^Well produced to me and my subjective view of "sounding good" means -
Sharp. Polished. Great sense of space. Every sound carved out and in its own place. Intentional. Very much not lo-fi.
That first dm5 example is older so it might not fit that mold exactly but the others do I think, subjectively speaking.
Don't get me wrong there can be and is some "well produced" lo-fi stuff that I do like but what I'm talking about is that very much hi-fi commercial sound. And c'mon FMB I'm sure you know what I'm talking about even with the use of terms that I realize are subjective in nature.
@[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click here to register] ; I'm curious to know specifically what EDM you've heard over the last lets just say 60 days that's boring and easy to make? I'll admit that yes some of it is but I ask because I've heard some that is actually pretty bang on good. I used to feel the same way and make similar comments as you but that was before I actually heard much of any at all.
Now that I'm quite a few years into this electronic music game we play here and actually know what it would take to make a track sound as good as some of the shit coming out of that scene I'm pretty impressed with some of the stuff I have heard.
Also where are you at with FMB's challenge for you to make a trap tune? Can we have a link?
I didn't actually say that it was boring or easy to make, I said that it was bullshit..I said that I preferred music that required some talent to make but you might notice that I like a lot of electronic stuff so..
No I don't play those stupid games because it wouldn't matter whether what I made was good or not people would just take it as an excuse to be an asshole
King of EDM is DM5 right? Right. He was the first I thought I'd give a shot and the only one I've been saving tracks on a playlist from as I hear ones that I like. Here's three of my favorites that I feel are undeniably good. Beyond this I've been just pulling up random electro / pop and electro pop playlists and much of it is solid. Same with top 40 stuff too I hear my daughter play in the car. It's all really really really well produced, I don't care if the vocalist didn't make it...if it's good it's good and a sound I'd aspire to but never reach as of yet.
Being as most of the EDM I've liked other than DM5 is random playlist stuff I'd have to spend time looking for it going back through previously played things etc. But for now at least these were the first things I heard that got me paying attention...
There was a thread on here a month or so ago about Dirtybird records. That's more house stuff but still "mainstream" tendencies. I had a look at their website once and have been listening to their stuff as well on Spotify and it's all solid too.
Yeah, he's actually one of the only guys I checked out myself. I quite like this one as well although it's not very complex I find it quite catchy:
I didn't actually say that it was boring or easy to make, ... I said that I preferred music that required some talent to make
Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself? Why do you assume that it does not take talent to make? What is talent to you? Why does playing an instrument require more talent than producing a good track on the computer? Don't both require different kinds of talent?
I think you just have your own definition of talent and only apply it to certain fields that you seem to find more important than others which is more like a subjective opinion rather than truth.
Not to burst your bubble but everyone does that...
I'm not so sure. I can dislike something but still accept that whoever made it is talented even if I personally dislike what he/she accomplished. Like some very technical metal for example. Although I might not like it I can still respect the ability of the person playing the instrument. So as far as that goes I find taste to be subjective but I think most people will agree the physical ability is still pretty impressive.
Talent can be somewhat subjective in that it isn't always visible if the person receiving the output has no frame of reference. Look at Jackson Pollock splatting a canvas. Might just be splat on canvas if you had no knowledge of what he was up to.
So I guess there's elements of objectivity and subjectivity. As previously pointed out on this thread, the perception can change as the receiver gains knowledge of the subject and increases their understanding of the goals of the content.