From solenoid Sent Thu, Aug 12th 1999, 22:57
From solenoid Sent Thu, Aug 12th 1999, 22:57
Another thing (besides software-controlled DSP sound mangling) that Autechre has done a lot of is layering subtle amounts of audio-rate modulation of their pure-tone synth notes, making much of their recent melodic parts have that gamelan "raspy bell" sort of tone. I'm not sure if they are using a Nord-mod type of synth, but that would be the kind of digitally-accurate tool to give such oscillator cross-modulation. In contrast, I have not heard many pure single oscillators (unmodulated, in other words) involved in the melodies of Chiastic and LP7. I think that, very much like with FM synthesis emerging around '84, new timbral possibilities lead to a lot of exploration and few people master these tools right away. There are a lot of records coming out with use of certain kinds of complex computer-based editting (time stretching with artifacts for instance) which doesn't always work beyond being sonically interesting. If you go back to records from 83, 84, 85, 86 and look at how everyone jumped on the latest tools. One year there is a dx-7 all over the record, the next has a linn drum, the next year a sampler or Fairlight... After a release or two, the use of the tool tames itself in the mix and is more used for what it does most interestingly, not just wantonly. Later tools like cheap dsp-based gated-reverb, multi-timbral samplers, (even later) time-stretching on samplers and the resurgance of vocoders (cheap ones just recently) are all further examples. I guess what I'm thinking is that these new tools (synths that make complex synthesis easier to program, and digital-mangling filters in software) are likely to go through a phase similar to what earlier tools emerged through. I think that Autechre is being pretty careful, but are following these new tools very closely the last few years. They apparently have spent a lot of time with older tools (606, Juno 106, FM, and EPS sampler) for quite some and made some innovative music, so I could see why they would demand more from their tools after a while. However, being someone who makes his own experimental electronic music, I am somewhat weary of making an entire album that is based on following the exploration of a brand new piece of technology, because that idea makes me think that I'd be setting aside a broader thinking process for basically some immediate gimmick factor...if not just unaware of the soon-to-be recognizable range of sound that that tool makes. It is kind of analogous to when cadmium pigments where first made available to oil-painters in the early 1960's--a painter could run out and buy a whole new pallette of alien artifical colors, but those old organic colors might get left out of those first few new paintings... and it would be apparent to the artist later on that those paintings were out of balance and where just concerned with the process of familiarization with those new colors. Back to music... FTR, I do like Chiastic Slide and LP7 for their careful and sparse melodic moodiness. I think that their melodic approach has become more efficient over the years and they use fewer melodic tones and layers to convey the same kinds of moods. The percussion and melodic roles the sounds play seem to have merged a lot since Amber. Too bad they got so upset on the list; they really ought to develop the personal mechanism to deal with listenning to their own fans talk about their music without getting upset that their fans still may not understand their intentions, efforts, etc. Solenoid On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, David O'Toole wrote: > I am no purist. I love chiastic slide, and it's full of dsp type stuff..... > but I hate the twitchy stuff in between all Ae's lp5 tracks, and the > pointless secret track on Ep7. It's not a song or even a coherent recording. > I love noise but not structureless atonality. I can press record on GranuLab > and fool with the parameters for awhile, and produce a 10-minute noise > opus that sounds just like Ae. Believe me, once you hear what granular > synthesis sounds like you'll probably recognize how much Autechre has > been overusing it. > > want a WAV? email me > > The problem is structure. Since most DSP algorithms at their extremes > tend toward white noise (i.e. random signal) excessive DSP can obliterate > structure and timbre and just produce junk. Anyone who's used Buzz will > recognize the sound of the "FXor" plugin (or a vst equivalent): Anything you > play into it makes exactly the same sound coming out. > > Good DSP alters sounds, makes new and interesting sounds, and can produce > otherworldly timbres (i.e. chiastic slide.) The key is structure and restraint. > > Note: dsp is just an example. I am not arguing against digital technology in any form; > that debate is over anyway. The interaction between music and technology is what produced > this kind of music in the first place. >