Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Electronic music is harder to create than acoustic music
  • Subject: Electronic music is harder to create than acoustic music
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Electronic music is harder to create than acoustic music

Sure, you're correct. Yes, electronic music is harder to produce due to the process involved in creating it. But, a dubstep/house/electronic album can never be the best album ever created. Just in its most basic form, the idea of electronic music is already limited to dance beats/ hip-hop beats/ whatever the -blam!- dubstep is. Basically, yes electronic music can be extremely difficult to create but it is limited and can never be a complete musical experience.

  • 01.07.2013 6:43 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

"Rise and shine Mister Freeman. Rise and----shine." -Gman


Posted by: Acres 057
Adding a new spectrum into the genre that is music doesn't make composition of good material any easier. It makes it more attainable to the masses, but to make a good song is no less challenging than it was in the past. It simply requires less education and time spent on learning the musical composition process itself, allowing more time to be spent on the actual composing.
This I can agree with.

The barrier for entry is far lower with electronic music. Because really all that's absolutely necessary to start making it, you already have if your reading this. All you need is a computer, download some sequencing software of sorts, and a sound card (which everyone has had for the past 15 years).

[Edited on 01.07.2013 6:44 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 6:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

I would say that instrumental virtuosity is harder to attain on an acoustic instrument and harder to claim or prove on an instrument that can be sequenced to precision and capabilities greater than humanly possible.

I also am of the opinion that an acoustic instrument in the hands of a virtuoso (or a collective of them in the case of a premier symphony) is more capable of evoking emotional responses from human beings.

I can only say those are my opinions and say that I consider them to be true because a listener can form an almost organic connection between themselves, the performer and the instrument itself. No two performances are identical, no two notes or chords are ever perfect. It is the minuscule inaccuracies in timing, pitch and the organic/biologic source of the sounds that makes it more likely that a listener is going to obtain an emotional link and response.

That is not to say that electronically generated sounds are incapable or are unlikely to do so, but they are typically recognized (with the exception of samples of organic sounds) as being artificial in their construction.

That said, I know of a ton of electronic music that is incredible, true art, more than capable of inspiring emotion, and matching all of my claims about acoustic music. However, I do believe that the level and capabilities of virtuoso performers is best illustrated by those who play instruments that vibrate something physical in the instrument in order to vibrate the air.

  • 01.07.2013 6:45 PM PDT

MLP: FiM Master Moderator: | Homepage | My Steam Profile | My Computer |

It's much more difficult to actually program electronic as opposed to recording acoustically, yes.

  • 01.07.2013 6:47 PM PDT

UnitedBands.net

My band and artist networking/information site. Check it out!

As a musician and as someone who runs a project studio. I think playing acoustically or "real" instruments not just using vsts is more difficult. Anyone can play around in a program and get some decent results. It takes a lot more to know how to structure a song and actually apply theory and technique to build a up song. Especially if you're playing every instrument yourself.

That's not to say that those same aspects can't be applied to virtual instruments. It's just much easier to have a program to tell you that this note doesn't fit the key, or that this beat is off a eighth note, etc. And then just click a mouse and it fixes it as apposed to re-recording things.

It's in general easier, but again, that's not to say that someone can make some very difficult and intricate songs.

  • 01.07.2013 6:48 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

"Rise and shine Mister Freeman. Rise and----shine." -Gman


Posted by: Chipax3d
But, a dubstep/house/electronic album can never be the best album ever created.
That's a pretty bold statement.

And is "best album ever created" even a thing? Since music is an art form, I don't think it is, since its purely subjective.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 6:51 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 6:50 PM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.


Posted by: Zoomzoom97

Posted by: The EAKLE

Posted by: Zoomzoom97
It's very easy to make awful Electronic music. It's also very easy to make good Acoustic music. However trying to make the former good, and the latter popular are quite hard.
Maybe i missed the point here, but this post makes absolutely no sense to me.

Acoustic music is easy to make well, but hard to make popular?


Yes sir. There are so many good acoustic songs out there, however not all of them are popular. Good does not equal popular.
So this was harder to make than this because it had more views?

I dont see how popularity reflects tallent or difficulty in any way when currently the most popular musicians are people like Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj, and One Direction.

  • 01.07.2013 6:51 PM PDT

Check me out:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PhormalityMusic?feature=mhee


Posted by: Demache

Posted by: Chipax3d
But, a dubstep/house/electronic album can never be the best album ever created.
That's a pretty bold statement.

And is "best album ever created" even a thing? Since music is an art form, I don't think it is, since its purely subjective.

  • 01.07.2013 6:53 PM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.


Posted by: The EAKLE

Posted by: Zoomzoom97

Posted by: The EAKLE

Posted by: Zoomzoom97
It's very easy to make awful Electronic music. It's also very easy to make good Acoustic music. However trying to make the former good, and the latter popular are quite hard.
Maybe i missed the point here, but this post makes absolutely no sense to me.

Acoustic music is easy to make well, but hard to make popular?


Yes sir. There are so many good acoustic songs out there, however not all of them are popular. Good does not equal popular.
So this was harder to make than this because it had more views?

I dont see how popularity reflects tallent or difficulty in any way when currently the most popular musicians are people like Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj, and One Direction.
Didnt even realize it, but the Q&A before the performance on the second video is actually sort of relevant in a way, when he talks about how music is good regardless of wether it's currently popular or not.

  • 01.07.2013 6:58 PM PDT


Posted by: Demache

Posted by: Chipax3d
But, a dubstep/house/electronic album can never be the best album ever created.
That's a pretty bold statement.

And is "best album ever created" even a thing? Since music is an art form, I don't think it is, since its purely subjective.


No i'm fairly certain it is. Look on any top (insert number) albums of all time list, and find me one electronic album in the top 10. Maybe groundbreaking albums like Daft Punk's discovery, but that's a special case because of the long lasting impact it had on the electronic scene. There's no argument for electronic music when talking about the objectively best album or song.

  • 01.07.2013 7:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No point in putting something funny, clever or informative here. Most probably im going to get perma-banned anyway.

LMAO

  • 01.07.2013 7:19 PM PDT

A simple life.

Honestly it depends...if you are just strumming a guitar chord and singing, chances are most good electronic musicians are putting a lot more time and effort into their work. That being said, making brostep is not making music.

  • 01.07.2013 7:20 PM PDT

What people don't understand is the ear that is required to make Electronic music. They see a computer and think "Anyone can make something cool with this!" and that's really not how it works.

I don't know about harder than acoustic but it's not simple stuff.

  • 01.07.2013 7:21 PM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.


Posted by: Chipax3d

Posted by: Demache

Posted by: Chipax3d
But, a dubstep/house/electronic album can never be the best album ever created.
That's a pretty bold statement.

And is "best album ever created" even a thing? Since music is an art form, I don't think it is, since its purely subjective.


No i'm fairly certain it is. Look on any top (insert number) albums of all time list, and find me one electronic album in the top 10. Maybe groundbreaking albums like Daft Punk's discovery, but that's a special case because of the long lasting impact it had on the electronic scene. There's no argument for electronic music when talking about the objectively best album or song.
Again, sine when does popularity really mean anything? I mean obviously it means a lot of people like that artist/band, but what does that really mean?

You cant say it's unbiased point because it's based of many people's opinions and not just your own. For me, I and Love and You will forever be the greatest album ever. That's because it impacted me more than any other album likely ever will. Hell, it impacted more than most people ever will. But most people are going to disagree with me. If you look at the top albums on iTunes right now, Les Mis is the most popular. Does that mean it's a better album than IaLaY? Hardly. That just means it's currently in style for people to buy it.

  • 01.07.2013 7:23 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

I think Recon got it on the nail. Acoustic is in my opinion a lot harder to make and takes tons more talent to make a true masterpiece. For some reason OP, you think that electronic music takes more understanding of musical theory, and I think that's just laughable. Yes, it does take a lot, but to manipulate say a guitar or piano where you can literally have 5-10 things going on at the same time and think of each individual thing AT the same time takes immeasurable talent and hard work. Plus, electronic music takes away the human aspect of music since all of the sound is manifested by a computer. You can't really put your heart, soul and emotion into it as you can acoustic. It's almost superficial and cold. I have experience with both electronic and acoustic song writing, and although I do enjoy electronic music, it just sometimes seems too cold and fake for me to enjoy. Also, in a lot of electronic music, there aren't very many lyrics, and the lyrics that are in it are just simple words or phrases. It's not saying anything.

The best examples of where acoustic does infinitely better in lyrics is "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkle, and "Hotel California" by The Eagles. If you really take the time to dissect what they're saying in those songs, it really hits you deep and makes you think. With electronic, there's hardly any thinking involved. It's just mindless listening. It's not evoking thought.

There are just an infinite number of things I could go over why acoustic is better, but it would take too much time.

  • 01.07.2013 7:24 PM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1
I think Recon got it on the nail. Acoustic is in my opinion a lot harder to make and takes tons more talent to make a true masterpiece. For some reason OP, you think that electronic music takes more understanding of musical theory, and I think that's just laughable. Yes, it does take a lot, but to manipulate say a guitar or piano where you can literally have 5-10 things going on at the same time and think of each individual thing AT the same time takes immeasurable talent and hard work. Plus, electronic music takes away the human aspect of music since all of the sound is manifested by a computer. You can't really put your heart, soul and emotion into it as you can acoustic. It's almost superficial and cold. I have experience with both electronic and acoustic song writing, and although I do enjoy electronic music, it just sometimes seems too cold and fake for me to enjoy. Also, in a lot of electronic music, there aren't very many lyrics, and the lyrics that are in it are just simple words or phrases. It's not saying anything.

The best examples of where acoustic does infinitely better in lyrics is "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkle, and "Hotel California" by The Eagles. If you really take the time to dissect what they're saying in those songs, it really hits you deep and makes you think. With electronic, there's hardly any thinking involved. It's just mindless listening. It's not evoking thought.

There are just an infinite number of things I could go over why acoustic is better, but it would take too much time.
so this song, almost fully electronically made save for the original vocals, doesn't have any meaning, or structured lyrics?

  • 01.07.2013 7:30 PM PDT

It depends. All these bafoons are going to disagree. But if it was so easy, everyone could be Deadmau5, but you're not. It depends on the person. If they have that aptitude for making electronic music or playing an instrument. That's the best perspective to look at it from.

  • 01.07.2013 7:32 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2

Posted by: AgentCOP1
I think Recon got it on the nail. Acoustic is in my opinion a lot harder to make and takes tons more talent to make a true masterpiece. For some reason OP, you think that electronic music takes more understanding of musical theory, and I think that's just laughable. Yes, it does take a lot, but to manipulate say a guitar or piano where you can literally have 5-10 things going on at the same time and think of each individual thing AT the same time takes immeasurable talent and hard work. Plus, electronic music takes away the human aspect of music since all of the sound is manifested by a computer. You can't really put your heart, soul and emotion into it as you can acoustic. It's almost superficial and cold. I have experience with both electronic and acoustic song writing, and although I do enjoy electronic music, it just sometimes seems too cold and fake for me to enjoy. Also, in a lot of electronic music, there aren't very many lyrics, and the lyrics that are in it are just simple words or phrases. It's not saying anything.

The best examples of where acoustic does infinitely better in lyrics is "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkle, and "Hotel California" by The Eagles. If you really take the time to dissect what they're saying in those songs, it really hits you deep and makes you think. With electronic, there's hardly any thinking involved. It's just mindless listening. It's not evoking thought.

There are just an infinite number of things I could go over why acoustic is better, but it would take too much time.
so this song, almost fully electronically made save for the original vocals, doesn't have any meaning, or structured lyrics?

You know, I purposely put words like "a lot of" in my post for a reason.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 7:34 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 7:32 PM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2

Posted by: AgentCOP1
I think Recon got it on the nail. Acoustic is in my opinion a lot harder to make and takes tons more talent to make a true masterpiece. For some reason OP, you think that electronic music takes more understanding of musical theory, and I think that's just laughable. Yes, it does take a lot, but to manipulate say a guitar or piano where you can literally have 5-10 things going on at the same time and think of each individual thing AT the same time takes immeasurable talent and hard work. Plus, electronic music takes away the human aspect of music since all of the sound is manifested by a computer. You can't really put your heart, soul and emotion into it as you can acoustic. It's almost superficial and cold. I have experience with both electronic and acoustic song writing, and although I do enjoy electronic music, it just sometimes seems too cold and fake for me to enjoy. Also, in a lot of electronic music, there aren't very many lyrics, and the lyrics that are in it are just simple words or phrases. It's not saying anything.

The best examples of where acoustic does infinitely better in lyrics is "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkle, and "Hotel California" by The Eagles. If you really take the time to dissect what they're saying in those songs, it really hits you deep and makes you think. With electronic, there's hardly any thinking involved. It's just mindless listening. It's not evoking thought.

There are just an infinite number of things I could go over why acoustic is better, but it would take too much time.
so this song, almost fully electronically made save for the original vocals, doesn't have any meaning, or structured lyrics?

You know, I purposely put words like "most" and "a lot of" in my post for a reason.
you also said you can't put heart and soul, and emotion into Electronic music, Many songs that I could link could easily prove that wrong... but I do see your point and I do agree to some extent.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 7:36 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 7:35 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2

Posted by: AgentCOP1
I think Recon got it on the nail. Acoustic is in my opinion a lot harder to make and takes tons more talent to make a true masterpiece. For some reason OP, you think that electronic music takes more understanding of musical theory, and I think that's just laughable. Yes, it does take a lot, but to manipulate say a guitar or piano where you can literally have 5-10 things going on at the same time and think of each individual thing AT the same time takes immeasurable talent and hard work. Plus, electronic music takes away the human aspect of music since all of the sound is manifested by a computer. You can't really put your heart, soul and emotion into it as you can acoustic. It's almost superficial and cold. I have experience with both electronic and acoustic song writing, and although I do enjoy electronic music, it just sometimes seems too cold and fake for me to enjoy. Also, in a lot of electronic music, there aren't very many lyrics, and the lyrics that are in it are just simple words or phrases. It's not saying anything.

The best examples of where acoustic does infinitely better in lyrics is "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkle, and "Hotel California" by The Eagles. If you really take the time to dissect what they're saying in those songs, it really hits you deep and makes you think. With electronic, there's hardly any thinking involved. It's just mindless listening. It's not evoking thought.

There are just an infinite number of things I could go over why acoustic is better, but it would take too much time.
so this song, almost fully electronically made save for the original vocals, doesn't have any meaning, or structured lyrics?

You know, I purposely put words like "most" and "a lot of" in my post for a reason.
you also said you can't put heart and soul, and emotion into Electronic music, Many songs that I could link could easily prove that wrong... but I do see your point and I do agree to some extent.

No you're thinking of it the wrong way. I was trying to say that when you "play" electronic music, there isn't much originality going on when an electronic musician plays it live since a lot of the song has already been pre-made. A lot of the sounds have been pre-made. You can't put subtleties and little nuances into electronic music like you can acoustic, and sometimes that can make all the difference.

  • 01.07.2013 7:40 PM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2

Posted by: AgentCOP1
I think Recon got it on the nail. Acoustic is in my opinion a lot harder to make and takes tons more talent to make a true masterpiece. For some reason OP, you think that electronic music takes more understanding of musical theory, and I think that's just laughable. Yes, it does take a lot, but to manipulate say a guitar or piano where you can literally have 5-10 things going on at the same time and think of each individual thing AT the same time takes immeasurable talent and hard work. Plus, electronic music takes away the human aspect of music since all of the sound is manifested by a computer. You can't really put your heart, soul and emotion into it as you can acoustic. It's almost superficial and cold. I have experience with both electronic and acoustic song writing, and although I do enjoy electronic music, it just sometimes seems too cold and fake for me to enjoy. Also, in a lot of electronic music, there aren't very many lyrics, and the lyrics that are in it are just simple words or phrases. It's not saying anything.

The best examples of where acoustic does infinitely better in lyrics is "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkle, and "Hotel California" by The Eagles. If you really take the time to dissect what they're saying in those songs, it really hits you deep and makes you think. With electronic, there's hardly any thinking involved. It's just mindless listening. It's not evoking thought.

There are just an infinite number of things I could go over why acoustic is better, but it would take too much time.
so this song, almost fully electronically made save for the original vocals, doesn't have any meaning, or structured lyrics?

You know, I purposely put words like "most" and "a lot of" in my post for a reason.
you also said you can't put heart and soul, and emotion into Electronic music, Many songs that I could link could easily prove that wrong... but I do see your point and I do agree to some extent.

No you're thinking of it the wrong way. I was trying to say that when you "play" electronic music, there isn't much originality going on when an electronic musician plays it live since a lot of the song has already been pre-made. A lot of the sounds have been pre-made. You can't put subtleties and little nuances into electronic music like you can acoustic, and sometimes that can make all the difference.
actually you can just go into audacity or something and create your own loops and tracks to create music, there's a lot less pre-made loops in music then you think, the song I linked previously had been made almost completely of original loops that the artists had recorded and edited themsellves, Daft Punk make their own content, Justice makes their own loops, Pendulum creates almost all their songs from scratch or their own loops. these artist pour their hearts, soul, and hard work into these songs for us to enjoy, the same as any acoustic artists, the only difference is the platform they use to create their music.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 7:49 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 7:49 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.


Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2
actually you can just go into audacity or something and create your own loops and tracks to create music, there's a lot less pre-made loops in music then you think, the song I linked previously had been made almost completely of original loops that the artists had recorded and edited themsellves, Daft Punk make their own content, Justice makes their own loops, Pendulum creates almost all their songs from scratch or their own loops. these artist pour their hearts, soul, and hard work into these songs for us to enjoy, the same as any acoustic artists, the only difference is the platform they use to create their music.

Oh sure, I agree 100%. I'm not saying at all that electronic artists can't be original in the sounds they produce, I'm just saying that on a live stage, you can't just think off the top of your head "oh, I want to make this sound" and in the blink of an eye make it. If you want a different sound, you have to make it before hand. With an acoustic instrument, a vast majority of guitar solos are done completely off the top of the guitarist's head. They just think of what would sound good, and they play it. Plus, there are literally thousands of ways to play the exact same thing. You can physically manipulate the instrument on stage to play your emotions.

  • 01.07.2013 7:58 PM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1

Posted by: DaViDlIkEsPiE2
actually you can just go into audacity or something and create your own loops and tracks to create music, there's a lot less pre-made loops in music then you think, the song I linked previously had been made almost completely of original loops that the artists had recorded and edited themsellves, Daft Punk make their own content, Justice makes their own loops, Pendulum creates almost all their songs from scratch or their own loops. these artist pour their hearts, soul, and hard work into these songs for us to enjoy, the same as any acoustic artists, the only difference is the platform they use to create their music.

Oh sure, I agree 100%. I'm not saying at all that electronic artists can't be original in the sounds they produce, I'm just saying that on a live stage, you can't just think off the top of your head "oh, I want to make this sound" and in the blink of an eye make it. If you want a different sound, you have to make it before hand. With an acoustic instrument, a vast majority of guitar solos are done completely off the top of the guitarist's head. They just think of what would sound good, and they play it. Plus, there are literally thousands of ways to play the exact same thing. You can physically manipulate the instrument on stage to play your emotions.
look at Daft Punk's live preformances, they do everything on the fly and remix their songs during the preformance. look at their last world toor "Alive" in 2007, all of the music from the set was made completely on the fly with all of the loops they had at their disposal, they literally remixed their own songs live on stage.

  • 01.07.2013 8:05 PM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1
I think Recon got it on the nail. Acoustic is in my opinion a lot harder to make and takes tons more talent to make a true masterpiece. For some reason OP, you think that electronic music takes more understanding of musical theory, and I think that's just laughable. Yes, it does take a lot, but to manipulate say a guitar or piano where you can literally have 5-10 things going on at the same time and think of each individual thing AT the same time takes immeasurable talent and hard work. Plus, electronic music takes away the human aspect of music since all of the sound is manifested by a computer. You can't really put your heart, soul and emotion into it as you can acoustic. It's almost superficial and cold. I have experience with both electronic and acoustic song writing, and although I do enjoy electronic music, it just sometimes seems too cold and fake for me to enjoy. Also, in a lot of electronic music, there aren't very many lyrics, and the lyrics that are in it are just simple words or phrases. It's not saying anything.

The best examples of where acoustic does infinitely better in lyrics is "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkle, and "Hotel California" by The Eagles. If you really take the time to dissect what they're saying in those songs, it really hits you deep and makes you think. With electronic, there's hardly any thinking involved. It's just mindless listening. It's not evoking thought.

There are just an infinite number of things I could go over why acoustic is better, but it would take too much time.

How can you not create a "masterpiece" with electronic music? How do you even define a "masterpiece" objectively?
And electronic music "takes away from the human aspect" What are you even saying? How does using other instruments not "take away the human aspect?" What is the "human aspect" and why do certain instruments "take it away"?
Also saying that you can't put any actual effort into electronic music is some of the biggest bull-blam!- I've seen. Its a blatant "-blam!- you" to anybody who makes electronic music. You're seriously telling anybody who makes it "No, you didn't actually try to do anything"
Also, are instrumentals "cold and fake" as well, since they don't utilize vocals? This would be "cold and fake", using your logic that songs need lyrics to be "real". Mindless listening, right?

  • 01.07.2013 8:10 PM PDT

MLP: FiM Master Moderator: | Homepage | My Steam Profile | My Computer |

ITT: A lot of people who haven't actually tried to create electronic music.

You can put as much heart and soul into it as you want to. You learn subtle nuances of how to create just the right sounds in the same way that you would learn how to play a guitar.

I play multiple instruments ranging from saxophone to guitar, but I also use FL Studio with Nexus, z3ta 2+, and Massive. Electronic music takes longer by far and sometimes you have to be controlling dozens, if not hundreds of instruments (or oscillators) at one moment.

Of course, electronic isn't as fun to play live, but we're just talking about creating the music.

  • 01.07.2013 8:23 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4