All users can post new topics in this forum. All users can reply to topics in this forum
Author
Thread
warped_candykid Advanced Member
United States
4,001 posts Joined: Jan, 2004
Posted - 2010/04/24 : 17:06:10
I've noticed artist like Adam Harris, Jamie Ritmen, Nu Foundation, Breeze, Darren Styles, and Re-Con make tracks around 168 bpm and it really stinks if you like to play above 180bpm because the bass begins to sound warped.
Alert moderator Edited by - warped_candykid on 2010/04/24 17:06:40
Hard2Get Advanced Member
United Kingdom
12,837 posts Joined: Jun, 2001
Posted - 2010/04/24 : 17:08:16
I find most Hardcore sounds pretty bad above 180, speed wise.
Revs Advanced Member
Austria
2,584 posts Joined: Oct, 2008
Posted - 2010/04/24 : 18:30:00
I don't mind the lower speed, I also saw some tracks by Cube::Hard and Darwin at below 170 I think. I even think Cube::Hard's remix of Timebomb is 160-165 or something like that. And then all the Hardscape stuff of course.
Brainchild Average Member
United Kingdom
193 posts Joined: Sep, 2006
Posted - 2010/04/24 : 20:06:07
I think it's because generally speaking, vocal tracks sound better at a slower speed. Maybe it's also easier to produce tracks when they're slower.
Samination Advanced Member
Sweden
13,281 posts Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
Posted - 2010/04/25 : 07:37:17
quote:Originally posted by latininxtc:
if u want just speed it up it'll probably sound better to you, but not above 180 tho that'll be a huge difference
I like happy hardcore and makina since i love hardcore at above 180... but I'm not fond of chipmonk vocals
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber http://samination.se/ ---------------------------------------------
choonland Advanced Member
Colombia
1,100 posts Joined: Dec, 2007
Posted - 2010/04/26 : 05:29:55
quote:Originally posted by warped_candykid:
Why do artist produce Hardcore below 170bpm?
cause they are pussies
now seriously... it is relative, some tracks ask for more bpm, and others ask for less. but in most of the times, speed up a little always increases the energy and the power of the song.
I used to produce from 170-175, but recently I am liking higher speeds, and now 190bpm is my standard
quote:Originally posted by Brainchild:
vocal tracks sound better at a slower speed. Maybe it's also easier to produce tracks when they're slower."
I think is the other way around, with slower tracks you have more "time" to fill with sounds, therefore it requires more thinking
Smoogie Advanced Member
United Kingdom
6,504 posts Joined: Mar, 2006
Posted - 2010/04/26 : 09:57:05
Some tunes sound better faster. Imo production standards have dropped in the last few years. Take tunes like Short Circuit - **** me, an old hovver classic. The faster it plays the more ****ed up it sounds. People like Breeze and Styles, Re-con & Adam Harris ect are far from real Hardcore artists. If you think their stuff is 'Hardcore' then check this tune out. This is the tune on it's 'normal' speed. I player it much faster
DJ_FunDaBounce Advanced Member
Colombia
2,151 posts Joined: Nov, 2001
Posted - 2010/04/26 : 20:34:44
I've personally found that when I produce something at 175 bpm or faster I usually have to lower the pitch for that track in my mixes. Therefore I've come to produce stuff a bit slower so as to get a slight "energy boost" when my tracks come in.
__________________________________
"Fun with a capital F-D-B!"
Printer friendly
Posted - 2010/04/24 : 17:06:10
Posted - 2010/04/26 : 09:57:05
