179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

Re: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally

4 messages · 4 participants · spans 2 days · search this subject
2000-03-10 01:48j.d. (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
└─ 2000-03-10 11:28Galen Beals RE: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
2000-03-10 02:06Brock Suter Re: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
2000-03-11 19:24Kurt B. Pruenner Re: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2000-03-10 01:48j.d.The gear thing is all relative. All the environments, filters and 4-pole dsp wankmobiles i
From:
j.d.
To:
Date:
Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:48:36 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:
(idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
permalink · <Pine.GSO.4.21.0003100105400.29411-100000@tilion.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
The gear thing is all relative. All the environments, filters and 4-pole dsp wankmobiles in the world don't mean nothing if there's no musical substance to what you're doing with them. If you take a dead rat, spray it gold, embed it in a perspex block, and put strobes blinking at 140bpm on top of it, call it "Jeff", make a million, sell them all, the fundamental truth is that you're still presenting people with...a dead rat. Pet Rock, anyone? I also think this is a problem with a lot of really commercialised stuff...I'm thinking here of stuff like David Holmes, who I heard recently for the first time. I just didn't get it. It just sounded like a fairly decent old band from the 60s biffing away with a few samples on top. But I didn't get any sense of atmosphere or menace or anything from it. Just a dead rat. Whereas FSOL's Dead Cities album is, IMO, a real masterpiece. I can't envision sequencers when I listen to that. It just seems whole and complete, and somehow organic, maybe cause of the way elements happen in it and then sort of collapse. Likewise, the Richard D James album, or the Christian Fennesz record I've heard - the one with the really cryptic map location for a title, that comes in a little muslin bag... I, as a vaguely gifted amateur - definitely a future staff writer! - am as guilty of Pointless Track Syndrome as anyone else - though I don't want to sound *too* sanctimonious - but I think I saw something where Sean from Autechre said "you need to turn the screen off sometimes - it's the only way to tell how much you've actually got there". I concur. The software sequencers (logic, cubase, etc) lend a visual element to the producer that's completely lost to the audience. It makes everything far more interesting for the writer, with all that eye candy. And one plus of having a "real" synth - or one that is physically separate from your PC, rather - is that you can fool around with it and find stuff without slipping into the "Ok, now I'm going to write a track" frame of mind that often sees you program in two bars of beat, some nonplussed chords, and not really get anywhere in the process. I think you know the kind of thing I mean. And if you want to hear a prime example of something that really *isn't* a Pointless Meandering Track, sit down with SAW 85-92 sometime and really *listen* to track 2, Tha. All the muting and chopping and changeing that's going on there, within the track, barely discernible, because it's just so soothing...but it really does make a difference; of course it does. It's why Tha doesn't sound like Cubase cycling over and over - even if it is... But enough of this. There are people on the list out of the loop entirely on this thread, and that doesn't really seem fair. So I'll just close by asking this: "Hey, has anyone seen those ads for an album on Grand Royal, the Beastie Boys' label, called "At Home With The Groovebox?". It seems like they've just given John McEntire, Buffalo Daughter, and various other luminaries a Roland MC-505 for a couple of days and got them to make tracks on it." Oh shit, that's going to turn into another gear thread. No, forget it... (smile) Have fun, j.d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-03-10 11:28Galen Beals-----Original Message----- From: j.d. [mailto:cs92jd@eim.surrey.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, March
From:
Galen Beals
To:
Date:
Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:28:20 -0000
Subject:
RE: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
Reply to:
(idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
permalink · <NDBBKEGPIGHEMBNFKHBDEEMACAAA.galenb@vinton.com>
-----Original Message----- From: j.d. [mailto:cs92jd@eim.surrey.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 1:49 AM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally <The gear thing is all relative. All the environments, filters and 4-pole dsp wankmobiles in the world don't mean nothing if there's no musical substance to what you're doing with them.> No one is arguing that. That's completely true. <If you take a dead rat, spray it gold, embed it in a perspex block, and put strobes blinking at 140bpm on top of it, call it "Jeff", make a million, sell them all, the fundamental truth is that you're still presenting people with...a dead rat. Pet Rock, anyone?> This is very perplexing. What you say is mostly true in a logical sense... But, Isn't one of our goals as humans to be able to see beyond the box or frame? To be able to make decisions and form our own opinions about what something is. I mean what you are saying is that nothing is ever anything more or ever means more then what it's physical form implies? I don't feel that way at all. To me Art is what you the viewer accepts as art. This applies to music as well. Literally, thousands of people all over the world think that the Back Street Boys are great. I personally can't stand them at all. Or even closer to home, I love Autechre's EP7. Most people I have talked to, can't stand it at all. I guess what I'm trying to say is that It's all a matter of taste. Don't sweat what is or isn't art. <I also think this is a problem with a lot of really commercialised stuff...I'm thinking here of stuff like David Holmes, who I heard recently for the first time. I just didn't get it. It just sounded like a fairly decent old band from the 60s biffing away with a few samples on top. But I didn't get any sense of atmosphere or menace or anything from it. Just a dead rat. Whereas FSOL's Dead Cities album is, IMO, a real masterpiece. I can't envision sequencers when I listen to that. It just seems whole and complete, and somehow organic, maybe cause of the way elements happen in it and then sort of collapse. Likewise, the Richard D James album, or the Christian Fennesz record I've heard - the one with the really cryptic map location for a title, that comes in a little muslin bag...> Ok. I haven't heard David Holmes. But, I can say that some music is just not meant to be listened to by everyone. I wouldn't go recommending music you just anyone. I'd have to know a little about what they like. And even then, I still don't think people would really like it. I know a guy who loves Richard D. James album and so do I. But, He likes it for all he weird Sexual references where as I like for the awkward sounding melodies. When I first heard it, it was those parts that he played for me and I thought, 'what the hell is this?' After a while I got past that and started listening to the music and got something totally different. It's not that it's crap, it's just that it's not for you. Not bad or good... Just not what you like. <I, as a vaguely gifted amateur - definitely a future staff writer! - am as guilty of Pointless Track Syndrome as anyone else - though I don't want to sound *too* sanctimonious - but I think I saw something where Sean from Autechre said "you need to turn the screen off sometimes - it's the only way to tell how much you've actually got there". I concur. > Yeah, I agree too. It's weird how that works. It's like an optical illusion or something. Keep in mind that Autechre also understands that the computer is still a powerful tool and they obviously use them. You know something strange is that I think it's due to the way many sequencers visually represent a song as blocks that extend from left to right. Which is the way that you would expect it to work and, for most people, it does. But, I have been messing around in a program called "Buzz" that goes from top to bottom. I know this sound ridicules but I have actually heard a marked improvement in my compositional skills. It reminds me of the way I used to program drum machines like my old little Dr Rhythm. I'm not sure why though. <The software sequencers (logic, cubase, etc) lend a visual element to the producer that's completely lost to the audience. It makes everything far more interesting for the writer, with all that eye candy.> Yep. Same as above. Visual representations of music have been the topic of many flame wars. <And one plus of having a "real" synth - or one that is physically separate from your PC, rather - is that you can fool around with it and find stuff without slipping into the "Ok, now I'm going to write a track" frame of mind that often sees you program in two bars of beat, some nonplussed chords, and not really get anywhere in the process. I think you know the kind of thing I mean. > I wish you guys would use the word "Outboard" or "hardware" synth instead of "real". Anyway, I sort of agree with that. I wouldn't say that it's really the computer's fault Or that it's any easier on a outboard synth. I think it's just that when you are presented with a arrange or track window, we tend to think that way. We tend to think "OK I have to record something now." I know my problem is that I need to spend more time messing around with melodies before I start recording. But That applies to hardware and software synths alike. I have also found that VST instruments have better enabled me to do that because they act more like . I also think the problem is that terrible loop button. I think for composing music, setting a short loop can completely destroy your creativity. I have found it better to start recording and just mess around with different parts contiguously. Then, go back and loop parts that I like. That's just one way to do it though. <And if you want to hear a prime example of something that really *isn't* a Pointless Meandering Track, sit down with SAW 85-92 sometime and really *listen* to track 2, Tha. All the muting and chopping and changeing that's going on there, within the track, barely discernible, because it's just so soothing...but it really does make a difference; of course it does. It's why Tha doesn't sound like Cubase cycling over and over - even if it is...> Duh... What? Who are you talking about? I'm totally out of the loop here. But yeah, looping again. <Have fun, j.d.> Cheers, -=GB=- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-03-10 02:06Brock SuterNice post j.d. http://www.grandroyal.com/groovebox/index.html brock ----------------------
From:
Brock Suter
To:
Date:
Thu, 09 Mar 2000 18:06:23 -0800
Subject:
Re: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
permalink · <38C8589F.7562384A@alchemyfx.com>
Nice post j.d. http://www.grandroyal.com/groovebox/index.html brock --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-03-11 19:24Kurt B. PruennerGalen Beals wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: j.d. [mailto:cs92jd@eim.surrey.ac.
From:
Kurt B. Pruenner
To:
Date:
Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:24:11 +0100
Subject:
Re: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally
permalink · <38CA9D5B.52C0794B@gmx.at>
Galen Beals wrote:
quoted 13 lines -----Original Message-----> -----Original Message----- > From: j.d. [mailto:cs92jd@eim.surrey.ac.uk] > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 1:49 AM > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: (idm) Gear vs. imagination, literally > You know something strange is that I think it's due to the way many > sequencers visually represent a song as blocks that extend from left to > right. Which is the way that you would expect it to work and, for most > people, it does. But, I have been messing around in a program called "Buzz" > that goes from top to bottom. I know this sound ridicules but I have > actually heard a marked improvement in my compositional skills. It reminds > me of the way I used to program drum machines like my old little Dr Rhythm. > I'm not sure why though.
Well, no wonder BUZZ's patterns and the sequencer go from top to bottom - after all, it's a very beefed up tracker; just take a look at FastTracker 2, ScreamTracker or Impulse Tracker - all of them look somewhat similar... =) (And this is not to dis Buzz - hell, it's a freeware project -okay, with optional registration to make you feel all warm & fuzzy ^_^- with quite a lot of people hacking together generators and effects... hey, I use it almost exclusively right now! :) -- Kurt B Pruenner Haendelstrasse 17 4020 Linz/AUSTRIA http://www.mp3.com/Leak np: David Holmes - Shake Ya Brain (This Films Crap Lets Slash The Seats) (Oh, by the way Galen - _which_ David Holmes tracks did you hear? "No Mans Land" from this disc is _sooo_ gorgeous...) WARP Records http://www.warprecords.com/ BUZZ 1&2 http://www.buzz2.com/ User Friendly http://www.userfriendly.org/ Segfault http://www.segfault.org/ Anime On DVD http://www.animeondvd.com/ Slashdot http://www.slashdot.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org