From d0ktor Sent Thu, Aug 12th 1999, 18:52
From d0ktor Sent Thu, Aug 12th 1999, 18:52
I can't say I ever made any masterpieces, but when I did my elecronic music module at college we had little else other than samplers. So I brought crates of glass objects, building supplies, cardboard boxes and elestic bands and old musical instruments in, sampled them, timestretched them, layered on the effects and re-sampled them. I also borrowed a DAT machine and carried it around with me, recording any interesting sounds I heard as I went from place to place. Fuck it, I say, who needs anything other than samplers? Lack of original and interesting sounds was never my problem - I'm just not much of a musician and I found that putting them together into a interesting tune was the real challenge. d0ktor -----Original Message----- From: Tom Millar <xxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxx> To: xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx <xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx> Cc: xxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <xxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Date: Thursday, August 12, 1999 8:38 PM Subject: Re: (idm) samplers are evil, aren't they? > >> Hey, this would be great because it would provide further support for the ongoing argument that SAMPLERS ARE EVIL and that the world would be a better place without them. > >Dr. Purist: Arrgh! The Kumquat has again uncovered my secret plans! Curses! > >> After all, we all know that HOW a piece of music is made is more important than the actual sound of the music itself. > >The Kumquat's fists on Dr. Purist's ideological foundation: THUD, POW, SMACK > >> For example, before even listening to a piece of music, it is best to verify that: >> >> - no samplers were used, or were even present in the room during recording > >More of the same: BIFF, WHACK > >> - no DSP plug-ins were employed, since it is "too easy" to make cool-sounding effects with them > >Dr. Purist: Never said anything about that, not me, wait, Ow! > >> In fact, any device that makes it easier (god forbid) for Joe RaveKid to make cool tracks on his own (without racks of equipment and years of practice tweaking oscillators and filters) should be banned. > >Well, there is the whole idea that you should challenge yourself when >creating art. >And it's pretty easy to detect when someone is not challenging >themselves. We call it "wanking." >You can wank with any piece of equipment. But remixing or covering tunes >without the use of any sampling methods is a challenge which should >hopefully cause the folks involved to get creative in new and >interesting ways, regardless of my personal artistic fear of the damn things. > >> Hi, Tom! >Hi, Fred! > >Tom >