From Hrvatski Sent Wed, Mar 25th 1998, 01:45
From Hrvatski Sent Wed, Mar 25th 1998, 01:45
Okay, this has been boiling up for a bit. >how many people out there have genuinely advanced with their music by >buying really expensive gear? I have, definitely. Getting the MAC with SCSI to transfer the sounds and program the Akai was the best thing I could have done. Programming the Akai to do a single track used to take 12 solid hours of button pushing. It's more like two now. It's all about control. If you want your machines to write your music for you, than stick with a simple setup with fewer variables. Some of us seek more complexity... >those who have the talent to make music that people want to hear... I'm gonna cut you (whoever) off right there. The music that PEOPLE want to hear. That statement is so incredibly absurd that there is no correct rebuttal. None of the music you listen to was made with you in mind. If so, than it's COMPLETELY INVALID by the standard definition. Good music is ultimately made by one keeping his own sense of aesthetic as the ultimate guideline. I'm assuming we're all referring to with our beloved "IDM' something post-dancefloor. Agreed, club tunes have to have a crowd pleasing element, but all of that stuff is made with more equipment than the average twiddler has, and DEFINITELY keeps high, traditional, production values in mind. Besides, the background anomalies that occur with a four-track setup are rarely heard through a PA, unless you're lucky... >...can do it >on anything, regardless of cost or sophistication. those who do not, we >generally find spending more and >more money, surrounding themselves with >complicated gear, while their music becomes more two >dimensional, less >human, more sterile, until no-one at all takes any notice of them, and >they give up. the >classified section of your favourite music magazine is >full of failed musicians selling their expensive >studios. I also have visions of these aging former bar-band fronts who've chosen to redefine themselves w/o a clue towards current music trends. They (the want-ad ad folks) are mostly trying to recreate vintage Who songs for mall-presentation, not record Skam Ep's anyway. But technology making someone less-dimensional! That also is absurd. It's common for someone to acquire a boatload of gear and be mystified enough to sell it in a short while, but those who spend the hours it takes to learn the architecture of their machines WILL BE REWARDED with a million more options that will make their ideas easier to come to fruition. Less Human! Distortion is human? Sterile? I don't understand how using higher technology, which ideally allows infinite layers of clarity over a more modest setup, equals sterile. Last I checked, complexity was more of a sexy, fertile thing... >>a lot of it comes down to engineering. distortion sounds good and hard >>and also covers up bad engineering. the use of distortion is one of thousands of engineering tricks. If the use of one singular effect defines the entirety of your style, you are a one-trick-pony. There's a lot more to any of it than any one element of production. >some of the more interesting musical ideas in the past have come from >mistakes - why should we always avoid bad engineering? We shouldn't. Either way, you just spent the greater part of your argument legitimizing the use of the distortion, only to deem it 'bad engineering' >in a lot of people's records these days, >it's the unintentional, always? >the background fizz and clips, surely not part of the composition from the concept stage. >that are more interesting than the composed music itself, composed music? Sounds being part of the composed music? Never... >or at least, give the composed music the character that makes it what it is= =2E The overall sound makes it what it is. What comes out of your speaker when you touch the stylus to the vinyl, including the pop. If the composer hasn't thought that through... >taking all the chaotic elements away from your production will almost >always make it bland and a useless piece of plastic. 'over-production' Enough. then... >> but your lexicon costs more than many people's whole setups. >so. if you're not prepared to spend tons of dough you don't belong in >the electronic music biz. :) True, but not true. You can also tweak thousands (but not millions) of sound varieties out of a Casiotone with built in sequencer. It would beat out the records that strain to achieve that level of innocence. But you don't necessarily have to go through a 'simple' phase to truly understand 'complexity'. That's like saying you need to know how to orchestrate for a chamber group to make drum n' bass tracks. Albeit, it helps... >> and besides, there's a lot to be said for nasty metallic reverbs - >> if king tubby were around, he'd be able to explain better than i >no no no no... he used tape delay! WORLD of difference. the irony >now is that a good tape delay can cost many hundreds of >bucks... almost enough to buy a good lexicon digital unit... (totally >different sounds of course... i would kill for a nice Space Echo.) Sorry, afraid the >> is right. It's the plate reverbs that give Tubby the edge. He'd kick it along in time with the bass drum; his signature 'BOOM'. >the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of >expensive gear. it is easy to spot those who are overwhelmed by their >gear list. True. >these people should give up and learn how to write proper tunes then, >dammit. :) No. >difference of philosophy. for me, music is *all* about control. if i >introduce a chance element it's cos i WANT it there, not because i >don't know how to work my gear. note that i am not talking about >systems music and algorithmic composition. i like that stuff and will >happily set up systems or whatever. but the end result is because i >MEANT for that sound to be there, one way or the other. Yes, that's it. Anyways, anyone who had the chance to use the million dollar setup to have greater control over what distorts and what doesn't, would use it right? -Hrv=E5tski. np: MLO-Son of sam (Twisted Science mix). To me, this sounds incredibly high-fidelity. Anomalies or not. __________________________________________________ Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge.________________________ _________________________________PO Box 382864-2864 Cambridge, MA 02238-2864____________________________ _______________________________________________USA _______________Main URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/sheket __________________________________________________