#42

I used to worry about that. I don’t anymore. I’ve made pop music, rock music, folk music, abstract instrumental music and it all sounds like me. The more I think about the idea of a sound or a voice, I think I’d prefer to say that I have an aesthetic that I apply to everything that I do. Certainly that aesthetic will evolve, it might broaden, it might contract, but the core of it remains the same, I think. So, put yourself in new and challenging situations and trust that even if it doesn’t work out well every time, at least you don’t need to worry about the ‘you’ bit.

4 Likes
#43

I think the “sound” of an artist is often unconscious and the result of musical tic.
In my opinion finding an obsession holding on to it and exploring it can make the work of someone interesting and recognizable.
I don’t know if it’s productive to worry about finding your ‘sound’.

1 Like
#44

This is a question that rarely enters my mind anymore, only because in my experience it’s been unproductive and vaguely existentially stressful. Here’s where I am now: My “sound” is the end product of a process I have some control over. To have complete control over my sound, I’d need to have complete control of that process, a prospect that would require a lot of work for dubious payoff. I like my tastes, but still. I appreciate the constraints of my tools and abilities.

Over time, preferences have emerged that guide me in the creative process: striving for “beginner’s mind,” following where the song goes instead of trying to shape it, etc. These are sort of heuristics that make the process enjoyable for me and usually result in songs that surprise and appeal to me as a listener. I tend to think in terms of these rules-of-thumb instead of the final sound.

Of course, that doesn’t help too much with answering questions like “what kind of music do you make,” or “what does your music sound like.” Those are tough. I’ve tried listing my influences (but I don’t sound much like any of them), listing my tools (but lots of people use these tools to different effect), describing the sound (but it changes frequently), and describing my process (but that doesn’t give an accurate picture of what you’ll hear when you press “play.”)

4 Likes
#45

If a taxi driver asks me that, these days, I just say ‘Blues’. End of conversation.

6 Likes
#46

You might enjoy Kierkegaard’s thoughts on the coach horn. It’s somewhere in his book “Repetition.”

2 Likes
#47

In my experience it is less about actively defining a sound and more about determining a perspective. If you can develop an intentionality, philosophy, and world view that drives your art - an ever evolving answer to “why do I make this” - then, often, the voice of your unique sound will follow.

This, combined with developing your own taste, critical listening, and skill, can really help lead you to what you want to express. The details of the sound might change, but it will all sound like you.

13 Likes
#48

I really love this answer–it’s changing the way I think about my own work!

I like to tell people that my music is either dance music for meditating or meditation music for dancing. Somewhere between minimalism and minimal techno :wink:

Lately I’ve been dividing mid-stage compositions into different folders – mind, body, brain, places, and spirit. It’s really helped me sort through lots of old work to give it some kind of operational framework!

2 Likes
#49

ummm. many replies here are quite intriguing. even though, quite as many responders seem to try to wriggle themselves covertly out of a pre-defined genre……

although i have been always involved in music (not necessarily making sounds but oftentimes not in a passive listening-only way either) and even received a formal classical education in early years of my life, today nothing i do in regards of outputting sounds is close to my favourite musical genres or bears any marks of any knowledge of music theory. there might be deeper reasons to this than i am aware of but superficially speaking the main reasons for this are:

  1. i cannot recall anything of the music theory i have been exposed to some decades ago.
  2. i lack the instruments and related skills (and inevitably band mates) which are needed to reproduce my favourite music genres.

therefore, feeling the urge to express myself sonically, i do what i am able to do within these constraints which turns out to be unexpectedly mellow (in comparison to what i often like listening to) but might as well be otherwise referred to as a big mess.

i call it “sonic landscapes” though. (it is not surprising that the word “landscape” did pop up further up in this thread a couple of times already)

#50

I struggle with this greatly. Through time and experimentation I find I have a few discrete sounds, so I end up fragmenting my output into several aliases. This is not great for self-marketing, but that’s not why I make music, so it’s fine? Maybe?

1 Like
#51

There’s a lot to be said for working within a genre - it provides a somewhat defined set of boundaries and limitations within which to work - and the interesting stuff starts to happen once the boundaries of the membrane begin to be bent and broken. You might still be within a genre, but those twists and morphs you bring to it can be what creates an artists ‘sound’, maybe even popping out to an entirely new genre someday.

I think it’s all pretty subjective though, what you think, what I think, what other people think… in the end my opinion about my own music probably doesn’t mean anything to anyone and maybe never will.

For instance the words ‘psychedelic’, ‘trippy’… even ‘dub’ mean different things to people depending on who you’re talking to.

In the end I think genre and pop are synonymous.

For me the definition of sound is something much more abstract that doesn’t translate particularly well from person to person, but is maybe just kind’ve agreed upon poetics we use in conversation.

I’m happy with sound being what it is: fluctuations in air pressure translated in the brain as electromagnetic impulses interpreted as sensation.

The weird thing is the best description of a sound may be a taste, or a picture of a mountain, the texture and colour of a turtle shell, or maybe the smell of the spare room at your grandparents house. I don’t know really.

5 Likes
#53

I label my stuff as ‘other’ on Soundcloud and Bandcamp and don’t care to think about it beyond that. It isn’t that I don’t think about it, I just don’t think there’ll ever be a satisfying answer.

4 Likes
#54

As a genre I guess I fall under the very vague and often convoluted blanket of “ambient” but I often describe my music as “minimal grunge” which seems to work for a few reasons
Fairly minimal.
Typically involving guitar.
from the Pacific Northwest.
not really LoFi but using low fidelity elements.

2 Likes
#55

In terms of made-up genres I’ve been thinking about rolling with Contemporary New Age, which I like because to someone not familiar with either genre it just sounds like I’m repeating myself. It also gives me permission to use the Papyrus font on any occasion.

6 Likes
#56

I hear ya :slight_smile: I agree any artist or song or album can be a catalyst for a new genre.

Me personally, I feel like genre is something that has a life of its own. It’s something that happens culturally, once it’s in the hands of critics, audiences, and other artists who copy or emulate their idols/sympathetic creatives.

1 Like
#57

Tools I think are a bigger part of the picture than we’d often admit. Listening back on records I’ve made using a certain sampler or keyboard or module… it’s hard to imagine how it would sound without that peice of gear. Would I have gone to that note or to that atmosphere otherwise? A kind of call-and-response between myself, the equipment and my musical partners. I would suppose decision making to be very guided by this.

I’m often surprised by the way one can chart and document emotional state or well-being using *wires and *control voltage (replace with whatever tools you use). I think if you are open to this type of expression and know the technicalities well enough, then capturing it is a natural part of the overflow.

I often wonder what is more valuable, creating without a tape recorder or with one. A transient passing or a captured monument. Both are reflective of a previous temporary state and should not be defined as your sound - but part of a broader collection built up over time. It is that this collection (however big or small) that is your sound, not a squeezed set of parameters but a broadening over time. Simply put, the music you have a hand in making.

Finally in all cases, my perspective is that this is enhanced when you do so with other people. A part of my practice that I’m aware needs shaking up again. It’s the sharing of something (even if it is just for a few) that takes us out from the narrows of self-medicating and into meaningful-contribution territory. I write this as a reminder to myself as much as anything.

7 Likes
#58

my sound has evolved in time, from underground raw electronic to more cinematic style. I use to define what I create with this statement:
“From the acid and dusty factories of the electronic underground, through the devastated and pure immaculated nature of Sardinia, an explosion of anger and melancholy darkness transforms electronics into a cinematic orchestra.”

#59

I’ve been having trouble lately finding “me” in what I make. I’m inspired by so many different artists and styles and genres that every time I hear something I like that is outside of what I “normally” do I think “ok, that’s what I want to do!” and then I hear something new and switch to wanting to do that instead. It’s a constant battle over what I’m listening to vs what is ideally me and my style.

Something that has always impressed me about producers who are consistent in their sound is just that: they are consistent. I know they listen to other artists and genres yet they stay “true” to what they make when they sit down to produce. I don’t know how they stay focused and how they are not so easily influenced by everything.

#60

Something that might help is finding aspects of your style that don’t make or break anything? like, sticking in your favorite chord or disguising your favorite riff into the piece. Zoë Keating has this little two-ascending-fourths bit that she litters throughout her oeuvre, for instance, that I always think of.

You could do this timbrally too—always using the 808 clap, say, or keeping the same instrument on bass even though you produce it differently, say.

2 Likes
#61

This is me also I get so influenced by different genres of music i always found it difficult to define my own sound.

#62

I recently came out of a band situation, and am struggling now (probably too hard) to redefine myself outside of it.

Thing is, it’s much easier to get a handle on “our sound” than “my sound”. Because there are elements you’ll always want to showcase and support in a band, and that leads to certain formulas emerging. When it’s just you, it’s a much blanker canvas.

(The things you might reach for and say “we need more of that here” in a band become “this needs to change. people have heard it” on your own.)

Same stimulus, different mindset.

It’s interesting.

1 Like