Bump

This is really good stuff! I love the soul drop and the groovy bassline and the demonic breakdown.

Can't even think of much to criticize. Maybe the second breakdown and ending are a bit boring, it's a kind of funny way to end the track.

EDIT: I guess I should also state my background! I've been playing the piano for about 15 years, and the guitar for almost as long.

I like to think that what is meant by "producing" includes playing instruments, so in that sense producing is more challenging Or if we exclude playing instruments from the definition, at least it includes simulating real instruments, doesn't it? That's got to be at least as challenging.

But I sort of agree with Ninth, if you understand the word challenging as the height of the skill ceiling, then the answer is probably neither. If the question is how much you can DO with it, I think producing is more challenging. As an analogy: is the game of go more challenging than chess because there are more possible games? A computer just opens such a vast world of musical possibilities, that playing an instrument starts to feel like like tic-tac-toe to me.

Starting to be pretty happy with the arrangement and sounds on this. Any comments on what works and what doesn't would be appreciated!


EDIT: updated version

You should try to be more specific with your questions! There are so many things that could go wrong in what the title describes. A sound example would help a lot.

One thing that will help avoiding muddiness in chords is to use notes sparingly in the bass frequencies, especially when using a harmonically rich sound. The harmonics will quickly fill the bass spectrum with unpleasant "rumble". So for example, if you make big supersaw chords, you probably want to avoid a third or even the fifth in the bass frequencies.

I try to find sounds that really fit together and barely need any EQ on them. Usually my breaks are almost without any EQ and I also use a little compression as possible (a lot of times there isn't any compression).

I have approached my last couple of tracks this way, and I feel like it's the single most important thing I've learned regarding production. It just makes life sooo much easier to start with the right sounds.

The idea of creating "original art" when your understanding of art is based entirely upon the art that you have been subjected to throughout your life - unless you've been living in a cave and just learning through trial and error - is a fatalistic and self-defeating one.

Exactly this. It's actually very liberating to realize. You can shamelessly copy stuff from others, and you don't have to feel bad about it, as long as you know that it's just a part of your creative process, not a way to pretend to be someone you're not. This is how I interpret the phrase "immature poets imitate; mature poets steal".

That being said, avoid plagiarism.

I gotta agree, lately I've been amazed how modern some of Bruce Springsteen's records from the 70's sound. And it really puts things into perspective to see what kind of equipment they had at their disposal.

I think that these "what's good and what's bad" discussions exist exactly because the tools are so complex. If you have one knob, there aren't many ways you can screw things up with it. I do agree that there is lots of over-thinking, not just regarding EQ, and to me it seems to arise from people turning recommendations into strict rules, without even thinking about the reason behind the recommendation. Just as an example, the "subtractive vs additive" EQ meme. Basically, any comment that says "you shouldn't do X" reeks of over-thinking, because you should do anything* you want to achieve the end-goal of great-sounding music.

EDIT: * anything legal, that is
EDIT: BTW, it might be a cool exercise to make a track limiting yourself to mixing tools that emulate stuff from the 70's or 80's