From Jon Drukman Sent Fri, Mar 27th 1998, 00:21
From Jon Drukman Sent Fri, Mar 27th 1998, 00:21
Heatsink wrote this: > My view is that Great Music doesn`t discriminate between a minimal > studio set-up and a top-flight set-up, that is to say, the equipment > used in the production of Great Music is, generally, irrelevant. true. > If you, as a music listener, look for qualities such as clean > sounds, spacious reverbs, shiny EQ and all that other engineering > crap to form your opinion of what you are listening too, then maybe > you should give up and chop your ears off. that's pretty insulting. why should i let you dictate what i listen for in a piece of music? to me, sound quality is an inseparable part of the total package. we are in the business of sculpting sound. that's why we use electronic instruments and not pianos (although you can do some pretty rad shit with a piano if you're clever - anyone ever see roger miller's "maximum electric piano" shows?). to me, it's not about the performance, or the emotion (which is all they ever talk about over on daw-mac and boy is it irritating) - it's the SOUND. you cannot separate the notes from the hiss in my book. it's all part of that rich tapestry that oozes out of the speakers and into your ears. > If, however, you can judge a track by the things that actually make > up its musical existance, like melody, rythm, structure, mood etc., > then congratulations! You Know The Score. bollocks. i thought we'd progressed beyond such outmoded concepts. rhythm, melody, structure, etc... that's stuff's for losers! wake up and smell the 90's. i don't want a tune, i want SOUND. > yours, you made it, you own it (usually). Now, it`s up to others to > decide for themselves whether it`s good or bad, but you wouldn`t > have pressed record if YOU didn`t think it was any good at the time. unless you just really needed the money. :) -- Jon Drukman xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan: Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.