IDM Mailing Archive

On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, EMANATE2 wrote:

quoted 6 lines Does anyone know who makes the DX-100 Bass machine most often used by

> Does anyone know who makes the DX-100 Bass machine most often used by > Kirk Degiorgio on his As One/Esoterik releases? Is it Yamaha? > > Derek Jordan > >

*** it sure is. JUan uses the monobass preset to perfection too.

On Mon, 12 Jun 1995 12:03:15 -0600, EMANATE2 <djordan@LnxLand1.denver.colorado.EDU> wrote:

quoted 2 lines Does anyone know who makes the DX-100 Bass machine most often used by

>Does anyone know who makes the DX-100 Bass machine most often used by >Kirk Degiorgio on his As One/Esoterik releases? Is it Yamaha?

Yep it is an early yamaha 4 op FM box. Pretty cheap and can do ALOT more than just solid bass.......... Rob fEEd/>tEMpESt<\http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m211/feed/<\fEEd@maroon.tc.umn.edu/> "FILTER MAINTENANCE- After every 100 hours of operation apply a sine wave to the output of the FILTER to back flush the trapped overtones to unclog your filter." - EML 101 Manual

fEEd wrote:

quoted 2 lines Yep it is an early yamaha 4 op FM box. Pretty cheap and can do ALOT more

> Yep it is an early yamaha 4 op FM box. Pretty cheap and can do ALOT more > than just solid bass..........

Yeah the DX-100 reminds me of the CZ-101 in look and feel, small and cheezy but kinda cool in a campy way. I have a feeling that these little FM deals are going to be the next rage in the techno scene (after the Roland X0X series). I've heard the European techno heads are very into them (FB-01, TX-81Z, DX-100...), especially the Germans. -robert --> __ _ _ _____ _____ _____ / _\ | || || _ \|_ _|/ _ \ / /_\\ | -- || |_) | _| |_ | (_) | ______________ /______\\____/|_____/|_____|\_____/ ( *electronic* )

Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago? Is that how long it takes to understand a given synthesizer? Maybe I'd better stick with guitar. yrz, ozy ozymandias G desiderata personal info : http://www.mbc.umt.edu/ogd/ discographies : http://www.mbc.umt.edu/ogd/aaxz/discogs Missoula raves: http://www.mbc.umt.edu/ogd/aaxz/raves/

On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, ozymandias G desiderata wrote:

quoted 5 lines Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that

> Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that > it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of > tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago? Is that how long it > takes to understand a given synthesizer? Maybe I'd better stick with > guitar.

Ahhh... but are they? Sure there are lots of people out there who love their old synths (and fair enough, I say!), but what about all the samplers and numerous effects, and the subtlety of today's sequencing gear? Anyway, I've got a hunch you weren't being that serious, so I won't belabour the point. :) Michael ______________________________________________________________________________ "Stability is one of those code words, which means 'rule by the right guys'" scrot@sans.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Upton) - Noam Chomsky ______________________________________________________________________________

On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, ozymandias G desiderata wrote:

quoted 5 lines Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that

> Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that > it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of > tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago? Is that how long it > takes to understand a given synthesizer? Maybe I'd better stick with > guitar.

It's actually pretty simple. Guitars are made to sound like guitars. Violins are made to sound like violins. Piano's are made to sound like piano's. Unfortunately modern synths are made to sound like guitars, violins, pianos... Catch my drift? From the beginning synthesizers were designed to synthesize sounds that came from other instruments. As the technology gets better the instruments have a lessening degree of individual characteristic and feel. Older synths don't sound like piano's and strings and horns. They sound like electronic noises. Each analog synth has it's own sound and even among the same design, instruments have differing characteristics (my 808 for example sounds unlike any others I've heard). It seems only recently have synth designers decided that electronic sounds are acceptable and are designing instrumants to sound different rather than the same (Nord Lead, QuasiMidi, Doepfer, and Novation to name a few). I personally like to think techno is the music of today that should've been made years ago. The technology was there but most musicians were using the technology to imitate instruments that already existed. It would have been more productive to just use the original instrument and delve into the possibilities of the technology. Well I'm done preaching now. -robert --> __ _ _ _____ _____ _____ / _\ | || || _ \|_ _|/ _ \ / /_\\ | -- || |_) | _| |_ | (_) | ______________ /______\\____/|_____/|_____|\_____/ ( *electronic* )

On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, ozymandias G desiderata wrote:

quoted 5 lines Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that

> Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that > it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of > tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago? Is that how long it > takes to understand a given synthesizer? Maybe I'd better stick with > guitar.

That's how long it takes some people to forget how a particular machine was marketed and what it was "supposed" to do. The early drum machines were designed to be substandard substitute for a live drummer, for a demo, for sketching, for practicing. Some artists early on integrated electronic percussion with a human drummer, and also as a true replacement for live drums. The Roland TB-303 was designed to be a bad replacement for a bass guitar. It is now the archetypical acid machine. I don't think it takes that long to figure out a given synthesizer, it's just taken that long for these sounds to become more common.

Dans la Matrice, ozymandias G desiderata a dit:

quoted 4 lines Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that

> > Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that > it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of > tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago?

I think you cannot find a wider range of instruments than in idm cause, as i said anything goes. From early Ondes Marteneau thingy to digital stuff (mixers, samplers etc...). Each instrument does have a certain feel, and some are more popular than others, but i dont think idm is really a popularity thing... not much TB-303 in idm for example. A lot of very flexible stuff however, like Serge modulars (Orbital i think), to K2000 (Speedy J, Laurent Garnier, Kenny Larkin) etc... Also, a lot of people use computers to generate sounds, sequence their music, manipulate etc... For example, i use my computer to sample, to generate new sounds, sequence my music, record to hard disk, transfer digitally to/from dat, cds etc... remove noise, interface to my power glove etc... I also use several external synths and even a drum machine and a few fx units and pedals. Then you have the occasional weird things like an edison wax cylinder player, tube equaliser, speak n spell, mattel keyboard. Ciao, -- Francois Dion (IdMEDIA) [> Email: francois@hyperreal.com <] ' [> C.P. 278, St-Lambert, QC, Canada, J4P 2N8 <] [> Raving Up North Ezine: run-request@hyperreal.com, subject: help <]

On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, ozymandias G desiderata wrote:

quoted 5 lines Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that

> Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that > it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of > tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago? Is that how long it > takes to understand a given synthesizer? Maybe I'd better stick with > guitar.

Well, futurism was not particularly in vogue when all of the futuristic equipment was coming out. Much of the new wavetable/digital stuff does not have wacky features and sound capabilities, just acoustic-sound-imitative potential in the design. You can get interesting sounds, but the harmonics of an old analog synth are more extreme and create more *connotations* of futuristic sound. For instance, think of science fiction movies from 1970 and 1990: which had more wacked out sounds/timbres? 85-95 has been about imitative-sound-making synth-engines it seems, not whacked-out-futuristic modulars... David Chandler - chandler@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us (503)301-3011 grep -i casio goodwillbins >> mystudio ; grep -i atari goodwillbins >> mystudio ;

At 10:03 PM 6/12/95, ozymandias G desiderata wrote:

quoted 5 lines Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that

> Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that >it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of >tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago? Is that how long it >takes to understand a given synthesizer? Maybe I'd better stick with >guitar.

it is definitely not the amount of time it takes to understand a piece of gear. i think it's the same sort of snobbiness that any musical form evolves, really; a tendency to look back at past glories and say "well, if artist x was so popular back then with a 303 then all i have to do is find one and i can be that good." when that article about the dx100 went up today couldn't you just hear all the wannabes sharpening their pencils so they can go digging in the Recycler looking for one? the truth is, it's a sad old machine and you can do Solid Bass with just about any modern piece of gear. hell, you can do it with an FB-01 and they can be had for under $100. i designed my studio for power and flexibility, not style... so i've got a promix and a k2000 as the centrepieces... and i get flak about it. "oh how can it possibly sound good with a digital mixer, it'll be all cold and sterile." "k2000? the presets on it are terrible!" "you just can't sample the 808 kick drum." yeah, sure... and you will never be a great violinist until you buy a stradivarius, either. btw, the same phenomenon was at work in the early 80's when every wannabe video haircut band picked up a set of simmons drums... -- Name: Jon Email: jsd@cyborganic.com Web: http://www.cyborganic.com/People/jsd

On Jun 12, 4:03pm, ozymandias G desiderata wrote:

quoted 8 lines Subject: Re: Query??

> Subject: Re: Query?? > > Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that > it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of > tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago? Is that how long it > takes to understand a given synthesizer? Maybe I'd better stick with > guitar. >

Well, it is easily explained by the price of a certain piece of gear. FM synths s.a. DX100, FB01 etc are relatively cheap nowdays, especially if you compare to the 'market' price of the analogue gear (Roland x0x in particular).. Besides DX100, CZ101 are so easy to use, they are rather portable and widely available... Besides all these cheap boxes are very much potent synths capable of wide range of sounds, whereas 101/202 are rather limited especially given their price. The only thing that digital ones lack are the knobs/sliders etc... So, why not use much cheaper alternative? For instance, you can get the Casio VZ10M for $299 new!!! ANd believe me it will blow the **** out of Roland x0x's! Mike Mike -- ------------------------------------------------------- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /GET OFF MY SINE WAVE\ / \ / \ '' '' '' '' '' '' ------------------------------------------------------- Mike Dvorkin (W) 708 435 0010 (H) 708 299 5332 Motorola Inc (F) 708 435 0028 (e) dvorkinm@pcs.mot.com ------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: if mail to me bounces try jeanniel@merle.acns.nwu, she'll forward it to me. She's a real bionaut!

quoted 6 lines i think it's the same sort of snobbiness that any musical form evolves,

> i think it's the same sort of snobbiness that any musical form evolves, > really; a tendency to look back at past glories and say "well, if artist x > was so popular back then with a 303 then all i have to do is find one and i > can be that good." when that article about the dx100 went up today > couldn't you just hear all the wannabes sharpening their pencils so they > can go digging in the Recycler looking for one?

Exactly, after the interview with Juan Atkins appeared in the keyboard, a lot of people around here are searching for DX100's, but it really does not matter what you use, it;s what you do with what you have...

quoted 2 lines i designed my studio for power and flexibility, not style... so i've got a

> i designed my studio for power and flexibility, not style... so i've got a > promix and a k2000 as the centrepieces...

That thingie is a DO-IT-ALL box, that's why I did not want to buy it... I figured that I'd abandone all my other gear, since K2000 can do everything plus some extra of what my analogue beasts are capable of...

quoted 4 lines and i get flak about it. "oh how

> and i get flak about it. "oh how > can it possibly sound good with a digital mixer, it'll be all cold and > sterile." "k2000? the presets on it are terrible!" "you just can't > sample the 808 kick drum." yeah, sure...

Hahahhahahah!!!!!!! Analogue snobiness!

quoted 1 line

>

-- ------------------------------------------------------- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /GET OFF MY SINE WAVE\ / \ / \ '' '' '' '' '' '' ------------------------------------------------------- Mike Dvorkin (W) 708 435 0010 (H) 708 299 5332 Motorola Inc (F) 708 435 0028 (e) dvorkinm@pcs.mot.com ------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: if mail to me bounces try jeanniel@merle.acns.nwu, she'll forward it to me. She's a real bionaut!

On Jun 12, 9:21pm, Mark Kolmar wrote:

quoted 12 lines Subject: Re: Query??

> Subject: Re: Query?? > On Mon, 12 Jun 1995, ozymandias G desiderata wrote: > > > Is there anybody but me that sees the irony in the fact that > > it frequently seems like techno musicians are making the music of > > tomorrow with the technology of ten years ago? Is that how long it > > takes to understand a given synthesizer? Maybe I'd better stick with > > guitar. > > That's how long it takes some people to forget how a particular machine > was marketed and what it was "supposed" to do. >

Well, it's was more of a question of economics. The roland x0x machines were not a big hit when they came out. So you could get them really cheap on the used market....

quoted 3 lines The Roland TB-303 was designed to be a bad replacement for a bass

> The Roland TB-303 was designed to be a bad replacement for a bass > guitar. It is now the archetypical acid machine. >

Really bad, indeed...

quoted 4 lines I don't think it takes that long to figure out a given synthesizer, it's

> I don't think it takes that long to figure out a given synthesizer, it's > just taken that long for these sounds to become more common. > >-- End of excerpt from Mark Kolmar

-- ------------------------------------------------------- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /GET OFF MY SINE WAVE\ / \ / \ '' '' '' '' '' '' ------------------------------------------------------- Mike Dvorkin (W) 708 435 0010 (H) 708 299 5332 Motorola Inc (F) 708 435 0028 (e) dvorkinm@pcs.mot.com ------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: if mail to me bounces try jeanniel@merle.acns.nwu, she'll forward it to me. She's a real bionaut!