IDM Mailing Archive

Now see here. If I were to do a recording as a music artist, I would certainly intend for someone to get a specific kind of listening experience out of it (even if it were me, which, if I were to record music, it surely would be), and for this I would set a certain tempo and pitch to my music at which it would be played back in order to acheive the desired effect. This would in my opinion be counteracted by playing back the recording at half speed or 118x speed or whatever... while it would make for some neat fuel for Cagean musique concrete. But hey, the point is, don't have debates here over what sounds better when played at what speed... it's ok if you want to pitch things in wierd ways, but you know, the songs weren't really designed that way, now were they?

| From: sugatis@inreach.inreach.com (Sugatis) | | it's ok if you want to pitch things in wierd ways, but you know, | the songs weren't really designed that way, now were they? That's a good question. If I were listening to your release(s) [Sugatis], then the answer is YES: they are intended to be interpreted at the speed they were intended, even if high-speed mastering were used during recording. However, I am not certain that RDJ intends for his music to be listened to at a predetermined rate. I've not had the pleasure of hearing him spin, but as a DJ, wouldn't it be possible that the Twin might intend for his music to be listened to over a range of pitches/rates? He is certainly aware of pitchable turntables, and might even notice that an unreleased song of his sounds good with the sequencer set anywhere from 100 to 140 bpm. Perhaps 33 1/3 or 45 rpm is just a choice to set the default rate and allow maximum freedom to alter the pitch. Food for thought, anyway. As an example, I didn't hear much difference between the afx fast mix and afx slow mix of time to find me by seefeel. When I play the afx slow mix at 45 rpm, it has a jungle flavor, as if "slow" means that the 33 1/3 rpm on the label is too "slow" for that song and 45 rpm is how it was intended. For now, I can only guess. On that note, there are some electronic artists who have been hoping to get technology into the home which is much more advanced than today's CD player. These artists hope to provide raw tracks and sounds on CD with a default mix or two which arranges those sounds. People with simpler players would only hear the standard song, but people who have knowledge of the advanced features could get into the mix and drop tracks completely out, make tonal changes, perhaps even rearrange the song entirely. With new technology being developed that holds 16 times as much information on the same CD, this could really work. I'll admit that these artists are on the creative edge of music, but so are most IDM artists. In any event, there will always be artists who have specific intentions for their music. There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion - it just illustrates that there are as many ways to create music as there are styles of music which happen to share common creation techniques. Brian Willoughby

one upon a tom in a far off distant land, Sugatis told the sea:

quoted 2 lines it's ok if you want to pitch things in wierd ways, but you know, the songs

>it's ok if you want to pitch things in wierd ways, but you know, the songs >>weren't really designed that way, now were they?

well, i don't think guitar, or voices, or I IV V were *designed* to be recorded backwards, either, but it sure sounds good sometimes, doesn't it? john lennon obviously thought so. i don't think quentin tarantino meant to have ezekiel 25:17 (sp?) incorporated into a jungle track either, but to some artists it sounded appropriate. regardless of my 4am analogies, when an artist releases something to be consumed/evaluated to the public, they allow it to be open to different interpretations. mixing tracks together or playing the music at the wrong speed is one person's way of interpreting a song. music or art isn't 'designed' for any singular holy purpose. it's what you individually make of it. obidm: finally obtained the 'tri repetae' 2cd package and it's yum-yum-yummy. i'm not sure if i like it as much as 'amber,' but it's still autechre, it's still crunchy, and i like it a lot anyway. anyone want to buy a garbage ep? $6 ppd. *sigh* thinking about bringing the old 16(?)-33-45-78rpm magnavox to school to try out labradford on it, .joanna. --- joroses@mail.utexas.edu http://piglet.cc.utexas.edu/~joanna | () | <-- protect free speech online | /\ | <-- http://www.eff.org/BlueRibbon/activism.html

At 01:11 AM 3/22/96 -0800, Sugatis wrote:

quoted 11 lines Now see here. If I were to do a recording as a music artist, I would

>Now see here. If I were to do a recording as a music artist, I would >certainly intend for someone to get a specific kind of listening experience >out of it (even if it were me, which, if I were to record music, it surely >would be), and for this I would set a certain tempo and pitch to my music >at which it would be played back in order to acheive the desired effect. >This would in my opinion be counteracted by playing back the recording at >half speed or 118x speed or whatever... while it would make for some neat >fuel for Cagean musique concrete. But hey, the point is, don't have debates >here over what sounds better when played at what speed... it's ok if you >want to pitch things in wierd ways, but you know, the songs weren't really >designed that way, now were they?

But with that you're also throwing outa da window all DJs and their great work which mostly involves doing to songs what was not ment to be done. Let's just accept the fact that once a piece of art is given to public it will be always twisted beyond recognizion but that's what makes the world go round. Regs, snowjob@actcom.co.il The Morpheus Equation: Start + Middle + End = Sand

Sugatis <sugatis@inreach.inreach.com> :it's ok if you want to pitch things in wierd ways, but you know, :the songs weren't really designed that way, now were they? Remember how much electronic music is sold to the DJ audience, which depends on pitch adjustment to make things like beatmatching possible. When you press something on vinyl, you're _inviting_ people to fold it, backspin it, speed it up, slow it down, get their fingers all greasy in the grooves, and just generally _fuck_ with it. - in pursuit of the magical "third record" (props to Mad Mike), d.w. [lover of vinyl & them shiny aluminum things too] on now: Tri Repetae TVT CD doublepak (finally)

quoted 10 lines well, i don't think guitar, or voices, or I IV V were *designed* to be

>well, i don't think guitar, or voices, or I IV V were *designed* to be >recorded backwards, either, but it sure sounds good sometimes, doesn't it? >john lennon obviously thought so. i don't think quentin tarantino meant to >have ezekiel 25:17 (sp?) incorporated into a jungle track either, but to >some artists it sounded appropriate. regardless of my 4am analogies, when >an artist releases something to be consumed/evaluated to the public, they >allow it to be open to different interpretations. mixing tracks together or >playing the music at the wrong speed is one person's way of interpreting a >song. music or art isn't 'designed' for any singular holy purpose. it's >what you individually make of it.

Precisely. While arguably the whole of techno music as it is in the modern age rests on the ability to take something that already exists (a record, a sound, a sample) and transform it, via technology, into something entirely new, or to use instruments in ways never "intended" by their designers (example: tb303); I was merely stating that records do have speeds that they were "designed" to be played at regardless, and if someone were to ask for such a speed, were it not printed on the record, we shouldn't all get into fights over which one "sounds better" in replying to such a person, as was the case recently. Which speed sounds better is an entirely subjective issue, I would think, whereas the actual speed of the recording would be a purely objective one. I am not opposed to playing records at whatever speed, backwards, sideways, etc. for creative purposes (I do realise fully that this is the very essence of the art of dj'ing, and that's great, fine, alright), or cos it sounds better or whatever... if that were the case, I wouldn't be into this kind of music, now, would I? I'd be some trad rocker or jazz purist or something... ugh. You are right when you say it is whatever you make of it. Classical music does and has alays been interpreted individually by its conductors who speed it up, slow it down, modify it, turn it backwards (jus kidding), and do al sorts of "unintended" things... kind of like what dj's do now, eh?