Who Here is on that Kanye "5 Beat a day for 3 Summers" Tip?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Puppet
  • Start date Start date
Most likely he wasn't talking about fully finished beats.

At one point in time he was working under D Dot so it's possible he was sending 5 skeletons a day. Plus, most his beats back then were loops. Verse loop and hook loop then repeated 3 or 4 times. Samples, bass and drums. Maybe some extra keys. Not mixed. Not hard.

I sometimes make 6 beats a day but I don't always finish all of them. Just ideas and work on the best out of the bunch.
 
Top producers can definitely do this but a lot of the beats they make won’t be keepers or whatever because they are experimenting and trying different things. But when you make this many beats and on eatch one you try somthing new, eventualy you will come up with somthing orginal and good.
 
KelevraOne said:
Still account for making things faster. Sampling has a tendency to slow things down because now you have to add parts to a sample and find instruments that match the tonality of the sample. Then you have to count the eqing out of different parts to lose the sounds in the sample that you don't want. You also forgot about pitch changes and effects added to samples to make them sound completely different. Then some people use samples from more than one song to make a new song. You have to adjust those samples to make them work in the new context. But like I said if it's simple looping and adding drums then yeah sampling would be faster but if it isn't nope sampling might take longer than composing from scratch.
Click to expand...

yeah, but all the stuff your talking about has to be done to beats from scratch as well, in fact even more so. You need to EQ EACH instrument, which would obviously take longer than just EQ'ing 1 sample with 4-5 instruments already EQ'd together. When you sample your getting a cluster of instruments already mixed/mastered to perfection all in one. You dont think that it would take longer to write, perfom, and record that cluster from scratch, then mix and master it to perfection? I just think your overestimating how long it takes to find a sample and chop/flip it vs how long it takes to do it from scratch. It could take hours to find a good sample you like, but it could've taken the original artist days/weeks to actually make that same sample.

In a way, sampling is like walking into a studio session with all the parts to the song already recorded, and all you have to do is arrange them, mix, and master. So wouldn't that be less work than a person who had to write those parts, find musicians to play the parts, spend hours rehearsing with the musicians and working with them until they get it perfect, record those parts with proper microphone placements, which is an art in itself that can be time consuming to get the right balance and sound you want. And then after all that, still arrange, mix, and, master, while you got to avoid the entire 1st half of the process. That is obviously like half a workload difference or more, so I cant see how it isnt faster.
 
Last edited:
Eshai said:
yeah, but all the stuff your talking about has to be done to beats from scratch as well, in fact even more so. You need to EQ EACH instrument, which would obviously take longer than just EQ'ing 1 sample with 4-5 instruments already EQ'd together. When you sample your getting a cluster of instruments already mixed/mastered to perfection all in one. You dont think that it would take longer to write, perfom, and record that cluster from scratch, then mix and master it to perfection? I just think your overestimating how long it takes to find a sample and chop/flip it vs how long it takes to do it from scratch. It could take hours to find a good sample you like, but it could've taken the original artist days/weeks to actually make that same sample.

In a way, sampling is like walking into a studio session with all the parts to the song already recorded, and all you have to do is arrange them, mix, and master. So wouldn't that be less work than a person who had to write those parts, find musicians to play the parts, spend hours rehearsing with the musicians and working with them until they get it perfect, record those parts with proper microphone placements, which is an art in itself that can be time consuming to get the right balance and sound you want. And then after all that, still arrange, mix, and, master, while you got to avoid the entire 1st half of the process. That is obviously like half a workload difference or more, so I cant see how it isnt faster.
Click to expand...

I dont think most of the people here use live instruments. Most probably load up a vst and than just play till they come up with something
 
J-The-Producer said:
I dont think most of the people here use live instruments. Most probably load up a vst and than just play till they come up with something
Click to expand...

yeah, but vsts are still instruments, you still have to write and perform the parts, which is more work.
 
Eshai said:
yeah, but all the stuff your talking about has to be done to beats from scratch as well, in fact even more so. You need to EQ EACH instrument, which would obviously take longer than just EQ'ing 1 sample with 4-5 instruments already EQ'd together. When you sample your getting a cluster of instruments already mixed/mastered to perfection all in one. You dont think that it would take longer to write, perfom, and record that cluster from scratch, then mix and master it to perfection? I just think your overestimating how long it takes to find a sample and chop/flip it vs how long it takes to do it from scratch. It could take hours to find a good sample you like, but it could've taken the original artist days/weeks to actually make that same sample.

In a way, sampling is like walking into a studio session with all the parts to the song already recorded, and all you have to do is arrange them, mix, and master. So wouldn't that be less work than a person who had to write those parts, find musicians to play the parts, spend hours rehearsing with the musicians and working with them until they get it perfect, record those parts with proper microphone placements, which is an art in itself that can be time consuming to get the right balance and sound you want. And then after all that, still arrange, mix, and, master, while you got to avoid the entire 1st half of the process. That is obviously like half a workload difference or more, so I cant see how it isnt faster.
Click to expand...

Like I said Sampling is usually only fast if you're doing something simple like looping a single part over and over. The chopping of some samples to make something completely new takes an immense amount of time. Also the eqing on a sample was made for the song that it was already in not for the song that you're going to put in. A lot of times a producer is going to find an instrument in a sample that he doesn't want and we'll have to take time to EQ out the frequencies that the instrument is on. I really think you're oversimplifying the selection process that producers go through with their samples. A lot of people will find a song they want to sample and sometimes sit on that sample for days, weeks, months or even over a year until they can find something they want to do with that sample. If your chopping you have to try to get correct chops which is a technique in and of itself. And then once you have your sample chopped you have to make something with it. If it's something creative the sample will usually be changed greatly to make it hardly recognizable. And then you have to add in those other instruments which sometimes have to be built around the sample.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top