From Marc 3 Poirier Sent Tue, Jun 9th 1998, 05:18
From Marc 3 Poirier Sent Tue, Jun 9th 1998, 05:18
> > & will it be one bit near as beautiful as any of the songs on "Come > > To Daddy" & give me any of the lovely feelings that that music does? > > no, because you are prejudiced against kent cos he's just some guy on > the net that you know and afx is a media-certified beautiful person. Bullllllshit. I believe I followed that with, "Probably not." I've never heard the fellow's music & therefore don't have any opinion of it, let alone any prejudices, so I say it "probably" won't happpen coming from the probabilities I've encountered with music that excessively imitates music I love, & I pretty much always get nothing out of that music. > most of the time i agree it's irrelevant but when afx arrived with all > his claims of building his own synths and programming his own > sound-generating software it just set off bullshitometers all over the > world. now we find that, oh yeah, really that brilliant rhythmic bounce > in bouncing ball is an se-70 preset. those custom built synths are > 606's through an ms-10 filter. debunking is fine when the source is > claiming all sorts of shit. Well, I can understand what you're saying here, but I think actually that people reading Richard's interviews have turned this into a bigger thing than he ever did. He hasn't ever actually claimed to build his own synthesizers, just to modify them, & I haven't heard him deny using regular synths straight up without modification. He even wears his Rolands proudly on the Caustic Window picture disc & I have an interview where the interviewer asks if he uses any standard synths & he says, "Yeah." I'll even send you an MPEG of it if you don't believe me. The things that he says he creates from scratch are little boxes with circuits in them that produce sounds of some sort. He samples them & uses them in his music. This doesn't seem too far fetched to me & I've basically gotten the feeling from reading interviews with Richard that he is really quite honest, even though I know most people seem to think the opposite. > > You really should make > > your "Aphex Twin weirdstep" song so that you can realise that making a > > song worth listening to takes a lot more than putting a certain > > combination of sounds together. > having listened to kent's material i think that's a lesson he already > knows quite well. Okay, that's good. I've never heard his music as I've said, but I was responding to the approach he was describing in his message, which made making an Aphex Twin song sound like it involves nothing more than going through a checklist of sampling & editing procedures & effects processes. Kent may very well make heavenly music. Marc Poirier