IDM Mailing Archive

!!! Mail forwarded by idm-owner, fluid@hyperreal.com !!! !!! Original message and sender below !!! From: Brian Willoughby <brianw@sounds.wa.com.wa.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 12:07:31 -0800 To: Intelligent Dance Music <idm@hyperreal.com> Subject: Re: Djs vs Artists + LIVE PA's Martin Ayrton wrote:

quoted 3 lines Orbital take the idea one step further and have all their sequences

> Orbital take the idea one step further and have all their sequences > stored in patterns. The 4/8/16 bar sections can then be brought in > or out in a LIVE arrangment fashion, along with track mutes, [...]

GD wrote: | But if the sequences use preprogrammed patch changes (and most of | the patches aren't modified during the course of a track), what's | the difference between that and using an ADAT which is SMPTE | synched to a keyboard and drum machine? See below... | Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I thought you could record MIDI | data on ADAT as well. If this is the case, it could allow for | the real-time manipulation of a synth patch if needed (by sending | the MIDI data on one track out to a synth), and permit the | performer to bring tracks in and out on a mixing board just as | with a sequence. Besides, if there is only one person performing, | it's hard to change too many things all at once, so to have some | of the tracks automated would be helpful. And I bet an ADAT is | a lot more reliable (and less hassle) than setting up 8 different | pieces of gear and a computer to coordinate the whole thing. Ah, but it doesn't take 8 pieces of gear - just one or maybe two. Orbital have an ADAT, but I'm not exactly familiar with the operations of their sequencing gear. The primary difference is that ADAT, whether it outputs audio or MIDI, is still sequential. You are stuck with an 8 minute mix if that's what you put on tape. If the audience is really digging a particular song, how can you do an extended mix from ADAT? And you can't move on to a different song (if the current one is going nowhere :-) without stopping the ADAT and winding. I personally have a couple of pieces of ENSONIQ gear, an EPS and an ASR-10, and they are quite flexible. Contained in each unit is 8 sequence tracks plus 8 song tracks in dynamic control of several outputs (i.e. any track or tracks can be mixed to any output). The ASR-10 has 4 stereo output pairs which are independent, and the EPS has the capability for 10 or even 16 individual outputs. The sequencing software will repeat a bar section (which can be any number of beats, 4/8/16 would be the most handy for typical IDM) as long as you like, while you are free to dial in a new section from anywhere in the song. So the artist has total control over repeating earlier sections of a song or skipping to the next song at any point. What I really like is that it keeps a steady beat during the middle of the bar section, giving you a chance to select from all your sections. When the current bar section ends, whatever sequence is currently selected will begin playing and will keep a steady beat while you twist knobs, change tempo, or play along on the keyboard (yes, it handles sequenced and live sound at once). And if your hands are tied up with all of these controls, there is a foot pedal which can be used the same as tweaking knobs for any patch changes, filter sweeps, or even changing the parameters of the built-in effects processing. I'm sure that Orbital have even more capable software on their computers - I'm just talking about the kind of flexibility that comes built into samplers as far back as 1988. I even saw someone in Seattle who used his EPS in a chill room to improvise. I must admit that I've never been so adventurous, but he seemed to do a great job. Brian

Jon Drukman said once upon a time:

quoted 5 lines when i talked to paul hartnoll he said that their live show was based

>when i talked to paul hartnoll he said that their live show was based >around two MMT-8's (8 track hardware sequencers). basically they mixed >patterns back and forth. however, to my ears, it sounded identical to the >album versions. so the only value add was hearing it incredibly loud and >watching their glasses-mounted headlights. whooppee.

Ahh, but Jon, we that OWN Orbital material realized that the live versions were quite a bit different than the album versions (but not too much different than Peel sessions and other live tracks).

quoted 11 lines Jon Drukman said once upon a time:

>Jon Drukman said once upon a time: > >>when i talked to paul hartnoll he said that their live show was based >>around two MMT-8's (8 track hardware sequencers). basically they mixed >>patterns back and forth. however, to my ears, it sounded identical to the >>album versions. so the only value add was hearing it incredibly loud and >>watching their glasses-mounted headlights. whooppee. > >Ahh, but Jon, we that OWN Orbital material realized that the live versions >were quite a bit different than the album versions (but not too much different >than Peel sessions and other live tracks).

Another part of the reason Orbital sounded so good during the Aphex/Orbital tour of 93 was that the guy who did sound on the brown album, and also on MBM's Satyricon, was doing sound during the tour... q When they here of the way, The Highest minds practice it; The average minds think about it And try it now and then; The lowest minds laugh at it. If they did not laugh at it, It would not be the way. - Lao-tse - ( From "The Tao of Pooh" )