from the 5/10 r4 as people make it out to, except for the bass compensation in the filter resonance, which I actually prefer in the 6.

[_leras]

What I'm interested in is how people write the kind of ear candy you hear throughout the track. Whether its modulating a filtre on an existing arp, or some synth noises washing in and out. I would love to learn the workflow because it seems to me, with the exception of modulation, you would have to create new tracks within the project just to add some noises or sounds like this, which seems a bit tedious (worth it I'm sure as the results speak for themselves).

Don't give up hope on this even if the responses so far are of little help.

There are hundreds of types of ear candy, and the only limit is your imagination.

Some are to accentuate transitions, some are to accentuate music elements, some are just alternatives to rhythmic sounds, some are the main elements in tracks.

Transitions can be anything from drum fills and rolls, through to filter changes, sweeps and whooshes.

Sound candy can be any really, even just FX, but can also be atmospheric or textural just filling out the mix.

And of course ear candy can also just be good ole musical parts and arrangement.

Techno and dance music in general can be a great place to listen out for a lot of this type of thing, but also some of the really good pop music also does this fantastically. Lots of things to listen to.

I'd say you can probably get away with 2-3 audio tracks for ear candy/FX. Just bounce sounds down and put into the arrangement. If you were making techno on might be a large dark reverb type channel, or some kind of swirly delay to drop sounds into.

[_leras]

These days a search on YouTube can give overviews of many common types of ear candy...



And this guy Iain Kirkpatrick is a hard working genius imo. The fact that he has shared so much of his thought process is extremely generous. These have some absolute gems. But also show how much creativity and effort can go into some of these tips and tricks to elevate a track. Very inspiring stuff but also showing you have to do the work!


And more from him here

[ghostwhistler]

What I'm interested in is how people write the kind of ear candy you hear throughout the track. Whether its modulating a filtre on an existing arp, or some synth noises washing in and out. I would love to learn the workflow because it seems to me, with the exception of modulation, you would have to create new tracks within the project just to add some noises or sounds like this, which seems a bit tedious (worth it I'm sure as the results speak for themselves).

Don't give up hope on this even if the responses so far are of little help.

There are hundreds of types of ear candy, and the only limit is your imagination.

Some are to accentuate transitions, some are to accentuate music elements, some are just alternatives to rhythmic sounds, some are the main elements in tracks.

Transitions can be anything from drum fills and rolls, through to filter changes, sweeps and whooshes.

Sound candy can be any really, even just FX, but can also be atmospheric or textural just filling out the mix.

And of course ear candy can also just be good ole musical parts and arrangement.

Techno and dance music in general can be a great place to listen out for a lot of this type of thing, but also some of the really good pop music also does this fantastically. Lots of things to listen to.

I'd say you can probably get away with 2-3 audio tracks for ear candy/FX. Just bounce sounds down and put into the arrangement. If you were making techno on might be a large dark reverb type channel, or some kind of swirly delay to drop sounds into.

Thanks. What interests me, isn't an overabundance of it, but the ability to make something come to life. The example I chose was specific because It hink it's a good piece of music, everyone will have their own preferences. Also it highlights what can be done with a limited palette since, afaict, it's using only sounds from one synth (that was the point of it). I don't know what production techniques or equipment beyond that wwere used.

[ghostwhistler]

These days a search on YouTube can give overviews of many common types of ear candy...



And this guy Iain Kirkpatrick is a hard working genius imo. The fact that he has shared so much of his thought process is extremely generous. These have some absolute gems. But also show how much creativity and effort can go into some of these tips and tricks to elevate a track. Very inspiring stuff but also showing you have to do the work!


And more from him here

Thanks. That is an interesting insight. Ironically it's probably more than I would want to use. For a couple of reasons, partly due to equipment limits but mainly because while I want to include some ear candy, I do not want to spend hoours and hours and hours programming stuff. I am of the view that music loses its energy if it requires too much work. I like a simpler workflow and I think it's possible to create good music without having 100 tracks of tricks and sounds. YMMV. So that piece is one where I would not include that amount of stuff. It is a vocal track and I don't use vocals so there are differences.

[_leras]

Thanks. What interests me, isn't an overabundance of it, but the ability to make something come to life. The example I chose was specific because It hink it's a good piece of music, everyone will have their own preferences. Also it highlights what can be done with a limited palette since, afaict, it's using only sounds from one synth (that was the point of it). I don't know what production techniques or equipment beyond that wwere used.

For sure you can just do lots of little synths fills and FX.

[_leras]

Thanks. That is an interesting insight. Ironically it's probably more than I would want to use. For a couple of reasons, partly due to equipment limits but mainly because while I want to include some ear candy, I do not want to spend hoours and hours and hours programming stuff. I am of the view that music loses its energy if it requires too much work. I like a simpler workflow and I think it's possible to create good music without having 100 tracks of tricks and sounds. YMMV. So that piece is one where I would not include that amount of stuff. It is a vocal track and I don't use vocals so there are differences.

Yes my milage varies. If an idea is good enough to goto a full track then I'll spend quite a bit of time on arranging and mixing, and this includes stuff in the ear candy category.

I really like subtle psychoacoustic tricks that are barely heard but add something.

There's a lot of creativity that can go into FX and earcandy.

[ghostwhistler]

Thanks. That is an interesting insight. Ironically it's probably more than I would want to use. For a couple of reasons, partly due to equipment limits but mainly because while I want to include some ear candy, I do not want to spend hoours and hours and hours programming stuff. I am of the view that music loses its energy if it requires too much work. I like a simpler workflow and I think it's possible to create good music without having 100 tracks of tricks and sounds. YMMV. So that piece is one where I would not include that amount of stuff. It is a vocal track and I don't use vocals so there are differences.

Yes my milage varies. If an idea is good enough to goto a full track then I'll spend quite a bit of time on arranging and mixing, and this includes stuff in the ear candy category.

I really like subtle psychoacoustic tricks that are barely heard but add something.

There's a lot of creativity that can go into FX and earcandy.

so my influences, as a musician (not just as a listener, there'sa difference IMO), are more old school retro electronic along the lines of Tangerine Dream (Exit for example is my favourite of theirs, or their OST for the original Firestarter adaptation), John Carpenter's soundtracks. There are others, but those two artists don't use a lot of ear candy.
But wait, TD don't use ear candy? They used lots of novel sounds on those early eighties records, but i don't think its the same as we are discussing and showing here. That is more what inspires me.
Partly this is because they didn't have DAW's and plug ins. So their sounds would have been weird noises through fx and are integrated into the tracks as actual music, as opposed to risers, uplifters, downlifters, this that or the other. Big rezzy OBX sweeps and heavy berlin school arps or synclavier/waveterm sounds are part of the composition. They just sound novel. In fact, the Firestarter soundtrack is devoid of a lot of this on most tracks. Yet that music still sounds great.

However incorporating these new ideas and techniques would be beneficial, but no substitute for well crafted compositions

[_leras]

However incorporating these new ideas and techniques would be beneficial, but no substitute for well crafted compositions

Definitely true, but if done well it can lift a composition to a higher level.

[enroe]

I was listening to this:

...
What I'm interested in is how people write the kind of ear candy you hear throughout the track.

If we listen carefully, you have posted 5 very pleasant, well-composed
electronic art snippets under the YouTube links, somewhere between
Jean Michel Jarre and Vangelis. They are relatively simple, sound
"good" the first time you hear them, and most people probably find
them pleasant.

Your question about "ear candy" is equivalent to the question about
"appealing to the masses" or "mainstream". These clips are relatively
simple. The sounds and filter progressions can be created with
almost any synthesizer, the arpeggios and compositions are very
simple.

----> So the crucial question for you should be:

Why can't I compose and produce these "relatively simple ear
candies" myself? When they are so "simple"?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already answered this above, but would like to clarify it
again:

Although these "ear candies" sound so "simple" and seem very
elementary, a lot of know-how is required.

The key to this is not specific synthesizers. You can create clips like
this with almost any synth. The way to do this is not through specific
plugins. The stock plugins of every DAW are more than sufficient to
produce ear candy and even hits.

--- The key is knowing HOW to compose something like that in terms
of music theory. Certain chord progressions sound like ear candy and
others don't. Certain chord progressions are suitable as arpeggios
and others are not.

--- The key to this is being able to "listen" and constantly correcting.
This works best when you already have "your" ear candy in your head
or have written it down on paper. And thus have a "composition
reference" so that you know where you want to go, what the goal is.

--- The key to this is ultimately the ability to listen and mix correctly,
which 90% consists of volume ratios.

[_leras]

So I kinda leaned towards more general ear candy in my answers, but it's true you asked about making synth specific noises.

For that.... Try the following.

Take you lead synth sound, make a copy of the preset/sound you have.

Add some notes (held accents on your melody, spots for FX, or little musical fills) on a new track with the same sound. Loop the bit you want the ear candy and basically mess and experiment with the sound, add LFOs, vibrato, sweeps etc, perhaps applying more reverb and delays, and also perhaps bouncing down and reversing. Repeat many times.

By starting from the same sound each time you'll be able to get more sonic consistency across all the FX fills and FX.

Personally I don't feel the need to keep these FX and fills in the same voice, so to speak. I might do it with call/answer type melodies and parts.

I tend to lean into texture and contrast for FX and ear candy, but I can see instances where it would be very effective.

[Ah_Dziz]

I find that little "bits and pieces" are generally pretty easy to make and add once I have a decent idea of the song I'm making. Generally they aren't designed to take up lots of space in the mix but add a bit of interest leading to a transition or out of a chorus or hallway through a verse etc. I lean pretty heavily on white noise (usually in zebra 2 with a bit of filtering) for this sort of thing and also reverb with bunches of fx on the return. I didn't listen to your link though so maybe I'm talking about something else. Another fun thing is routing a synth to an audio track and play these little flourishes in while you wiggle parameters.

JJ