IDM Mailing Archive

On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:12:18 -0800 (PST), jsd@gamespot.com wrote...

quoted 5 lines siliconvortex wrote this:

>siliconvortex wrote this: >> and besides, there's a lot to be said for nasty metallic reverbs - >> if king tubby were around, he'd be able to explain better than i > >no no no no... he used tape delay!

King Tubby used old nasty metallic reverbs as well. He used many different spring and chamber reverbs in alot of his productions. Some homemade, some not.

quoted 3 lines the irony

> the irony >now is that a good tape delay can cost many hundreds of >bucks... almost enough to buy a good lexicon digital unit...

Well, i dunno about that. A decent tape delay can easily be had for under $200 without much effort. That might get you close to a low end LXP unit, but just barely. And why buy a lexicon if you want a tape delay? OR Vise-versa for that matter?

quoted 2 lines the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of

>the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of >expensive gear.

There is something to be said for that to be sure. But of course there is also something to be said about making great music with an empty room except for a few inexpensive pieces of gear. I respect good music if it is made in hans Zimmer's studio or with Licoln Logs and a mic. 8)

quoted 6 lines in a lot of people's records these days, it's the unintentional, the

>> in a lot of people's records these days, it's the unintentional, the >> background fizz and clips, that are more interesting than the >> composed music itself > >these people should give up and learn how to write proper tunes then, >dammit. :)

Ha! Don't let DJ Slip hear you say that. 8) Rob Williams</>fEEd</>Tempest rw@goldengate.net</>tempest@hyperreal.org

quoted 3 lines something to be said about making great music with an empty room except for a

> something to be said about making great music with an empty room except for a > few inexpensive pieces of gear. I respect good music if it is made in hans > Zimmer's studio or with Licoln Logs and a mic. 8)

This may be slightly off-topic, but it's certainly relevant if it sparks someone's imagination when trying to come up with that next killer sound. You all remember the classic TIE Fighter roar from the Star Wars movies, right? Well... wanna know how they did it? The two components of that unforgettable sound are the following: - An elephant screaming - The tires of a car whisping by on a wet road I found this out at the Star Wars exhibit at the Air & Space museum in Wash D.C. last week. I was totally impressed with how creative the sound designers were back then. Of course, they weren't all creative... some were lucky too. For instance, the humming sound of the lightsabers came from an unintentional bumping of a microphone. The mic fell behind an old TV set that was turned on, and created a humming sound in the speaker. Much like the humming sound you hear when a lightsaber swooshes through the air. -- jr

quoted 1 line . "reverb's great if you know how to use it..."

>>. "reverb's great if you know how to use it..."

quoted 3 lines having just purchased a lexicon pcm90 (rather expensive box that does

>having just purchased a lexicon pcm90 (rather expensive box that does >only reverb) i have seen the problem - most people have cheap reverbs >with nasty metallic gunky algorithms.

but your lexicon costs more than many people's whole setups. and besides, there's a lot to be said for nasty metallic reverbs - if king tubby were around, he'd be able to explain better than i

quoted 3 lines with the lexicon i can have

>with the lexicon i can have >huge cavernous whipery angelic reverbs that go on and on for days yet >don't clog up the mix. the difference is truly amazing.

no-one needs a lexicon! how many people out there have genuinely advanced with their music by buying really expensive gear? i can think of many people where it has ruined what made them good. those who have the talent to make music that people want to hear can do it on anything, regardless of cost or sophistication. those who do not, we generally find spending more and more money, surrounding themselves with complicated gear, while their music becomes more two dimensional, less human, more sterile, until no-one at all takes any notice of them, and they give up. the classified section of your favourite music magazine is full of failed musicians selling their expensive studios.

quoted 2 lines a lot of it comes down to engineering. distortion sounds good and

>a lot of it comes down to engineering. distortion sounds good and >hard and also covers up bad engineering.

some of the more interesting musical ideas in the past have come from mistakes - why should we always avoid bad engineering? in a lot of people's records these days, it's the unintentional, the background fizz and clips, that are more interesting than the composed music itself, or at least, give the composed music the character that makes it what it is. taking all the chaotic elements away from your production will almost always make it bland and a useless piece of plastic. 'over-production'

quoted 1 line using it right is a tricky business.

>using it right is a tricky business.

what's right today is invariably wrong tomorrow. it's much better to be 'different' than 'right'. it's best not to have too much control.

quoted 1 line i like to contrast distorted layers with super squeaky clean layers.

>i like to contrast distorted layers with super squeaky clean layers.

nice concept (never thought of that one before) but how long will it last?? ;-D

quoted 1 line all of one thing is like cake without frosting.

>all of one thing is like cake without frosting.

eating frosted cake all the time is bound to land you with an upset stomach - a varied distortion diet is what you need <waves> np - what about this love - larry heard

siliconvortex wrote this:

quoted 1 line but your lexicon costs more than many people's whole setups.

> but your lexicon costs more than many people's whole setups.

so. if you're not prepared to spend tons of dough you don't belong in the electronic music biz. :)

quoted 2 lines and besides, there's a lot to be said for nasty metallic reverbs -

> and besides, there's a lot to be said for nasty metallic reverbs - > if king tubby were around, he'd be able to explain better than i

no no no no... he used tape delay! WORLD of difference. the irony now is that a good tape delay can cost many hundreds of bucks... almost enough to buy a good lexicon digital unit... (totally different sounds of course... i would kill for a nice Space Echo.)

quoted 1 line no-one needs a lexicon!

> no-one needs a lexicon!

no one needs a sampler either but it makes some things easier.

quoted 6 lines those who have the talent to make music that people want to hear can do it

> those who have the talent to make music that people want to hear can do it > on anything, regardless of cost or sophistication. those who do not, we > generally find spending more and more money, surrounding themselves with > complicated gear, while their music becomes more two dimensional, less > human, more sterile, until no-one at all takes any notice of them, and they > give up.

the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of expensive gear. it is easy to spot those who are overwhelmed by their gear list.

quoted 2 lines the classified section of your favourite music magazine is full of

> the classified section of your favourite music magazine is full of > failed musicians selling their expensive studios.

heh, most of the people i find selling stuff like lexicon pcm90s for half off retail are either junkies trying to score a fix or gigging musicians trying to make the rent. my friend bought a drum machine off some kid on haight st who was clearly jonesing

quoted 2 lines some of the more interesting musical ideas in the past have come from

> some of the more interesting musical ideas in the past have come from > mistakes - why should we always avoid bad engineering?

i didn't say we should. i just said a lot of people use distortion to hide the fact that they don't know how to make a clear mix.

quoted 3 lines in a lot of people's records these days, it's the unintentional, the

> in a lot of people's records these days, it's the unintentional, the > background fizz and clips, that are more interesting than the > composed music itself

these people should give up and learn how to write proper tunes then, dammit. :)

quoted 2 lines what's right today is invariably wrong tomorrow. it's much better to be

> what's right today is invariably wrong tomorrow. it's much better to be > 'different' than 'right'. it's best not to have too much control.

difference of philosophy. for me, music is *all* about control. if i introduce a chance element it's cos i WANT it there, not because i don't know how to work my gear. note that i am not talking about systems music and algorithmic composition. i like that stuff and will happily set up systems or whatever. but the end result is because i MEANT for that sound to be there, one way or the other. -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan: Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.

Okay, this has been boiling up for a bit.

quoted 2 lines how many people out there have genuinely advanced with their music by

>how many people out there have genuinely advanced with their music by >buying really expensive gear?

I have, definitely. Getting the MAC with SCSI to transfer the sounds and program the Akai was the best thing I could have done. Programming the Akai to do a single track used to take 12 solid hours of button pushing. It's more like two now. It's all about control. If you want your machines to write your music for you, than stick with a simple setup with fewer variables. Some of us seek more complexity...

quoted 1 line those who have the talent to make music that people want to hear...

>those who have the talent to make music that people want to hear...

I'm gonna cut you (whoever) off right there. The music that PEOPLE want to hear. That statement is so incredibly absurd that there is no correct rebuttal. None of the music you listen to was made with you in mind. If so, than it's COMPLETELY INVALID by the standard definition. Good music is ultimately made by one keeping his own sense of aesthetic as the ultimate guideline. I'm assuming we're all referring to with our beloved "IDM' something post-dancefloor. Agreed, club tunes have to have a crowd pleasing element, but all of that stuff is made with more equipment than the average twiddler has, and DEFINITELY keeps high, traditional, production values in mind. Besides, the background anomalies that occur with a four-track setup are rarely heard through a PA, unless you're lucky...

quoted 7 lines ...can do it

>...can do it >on anything, regardless of cost or sophistication. those who do not, we >generally find spending more and >more money, surrounding themselves with >complicated gear, while their music becomes more two >dimensional, less >human, more sterile, until no-one at all takes any notice of them, and >they give up. the >classified section of your favourite music magazine is >full of failed musicians selling their expensive >studios.

I also have visions of these aging former bar-band fronts who've chosen to redefine themselves w/o a clue towards current music trends. They (the want-ad ad folks) are mostly trying to recreate vintage Who songs for mall-presentation, not record Skam Ep's anyway. But technology making someone less-dimensional! That also is absurd. It's common for someone to acquire a boatload of gear and be mystified enough to sell it in a short while, but those who spend the hours it takes to learn the architecture of their machines WILL BE REWARDED with a million more options that will make their ideas easier to come to fruition. Less Human! Distortion is human? Sterile? I don't understand how using higher technology, which ideally allows infinite layers of clarity over a more modest setup, equals sterile. Last I checked, complexity was more of a sexy, fertile thing...

quoted 2 lines a lot of it comes down to engineering. distortion sounds good and hard

>>a lot of it comes down to engineering. distortion sounds good and hard >>and also covers up bad engineering.

the use of distortion is one of thousands of engineering tricks. If the use of one singular effect defines the entirety of your style, you are a one-trick-pony. There's a lot more to any of it than any one element of production.

quoted 2 lines some of the more interesting musical ideas in the past have come from

>some of the more interesting musical ideas in the past have come from >mistakes - why should we always avoid bad engineering?

We shouldn't. Either way, you just spent the greater part of your argument legitimizing the use of the distortion, only to deem it 'bad engineering'

quoted 1 line in a lot of people's records these days,

>in a lot of people's records these days,

quoted 1 line it's the unintentional,

>it's the unintentional,

always?

quoted 1 line the background fizz and clips,

>the background fizz and clips,

surely not part of the composition from the concept stage.

quoted 1 line that are more interesting than the composed music itself,

>that are more interesting than the composed music itself,

composed music? Sounds being part of the composed music? Never...

quoted 1 line or at least, give the composed music the character that makes it what it is.

>or at least, give the composed music the character that makes it what it is.

The overall sound makes it what it is. What comes out of your speaker when you touch the stylus to the vinyl, including the pop. If the composer hasn't thought that through...

quoted 2 lines taking all the chaotic elements away from your production will almost

>taking all the chaotic elements away from your production will almost >always make it bland and a useless piece of plastic. 'over-production'

Enough. then...

quoted 1 line but your lexicon costs more than many people's whole setups.

>> but your lexicon costs more than many people's whole setups.

quoted 2 lines so. if you're not prepared to spend tons of dough you don't belong in

>so. if you're not prepared to spend tons of dough you don't belong in >the electronic music biz. :)

True, but not true. You can also tweak thousands (but not millions) of sound varieties out of a Casiotone with built in sequencer. It would beat out the records that strain to achieve that level of innocence. But you don't necessarily have to go through a 'simple' phase to truly understand 'complexity'. That's like saying you need to know how to orchestrate for a chamber group to make drum n' bass tracks. Albeit, it helps...

quoted 2 lines and besides, there's a lot to be said for nasty metallic reverbs -

>> and besides, there's a lot to be said for nasty metallic reverbs - >> if king tubby were around, he'd be able to explain better than i

quoted 4 lines no no no no... he used tape delay! WORLD of difference. the irony

>no no no no... he used tape delay! WORLD of difference. the irony >now is that a good tape delay can cost many hundreds of >bucks... almost enough to buy a good lexicon digital unit... (totally >different sounds of course... i would kill for a nice Space Echo.)

Sorry, afraid the >> is right. It's the plate reverbs that give Tubby the edge. He'd kick it along in time with the bass drum; his signature 'BOOM'.

quoted 3 lines the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of

>the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of >expensive gear. it is easy to spot those who are overwhelmed by their >gear list.

True.

quoted 2 lines these people should give up and learn how to write proper tunes then,

>these people should give up and learn how to write proper tunes then, >dammit. :)

No.

quoted 6 lines difference of philosophy. for me, music is *all* about control. if i

>difference of philosophy. for me, music is *all* about control. if i >introduce a chance element it's cos i WANT it there, not because i >don't know how to work my gear. note that i am not talking about >systems music and algorithmic composition. i like that stuff and will >happily set up systems or whatever. but the end result is because i >MEANT for that sound to be there, one way or the other.

Yes, that's it. Anyways, anyone who had the chance to use the million dollar setup to have greater control over what distorts and what doesn't, would use it right? -Hrvåtski. np: MLO-Son of sam (Twisted Science mix). To me, this sounds incredibly high-fidelity. Anomalies or not. __________________________________________________ Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge.________________________ _________________________________PO Box 382864-2864 Cambridge, MA 02238-2864____________________________ _______________________________________________USA _______________Main URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/sheket __________________________________________________

quoted 1 line Okay, this has been boiling up for a bit.

>Okay, this has been boiling up for a bit.

<whistle> let the bubbling bile flow!

quoted 2 lines how many people out there have genuinely advanced with their music by

>how many people out there have genuinely advanced with their music by >buying really expensive gear?

quoted 2 lines I have, definitely. Getting the MAC with SCSI to transfer the sounds and

>I have, definitely. Getting the MAC with SCSI to transfer the sounds and >program the Akai was the best thing I could have done.

this kind of gear wasn't really the focus of what i was saying - i was sort of talking about high-quality gear, as in low noise, high bandwidth blah blah, not so much about new tools, which are a more valid way of spending your cash, but still, not something you HAVE to have..

quoted 5 lines Programming the Akai

>Programming the Akai >to do a single track used to take 12 solid hours of button pushing. It's >more like two now. It's all about control. If you want your machines to >write your music for you, than stick with a simple setup with fewer >variables. Some of us seek more complexity...

i know what you're saying, but really it's just made your job easier, not improved the potential of your music has it? maybe if you're lazy, yes.. :-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum machine for sequencing and a 12 bit akai sampler, then for anyone who has the drive and determination to really do something, a setup such as yours (not that it's particularly expensive) isn't crucially important. i don't want to get to ground down in this argument (if you can call it that - it's more like two strains of twisted logic occasionally crashing together!) - it's horses for courses. if you have the money, fine, spend it if you want. if you don't (hands up) then it's no big loss. you only get out of your machines what you put into them, and don't be surprised if little johnny and his 4 track take the world by storm. with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously achieve a wider variety of sonic delights and other such things. but is this all that is important about music? can we not listen to music in a deeper sense? is it a good thing if the whole scene becomes one big technological race? where does it end? there's only so much information a human brain can process before information is lost..

quoted 1 line those who have the talent to make music that people want to hear...

>those who have the talent to make music that people want to hear...

quoted 4 lines I'm gonna cut you (whoever) off right there. The music that PEOPLE want to

>I'm gonna cut you (whoever) off right there. The music that PEOPLE want to >hear. That statement is so incredibly absurd that there is no correct >rebuttal. None of the music you listen to was made with you in mind. If so, >than it's COMPLETELY INVALID by the standard definition.

right, everyone stay indoors while we shut down the music industry, in that case. it's quite simple - i hear a record, i like it, THAT IS MUSIC THAT I WANT TO HEAR.

quoted 1 line I'm assuming we're all referring to with our beloved "IDM'

>I'm assuming we're all referring to with our beloved "IDM'

i'm not prepared to lay down the ground rules as strictly as this. there is no such thing as idm, apart from the rotten core of unoriginal producers with no imagination. it is the outer fringe, those not afraid to use whatever ideas they want, who are willing to work with any kind of influences, who make the interesting music and, in turn, influence others. with those people, we are simply talking about MUSIC and nothing so shallow as a set of stylistic rules.

quoted 1 line something post-dancefloor.

>something post-dancefloor.

there are a LOT of dancefloors on this planet, and they are NOT all the same.

quoted 1 line Agreed, club tunes have to have a crowd pleasing element

>Agreed, club tunes have to have a crowd pleasing element

the whole world is a club, your living room is a club, the street outside a 'club' is a club in exactly the same way, so there is no such thing as 'club music' in the way you put it. all music that is put on a disc and sold in a shop has to have a crowd pleasing element. it is made to be heard and enjoyed, otherwise it would not be put on fucking discs and sold in shops, and bought by us. no-one buys music that they don't like, therefore music that no-one likes doesn't sell, therefore it may as well not exist, except in the mind of the person who creates it, and maybe not even there if that person doesn't even like it themselves. this 'non-commercial' ethos concerning idm is just the biggest load of hot air - idm music is commercial in exactly the same way as any other section of the music industry is - please stop deluding yourselves cult-freaks and fashion-slaves! people make music, other people like it, and they buy it. it's the same across the board. experimental music is no different - experimental music is a market where the listeners WANT to hear something different - the experiment is a success if people LIKE it - because that is the only reason for the music to be there in the first place. taking your argument to it's conclusion, we could arrive at the classic arsehole's motto - 'if lots of people like it, it must be rubbish'. a lot of the time we may find that to be true for ourselves, but it is no way to live your life. it's destructive, and has nothing to do with music. labels who say "[we] will Never press more than 500 copies of our 12"s, we will also support underground retailers by selling in direct to them and Refusing to let the capitilist Pigs who run chain stores [both independant and mainstream] get their hands on our records" /are/ the biggest capitalists, who know that the way to sell lots of records (after the corporate licensing deal) is to create (and publicise) a limited supply, which has the effect of building up demand for their product amongst the impressionable kids to a level much higher than if they had actually pressed enough of their product to meet the demand in the first place. there have been those who did this and did not sell out, but what could their motive have been except to keep their precious art out of the hands of people who they consider a lower class than themselves (thus destroying their illusion that they are somehow more intelligent than the common scum who don't really understand the music (!!) and forcing them to tunnel deeper into underground-ness), or simply to be a cult icon, a face in a magazine or a t-shirt. in other words, these people are egomaniacs who never progressed socially beyond childhood.

quoted 1 line But technology making someone less-dimensional! That also is absurd.

>But technology making someone less-dimensional! That also is absurd.

no it's not. this is much too expansive a subject to write about off the cuff as i am doing here, but i would say that looking at technology as the way to solve your problems, in this case, musical, is simply side stepping the issue. if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say that by simply piling up the gear, piling up the options, piling up the sounds, is going to make your music worthwhile? nothing! would it make the music worse? i would say that more often than not, it will! you'll just end up with 48 tracks of crap instead of 8! no-one wants to hear a boring bastard hammering away on expensive gear - it's a waste of the musician's money as well as the listener's time!

quoted 1 line but your lexicon costs more than many people's whole setups.

>> but your lexicon costs more than many people's whole setups.

quoted 2 lines so. if you're not prepared to spend tons of dough you don't belong in

>so. if you're not prepared to spend tons of dough you don't belong in >the electronic music biz. :)

quoted 3 lines True, but not true. You can also tweak thousands (but not millions) of

>True, but not true. You can also tweak thousands (but not millions) of >sound varieties out of a Casiotone with built in sequencer. It would beat >out the records that strain to achieve that level of innocence.

is anyone innocent in this day and age? everyone seems to think that they know everything ;-)

quoted 2 lines Anyways, anyone who had the chance to use the million dollar setup to have

>Anyways, anyone who had the chance to use the million dollar setup to have >greater control over what distorts and what doesn't, would use it right?

well i would. but i don't have a million dollars. and i'm not going to lose a minute of sleep over it. any millionaire musicians who would agree to let me have a go on their equipment should feel free to contact me.

quoted 2 lines the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of

>the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of >expensive gear.

i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try to forget that mere musicians actually made them. cos musicians are really pathetic people on the whole! <waves> np - behold this version - aggrovators / king tubby

siliconvortex wrote this:

quoted 4 lines this kind of gear wasn't really the focus of what i was saying - i was sort

> this kind of gear wasn't really the focus of what i was saying - i was sort > of talking about high-quality gear, as in low noise, high bandwidth blah > blah, not so much about new tools, which are a more valid way of spending > your cash, but still, not something you HAVE to have..

you don't HAVE to have anything. i don't think you can draw a distinction between the akai/mac combo and the lexicon anyway. they both make certain things easier. i could get a good reverb by recording my tracks in a cave or hallway... eg: the awesome drum loop from "god od" was recorded under a staircase in a school.

quoted 4 lines :-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum machine for

> :-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum machine for > sequencing and a 12 bit akai sampler, then for anyone who has the drive and > determination to really do something, a setup such as yours (not that it's > particularly expensive) isn't crucially important.

i respect tom's ability to a degree but his bad engineering really detracts from the experience, for me.

quoted 3 lines with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously achieve a

> with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously achieve a > wider variety of sonic delights and other such things. but is this all that > is important about music?

nobody said it was.

quoted 1 line can we not listen to music in a deeper sense?

> can we not listen to music in a deeper sense?

since music is an aural experience, it's really all about what goes in your ears. i don't know what other sense there is.

quoted 6 lines no it's not. this is much too expansive a subject to write about off the

> no it's not. this is much too expansive a subject to write about off the > cuff as i am doing here, but i would say that looking at technology as the > way to solve your problems, in this case, musical, is simply side stepping > the issue. if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say > that by simply piling up the gear, piling up the options, piling up the > sounds, is going to make your music worthwhile? nothing!

your argument pushed to the extreme says that you don't need an orchestra, you should be able to say what you want to say with a solo violin. i refute that. what i want to "say", musically, can't be expressed with one drum machine and one synth. does that make it more or less valid? i don't think so.

quoted 4 lines music worse? i would say that more often than not, it will! you'll just

> music worse? i would say that more often than not, it will! you'll just > end up with 48 tracks of crap instead of 8! no-one wants to hear a boring > bastard hammering away on expensive gear - it's a waste of the musician's > money as well as the listener's time!

right but surely you admit that it's possible that 48 tracks of expensive gear can sound good if used by talented individuals.

quoted 3 lines well i would. but i don't have a million dollars. and i'm not going to

> well i would. but i don't have a million dollars. and i'm not going to > lose a minute of sleep over it. any millionaire musicians who would agree > to let me have a go on their equipment should feel free to contact me.

i'm not a millionaire but you're welcome to muck about in my studio if you're ever in San Francisco.

quoted 6 lines the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of

> >the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full of > >expensive gear. > > i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try to > forget that mere musicians actually made them. cos musicians are really > pathetic people on the whole!

well you need to find some better musicians to hang around with then cos most of the ones i know are really great people. -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan: Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Random Junk wrote:

quoted 7 lines siliconvortex wrote this:

> siliconvortex wrote this: > > this kind of gear wasn't really the focus of what i was saying - i was sort > > of talking about high-quality gear, as in low noise, high bandwidth blah > > blah, not so much about new tools, which are a more valid way of spending > > your cash, but still, not something you HAVE to have.. > > you don't HAVE to have anything. i don't think you can draw a

This is really true, imo, as I've seen some amazing programming and eq'ing around the crappiest gear that sounds great in the end and doesn't have noise that mastering couldn't fix anyway. It is all in the programming, like what soundmaking potential a peice of gear is designed to do is really only 10% of the music-making issue compared to the potential for programming it in an interesting way (90% of the potential of the gear) Programming & Composition is really the thing that is neglected, whereas it should be 90% of what a electronic musician is doing. Most people I know are gear-shopping half of the time, basically procrastinating the time that they should spend staring at the little LCD's and pushing buttons.

quoted 2 lines i respect tom's ability to a degree but his bad engineering really

> i respect tom's ability to a degree but his bad engineering really > detracts from the experience, for me.

I agree, like that first Spymania is a frustrating listen about midway thru, but I keep listenning as the *programming* is just undeniably mental (my ears just have to suffer a little!)

quoted 5 lines with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously achieve a

> > with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously achieve a > > wider variety of sonic delights and other such things. but is this all that > > is important about music? > > nobody said it was.

I think it was implied that too many people spend too much time aquiring gear and not enough time programming it and that nobody challenges this common state of mind. For instance, how many people are really up to exploiting all of the functionality of Logic or Max; have they really done all that they can do with 1988's Cubase or Notator (ten year old programs) and is their composition so refined that they "need" those esoteric functions by the end of next week? Do I sound like I have a Puritan work ethic? |-/ (A: tough shit! |-l )

quoted 3 lines no it's not. this is much too expansive a subject to write about off the

> > no it's not. this is much too expansive a subject to write about off the > > cuff as i am doing here, but i would say that looking at technology as the > > way to solve your problems, in this case, musical, is simply side stepping

This is the crux of the argument, imo, buying into technology without pushing what boxes they've already got. It is like people buying bigger and better computers: have they even utilized 1/10th of the potential of their setups? Aren't they side-stepping the issue of developing their compositional skills and personal efficiency and discipline?

quoted 3 lines the issue. if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say

> > the issue. if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say > > that by simply piling up the gear, piling up the options, piling up the > > sounds, is going to make your music worthwhile? nothing!

quoted 3 lines violin. i refute that. what i want to "say", musically, can't be

> violin. i refute that. what i want to "say", musically, can't be > expressed with one drum machine and one synth. does that make it more > or less valid? i don't think so.

checking out a lot of gear can be great for finding out what tools work best for you, but I think the original post was criticizing people that jsut buy gear and then sit on their hands.

quoted 2 lines right but surely you admit that it's possible that 48 tracks of

> right but surely you admit that it's possible that 48 tracks of > expensive gear can sound good if used by talented individuals.

I admit this is possible, though rare. For instance, 808 State, who had a very layered sound on Ex:cel, used a pretty elaborate studio setup, but I think people like this work their way up (Massey started in '80), having learned how to exploit more minimal tools in the past. BTW: I don't mean to offend either Jon or siliconvortex, but I have a lot of experiences of meeting programmers w/ & w/o equipment to spot a definite pattern (based on what I subjectively think is good music). Recently hanging out with OST reminded me of what a couple of $150 Alesis units had, given creative brain behind them, and a bottle of Glenlivet scotch (cheers, Geoff!) Very humbling experience, actually... Solenoid solenoid@europa.com <------+

quoted 2 lines I For instance, how many people are really up to

>I For instance, how many people are really up to >exploiting all of the functionality of Logic or Max;

Max! Great someone else knows this, I wondered if any techno producers were using it. Many an hour spent at the terminal developing programs for it. Those fauz-Boulez über-serial compositions it can come up with are astounding. Substitute breaks for piano, voila! You've got an aleatoric strain of drum n'bass (albeit, not very catchy or danceable, but great to listen to...). np: Nobukazu Takemura- Child and Magic (Warners Japan) - I can't believe there hasn't been a ton of bandwidth about this one. Truly brilliant (and crystal-clear) record of everything from Terry Riley/Steve Reich-esque hocketing to really great break-fuckery (ala Spymania/Bovinyl/etc...), to prepared piano/chamber music mutations. His other tracks/records are mostly downtempo, but also worth checking out. It's astonishing what's coming out on major labels in Japan these days. I'm sure there's no chance in hell of a domestic issue of this, but at least it exists. __________________________________________________ Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge.________________________ _________________________________PO Box 382864-2864 Cambridge, MA 02238-2864____________________________ _______________________________________________USA _______________Main URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/sheket __________________________________________________

At 08:04 PM 3/25/98 -0000, siliconvortex wrote:

quoted 2 lines I have, definitely. Getting the MAC with SCSI to transfer the sounds

>>I have, definitely. Getting the MAC with SCSI to transfer the sounds >>and program the Akai was the best thing I could have done.

AMEN my brother!!! :-) i don't know how i lived without SCSI... <snip, gear>

quoted 1 line i know what you're saying, but really it's just made your job easier, >not

>i know what you're saying, but really it's just made your job easier, >not

improved the potential of your music has it? maybe if you're lazy, >yes.. yes and by making something easier you can write music with more inspiration and less perspiration... and that in itself should give your music more potential. plus, i don't think you need to have an expensive studio in order to write great music, but you should have a studio which you do not feel cramped by... and if that means getting a lexion, then go ahead!

quoted 1 line :-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum >machine

>:-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum >machine

for sequencing and a 12 bit akai sampler, then for anyone who >has the drive and determination to really do something, a setup such as >yours (not that it's particularly expensive) isn't crucially important. at this time i would like everyone to open their copy of 'i eat weird things' and look inside... as you can see he definately has MORE gear than an akai and a drum machine... (plus, all his warp stuff wasn't even mastered by him but by someone else... and notice the improvment!) ...anyway, there is only so much that can be done with a piece of gear... and new technology makes new ideas possible.

quoted 2 lines with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously

>with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously >achieve a wider variety of sonic delights and other such things. but >is

this all that is important about music? well its not ALL that's important... but what fun would it be if every label put shit done on mario paint.

quoted 1 line can we not listen to music in a deeper sense?

>can we not listen to music in a deeper sense?

as someone's sig on 313 said: if it kick it, it kick it. or was it if it kick it kick? whatever...

quoted 2 lines Agreed, club tunes have to have a crowd pleasing element

>>Agreed, club tunes have to have a crowd pleasing element >the whole world is a club, your living room is a club, the street >outside

a 'club' is a club in exactly the same way, so there is no such >thing as 'club music' in the way you put it. huh? last time i looked, no one charged me an entrance fee for going out... :-) (and i didn't have to wait 2 fucking hours in line either!!!)

quoted 3 lines if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say

>if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say >that by simply piling up the gear, piling up the options, piling up the >sounds, is going to make your music worthwhile? nothing!

okay man. you go and buy yourself that ol' nintendo and mario paint and go write us some hits!

quoted 2 lines i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try to

>i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try to >forget that mere musicians actually made them. cos musicians are >really

pathetic people on the whole! heh heh, you've just managed to insult more than half the subscribers of this list in one sentence... (i however perfer to call myself an artist! :-) ) :spacecake:

Sorry for yet another word-for-word analysis. I'm not doing this in defense as much as I'm questioning certain concepts in siliconvortex's argument

quoted 8 lines Programming the Akai

>>Programming the Akai >>to do a single track used to take 12 solid hours of button pushing. It's >>more like two now. It's all about control. If you want your machines to >>write your music for you, than stick with a simple setup with fewer >>variables. Some of us seek more complexity... > >i know what you're saying, but really it's just made your job easier, not >improved the potential of your music has it?

It has directly improved the potential of my own music. It gives a much clearer gateway between my original concept and the finished 'product'. No more of the mid-session manual-checking is necessary. Just a direct path between thought and sound.

quoted 4 lines :-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum machine for

>:-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum machine for >sequencing and a 12 bit akai sampler, then for anyone who has the drive and >determination to really do something, a setup such as yours (not that it's >particularly expensive) isn't crucially important.

What I'm referring to directly (and I hope this opens up an altogether different can of worms) is sound design. Jenks probably recorded the Amen break off of a scratchy old LP or 7" way back when, came up with a few variations, made a program in his sampler, and called it a day. Now every time he goes to make a new track, he doesn't think 'What drum sounds/parts/breaks would fit this tune specifically?", no he just says "I've got that Amen program all ready, Amen it is!". He remembers how long it took to set those sounds up in the first place, and he'll be damned if he needs to do it for EVERY TRACK he does. I don't blame him. I am in no way attacking anyone's engineering (in Jenks' case, his down to earth production values are very endearing), but the physical aspect of programming consumer machines without a graphic editor is highly daunting. It often halts producers dead in their tracks, when they should be thinking about the tune.

quoted 1 line don't be surprised if little johnny and his 4 track take the world by storm.

>don't be surprised if little johnny and his 4 track take the world by storm.

Mu-Ziq's success does not surprise me. His music seems very sincere, and his lo-fi aesthetic was certainly unique at its inception. Several albums later (some of which on VERY big labels), his sound is relatively unchanged. I applaud him for making that work, time and time again. Same with 'pushy. Big records, small studios. But think how much wasted time these guys are spending programming those bastard machines one last time before they go kaput for good! think how much of that time they could have spent on making new music. Technology makes things easier. The way it sounds is another fucking story.

quoted 3 lines with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously achieve a

>with more expensive, and more complex equipment, you can obviously achieve a >wider variety of sonic delights and other such things. but is this all that >is important about music?

No, not all. But in my eyes, it's very important. What made you buy that Autechre record vs. that Robert Miles record? I know why I did. Autechre SOUNDS better. Not more high fidelity than Miles (not by a long shot), but better sounding; more complex sounds, rhythms, structures. All of these things were facilitated by their modern setup, and I assure you, they've scrapped th four-track long ago...

quoted 4 lines can we not listen to music in a deeper sense? is

>can we not listen to music in a deeper sense? is >it a good thing if the whole scene becomes one big technological race? >where does it end? there's only so much information a human brain can >process before information is lost..

And we're nowhere near that point.

quoted 4 lines it's COMPLETELY INVALID by the standard definition.

>> it's COMPLETELY INVALID by the standard definition. > >right, everyone stay indoors while we shut down the music industry, in that >case.

I don't follow...

quoted 2 lines it's quite simple - i hear a record, i like it, THAT IS MUSIC THAT I WANT TO

>it's quite simple - i hear a record, i like it, THAT IS MUSIC THAT I WANT TO >HEAR.

Bravo (sound of clapping hands)

quoted 3 lines there is no such thing as idm, apart from the rotten core of unoriginal

>there is no such thing as idm, apart from the rotten core of unoriginal >producers >with no imagination.

You're referring to those who have co-opted the IDM tag as a marketing ploy? Good Luck. When those Warner Brothers sponsored (and paid in full by) IDM-indies start sprouting up, I'll be the first to buy one of the 20,000 copies of the Freeform single...

quoted 2 lines it is the outer fringe, those not afraid to use

>it is the outer fringe, those not afraid to use >whatever ideas they want

Hah!

quoted 2 lines who are willing to work with any kind of

>who are willing to work with any kind of >influences

Right!

quoted 3 lines who make the interesting music and, in turn, influence others.

>who make the interesting music and, in turn, influence others. >with those people, we are simply talking about MUSIC and nothing so shallow >as a set of stylistic rules.

Man, I couldn't have put it better myself. Break those rules wide open. Don't think you have to stick to the 4-track/sampler/Mackie bit to 'make it' in the "wide world" of IDM. Purely digital (that's the point, right? Analog vs. Digital? Come on, what year is it?) music's just as good (and believe you me, leaves far more room for interesting variants).

quoted 4 lines something post-dancefloor.

>>something post-dancefloor. > >there are a LOT of dancefloors on this planet, and they are NOT all the >same.

Okay, you're right. But no-one outside this ring cares 'bout that...

quoted 3 lines the whole world is a club, your living room is a club, the street outside a

>the whole world is a club, your living room is a club, the street outside a >'club' is a club in exactly the same way, so there is no such thing as 'club >music' in the way you put it.

I don't understand what this is in defense of. Do you like clubs? No? Yes?...

quoted 2 lines all music that is put on a disc and sold in a shop has to have a crowd

>all music that is put on a disc and sold in a shop has to have a crowd >pleasing element.

By a crowd, I mean the general public, i.e. 'The Masses'.

quoted 4 lines this 'non-commercial' ethos concerning idm is just the biggest load of hot

>this 'non-commercial' ethos concerning idm is just the biggest load of hot >air - idm music is commercial in exactly the same way as any other section >of the music industry is - please stop deluding yourselves cult-freaks and >fashion-slaves!

You can't possibly believe this.

quoted 3 lines experimental music is no different -

>experimental music is no different - >experimental music is a market where the listeners WANT to hear something >different -

quoted 1 line the experiment is a success if people LIKE it <<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>> the experiment is a success if people LIKE it <<<<<<<<<

That's it. That's your summation of experimental music. Really fucking informed.

quoted 5 lines labels who say "[we] will Never press more than 500 copies of our 12"s, we

>labels who say "[we] will Never press more than 500 copies of our 12"s, we >will also support underground retailers by selling in direct to them and >Refusing to let the capitilist Pigs who run chain stores [both independant >and mainstream] get their hands on our records" /are/ the biggest >capitalists

Amen. You are so right. That whole MASK thing is complete & utter garbage. But there are certain labels who don't have the confidence and/or capital to press any more than a few hundred.

quoted 1 line But technology making someone less-dimensional! That also is absurd.

>>But technology making someone less-dimensional! That also is absurd.

quoted 3 lines if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say

>if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say >that by simply piling up the gear, piling up the options, piling up the >sounds, is going to make your music worthwhile?

Why the negative always? What if you 'can' do it on a small setup. Most of us who make music, succesful or not, feel that we can. And we're only getting better at it, not worse.

quoted 6 lines True, but not true. You can also tweak thousands (but not millions) of

>>True, but not true. You can also tweak thousands (but not millions) of >>sound varieties out of a Casiotone with built in sequencer. It would beat >>out the records that strain to achieve that level of innocence. > >is anyone innocent in this day and age? everyone seems to think that they >know everything ;-)

Okay, your little winky man makes me laugh so much that I'll let that ad hominum attack slide...

quoted 3 lines i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try to

>i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try to >forget that mere musicians actually made them. cos musicians are really >pathetic people on the whole!

Right to that! Wankers! Anyways, I really enjoy this thread. Silicon-let's take it private from here. __________________________________________________ Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge.________________________ _________________________________PO Box 382864-2864 Cambridge, MA 02238-2864____________________________ _______________________________________________USA _______________Main URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/sheket __________________________________________________

quoted 5 lines experimental music is no different -

> >>experimental music is no different - >>experimental music is a market where the listeners WANT to hear something >>different - >

...and what if the experimenter doesn't give a flying f(l)unk about the audience reaction?

quoted 2 lines the experiment is a success if people LIKE it <<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>> the experiment is a success if people LIKE it <<<<<<<<< >

I seem to recall a certain avant-garde performance group of this rather experimental century whose standard of success was applause - or rather, the absence of said communication of audience gratification. Applause -> failure. The rationale: if anyone in the audience applauded, then the piece evidently wasn't challenging enough. A truly new work would unbalance the audience, making one unsure of one's own reaction and incapable of an immediate judgement. By the way, this thread title is very silly. Bucket all, then. 3

quoted 12 lines the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full

> > >the musicians i respect the most know what to do with a studio full > of > > >expensive gear. > > > > i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try > to > > forget that mere musicians actually made them. cos musicians are > really > > pathetic people on the whole! > > well you need to find some better musicians to hang around with then > cos most of the ones i know are really great people.

English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im not going to try and put it in words, i cant think of a more suitable adjective.... although i think pathetic is a little harsh... ok...how about mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?.. steve

At 9:29 PM +0000 3/25/98, you wrote:

quoted 6 lines English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im

> >English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im >not going to try and put it in words, i cant think of a more suitable >adjective.... although i think pathetic is a little harsh... ok...how >about >mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?..

Let us not forget "Cynical yet Romantic" and "Bitter yet Charming"! 3

quoted 7 lines labels who say "[we] will Never press more than 500 copies of our 12"s, we

>labels who say "[we] will Never press more than 500 copies of our 12"s, we >will also support underground retailers by selling in direct to them and >Refusing to let the capitilist Pigs who run chain stores [both independant >and mainstream] get their hands on our records" /are/ the biggest >capitalists, >in other words, these people are egomaniacs who never progressed >socially beyond childhood.

you're really being too hard on our ex-member [sm] :-) I have the following setup for music listening : PHILIPS EM6126 (headphones, my father's) Benytone P50 (turntable, even older than me...cheap korean) Hitachi CDR with SB16 soundcard (CD) Technics SU-V300 (amplifier, stolen from one CD shop... it was really fun... my friend and me stole this and portable CD player which is his now...steeling is exciting) JVC S-PX3 (3 way speakers, broken...middle speaker is burned) If I would have a million dollars I wouldn't buy better equipment for music listening, because I am more than satisfied with this one. So, message to all music makers worldwide: """ Fuck equipment, make some music ! """ The best music makers are the ones who don't know much about the equipment. Do you know why ? I'll tell you : BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERESED IN MAKING MUSIC, AND DON'T HAVE TIME FOR FUCKING EQUIPMENT !

quoted 3 lines i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try to

>i don't respect any musicians. i just love pieces of music and try to >forget that mere musicians actually made them. cos musicians are really >pathetic people on the whole!

Yes, I live with one.....what a boring fuckhead :-) bye rob np: the massacre : the exploited

On 03/25/98 20:04:53 you wrote:

quoted 8 lines how many people out there have genuinely advanced with their music by

>>how many people out there have genuinely advanced with their music by >>buying really expensive gear? >>I have, definitely. Getting the MAC with SCSI to transfer the sounds and >>program the Akai was the best thing I could have done. >this kind of gear wasn't really the focus of what i was saying - i was sort >of talking about high-quality gear, as in low noise, high bandwidth blah >blah, not so much about new tools, which are a more valid way of spending >your cash, but still, not something you HAVE to have..

recent albums by aphex twin, autechre, coil, etc. all rely on expensive computer software/hardware and (at least) moderately expensive samplers. all of these bands have sonically progressed from their earlier works, partially through buying more powerful (hence expensive) equipment. these artists all succeeded in writing good music with little gear, but personally i doubt rdj or autechre could create five lp's each of totally brilliant music which sounded completely different from album to album using only a juno and a 606. it would get old after a while. i find their recent works more sonically challenging than their older stuff, some of which is due to the fact that they can create more original sounds due to more expensive gear.

quoted 4 lines :-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum machine for

>:-) ...if tom jenkinson can do what he has done on a boss drum machine for >sequencing and a 12 bit akai sampler, then for anyone who has the drive and >determination to really do something, a setup such as yours (not that it's >particularly expensive) isn't crucially important.

right, but again i enjoy tom's recent music (hard normal daddy, big loada) more than his older stuff.

quoted 3 lines you only

> you only >get out of your machines what you put into them, and don't be surprised if >little johnny and his 4 track take the world by storm.

right, but a creative musician can get more out of a computer loaded with powerful software than he could out of a simple cheap synthesizer. (of course, he may be able to get more out of a simple cheap synth than an uncreative person could get out of an expensive computer...)

quoted 3 lines all music that is put on a disc and sold in a shop has to have a crowd

>all music that is put on a disc and sold in a shop has to have a crowd >pleasing element. it is made to be heard and enjoyed, otherwise it would >not be put on fucking discs and sold in shops, and bought by us.

it is made to be heard and enjoyed, but generally it is made for the artist writing, or perhaps their direct friends. neither i nor anyone i know who writes music, idm or otherwise, gives a shit about making things commercial so that people will listen to it. if a label happens to like something i've written, then so be it, i'll release something on that label. when the owner of astralwerks said to me "we now only release dance music", i didn't go and write some dance music.

quoted 5 lines no-one

>no-one >buys music that they don't like, therefore music that no-one likes doesn't >sell, therefore it may as well not exist, except in the mind of the person >who creates it, and maybe not even there if that person doesn't even like it >themselves.

this doesn't mean that musicians are sitting around trying to write music that other people like. generally they write music that they like themselves, and either other people like it and they sell records, or no one likes it and they don't. it's not a matter of every idm musician sitting around going "i need to write something more popular so that warp will pick me up", although i suppose some people are like that... np: black dog "bytes" "a dream is worth a thousand pictures, the mouths of lampreys a thousand more..."

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 thatcat@ix.netcom.com wrote:

quoted 3 lines find their recent works more sonically challenging than their older

> find their recent works more sonically challenging than their older > stuff, some of which is due to the fact that they can create more > original sounds due to more expensive gear.

You can only coax a certain range of sounds from a Juno 106 and a DR660. But run them through some guitar pedals and the range of sounds increases dramatically, for not that much money. At some point, though, someone with a good imagination will want to create sounds they do not have the tools to create. If you -need- to make music, I mean if you are -compelled-, then you will find a way to get those tools to make those sounds. Most gear -- most synths I should say, post-M1 for sure -- seem to be designed for people to be able to churn out quick soundtracks for industrial videos. If you're not careful, you'll start to let some engineer influence the kinds of sounds you will make. Personally I prefer some rather esoteric software -- but even with a fast computer it takes some time. And you have to dig into it deeply...steep learning curve. As for reverb, sometimes the cheap, metallic sound is just the thing. I often use an old reverb that I might be able to sell for $50, over another processor which cost more than a month's rent at a prime apartment. But when the time comes you want a long, smooth, realistic reverb -- well, you would love to be able to reach for a PCM90. And I can't, even though the good processor is quite respectable. Meanwhile, I use some great software, but it can't achieve that sound in real time. TIME -IS- MONEY. And the software isn't exactly cheap either. But I've still got that piece-of-crap fx box permanently cabled to send 6 and returns 7 & 8 on my mixer. Finally, distortion... One rhetorical question that might clarify what Jon Drukman was saying: If none of the sounds are clean, then which sounds are distorted? Where is the reference point? --Mark PS Yeah, the CD is coming...music's been done for a while. Let's just say I have a much better understanding of why Rephlex's release schedule is the way it is... __ <http://www.xnet.com/~mkolmar/BurningRome> < MPEG & RA audio clips > Forthcoming CD SENSELESS on Mindfield Records MINDCD03 Cathartium 14 m u s i c : w e b : s o u n d d e s i g n : h t m l : c g i : e t c "I'm a liberal guy too cool for the macho ache with a secret tooth for the cherry on the cake" -- Prefab Sprout, "Cruel"

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Mark Kolmar wrote:

quoted 7 lines On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 thatcat@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 thatcat@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > find their recent works more sonically challenging than their older > > stuff, some of which is due to the fact that they can create more > > original sounds due to more expensive gear. > > You can only coax a certain range of sounds from a Juno 106 and a DR660.

Yes, but then you can sell them and use that same money to buy a Matrix 6 and RY-30 and explore a different and broader range of sound and features even without effects. solenoid@europa.com <------+

quoted 1 line cos musicians are really pathetic people on the whole!

>> cos musicians are really pathetic people on the whole!

quoted 2 lines well you need to find some better musicians to hang around with then

>> well you need to find some better musicians to hang around with then >> cos most of the ones i know are really great people.

yeah but we do odd things like ride chocolate bars disguised as motorbikes and sing to the trees. artists are a raggedy bunch, and we're never happy. such is our lot in life that could be the key to it.. unhappiness = impulse buying of expensive electronic gear. like compulsive eating except more healthy. stay slim, buy a lexicon!

quoted 4 lines English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im

>English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im >not going to try and put it in words, i cant think of a more suitable >adjective.... although i think pathetic is a little harsh... ok...how >about mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?..

how did you know my middle name steve? <waves> np - diazepam 10mgs - the durutti column

quoted 8 lines English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im

> >English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im > >not going to try and put it in words, i cant think of a more suitable > > >adjective.... although i think pathetic is a little harsh... ok...how > > >about mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?.. > > how did you know my middle name steve?

well thats what you told me your name was! what was all that chocolate bar stuff about?... steve

quoted 9 lines English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im

> >English Flippancy eh! well i sorta know what Stuart means but im > >not going to try and put it in words, i cant think of a more suitable > > >adjective.... although i think pathetic is a little harsh... ok...how > > >about > >mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?.. > > Let us not forget "Cynical yet Romantic" and "Bitter yet Charming"!

Ruthless yet compassionate... hang on wasnt that a Bedouin Ascent track?... steve

Anyways, I really enjoy this thread. Silicon-let's take it private from here. don't take it private - it's far too much fun :-) >this 'non-commercial' ethos concerning idm is just the biggest load of hot >air - idm music is commercial in exactly the same way as any other section >of the music industry is - please stop deluding yourselves cult-freaks and >fashion-slaves! You can't possibly believe this. why not - it's fairly true - are REM making records for themselves or because they want to sell another couple of million records. Or is IDM inherently artistically pure because we stand very little chance of selling more than a couple of thousand records. It's a standard rock cliche - " we make the music for ourselves - and if anyone else likes it it's a bonus".

At 5:12 PM -0800 3/25/98, you wrote:

quoted 3 lines Or is IDM

> Or is IDM >inherently artistically pure because we stand very little chance of selling >more than a couple of thousand records.

It's certainly true that low commercial viability keeps a genre (relatively) pure. The fame-and-fortune-seekers generally seek greener pastures.

quoted 2 lines It's a standard rock cliche - " we

>It's a standard rock cliche - " we >make the music for ourselves - and if anyone else likes it it's a bonus".

I've certainly known talented people of whom this is true. Most of them skip meals to buy CDs, chain-smoke, undersleep, have suffered from more than one electric shock and at least some permanent hearing damage from accidently patching in a brutal effects feedback loop, and serve french fries or some such by day. However, they make some cruelly beautiful noise. 3

quoted 1 line mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?..

>> >mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?..

quoted 1 line how did you know my middle name steve?

>> how did you know my middle name steve?

quoted 1 line well thats what you told me your name was!

>well thats what you told me your name was!

oh, so it's an /anagram/ of Genius And Top Fella?

quoted 1 line what was all that chocolate bar stuff about?...

>what was all that chocolate bar stuff about?...

i was just being a bit silly. agh, tunnel vision! help! <waves>

quoted 10 lines You can't possibly believe this.

> You can't possibly believe this. > why not - it's fairly true - are REM making records for themselves or > because they want to sell another couple of million records. Or is IDM > > inherently artistically pure because we stand very little chance of > selling > more than a couple of thousand records. It's a standard rock cliche - > " we > make the music for ourselves - and if anyone else likes it it's a > bonus".

it is a standard overused cliche.... but that sentence sums up how i feel about music... but im not trying to make a living out of music, i in fact dont want to make a living out of music! i dont write enough songs for a start, i write songs because i *enjoy* writing songs and i write the music that i want to hear. id like that music on vinyl because im a trainspotter like the rest of us. steve

quoted 13 lines mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?..

> >> >mildly Autistic yet Enthusiastic?.. > > >> how did you know my middle name steve? > > >well thats what you told me your name was! > > oh, so it's an /anagram/ of Genius And Top Fella? > > >what was all that chocolate bar stuff about?... > > i was just being a bit silly. > > agh, tunnel vision! help!

are you on acid or what? steve

quoted 10 lines no it's not. this is much too expansive a subject to write about off the

> > no it's not. this is much too expansive a subject to write about off the > > cuff as i am doing here, but i would say that looking at technology as the > > way to solve your problems, in this case, musical, is simply side stepping > > the issue. if you can't 'do it' on a simple setup, what is there to say > > that by simply piling up the gear, piling up the options, piling up the > > sounds, is going to make your music worthwhile? nothing! > > your argument pushed to the extreme says that you don't need an > orchestra, you should be able to say what you want to say with a solo > violin. i refute that.

There is, however, a similar argument that is perfectly sensible, and that is that there are valid things to say musically that can be said with a solo violin (or, can *only* be said with a solo violin). The solo violin won't do it for everything (just as a drum machine+synth combo leaves out a lot of territory), but some amazing things can be done with it. Bach cello suites rock! Also, aren't you going a little far by saying that harmony+melody are completely useless in the 90's? Sounds to me like you're prescribing the one path music must take... and if anything has died in the Western music world in the last 50 years, it's precisely this modernist view--the idea that music progresses along *a* path, that everything that does not move in this direction is regressive, and that it's the artist's job to discern this direction and follow it relentlessly. To paraphrase Boulez, "Anyone who has not felt the necessity of the new serial language is useless." What an idiotic comment! Virtually all this-listy music is illegitimate by those standards. Jon, you're substituting a different language ("sound" instead of "serialism"), but the sentiment is the same, and no less pernicious today than it was then. Plurality! I for one get bored by tracks that have a great sound but don't have a statement to make in terms of pitch material (which includes minimalist statements, too). Hrvatski: were you the one to state that the standard definition of music is "what the composer wants to hear"? I've deleted that digest :( -- anyway, don't forget that this idea (the cult of the genius, basically) is very restricted to a specific geographical area, time and economic class (19th-century and later Europe, especially Germany, and most prominent in bourgeois levels of society). Javanese gamelan is built on totally different social principles--collectivity--no one person originates or owns a "composition"--it's a social action that happens to result in highly organized sound--not "the standard definition" of music, but it's still great music. So it's a non-western culture... there are similar examples in the west too (folk dance musics, for one). I have to point this out because Western bourgeois intellectuals have had a tendency to universalize their own cultural concerns and erase other approaches in other parts of the world and in other classes. Just something to be aware of and careful about. J ________ \ / | "Who's Martha Stewart?" H. James Harkins | "She writes picture books about gracious living." jharkins@acpub.duke.edu | \/ | - from _Jeffrey_ "The sky is big enough to let all the clouds pass." -- Kobai Scott Whitney

H James Harkins wrote this:

quoted 3 lines There is, however, a similar argument that is perfectly sensible, and that

> There is, however, a similar argument that is perfectly sensible, and that > is that there are valid things to say musically that can be said with a > solo violin (or, can *only* be said with a solo violin).

oh yeah, i totally agree.

quoted 3 lines Also, aren't you going a little far by saying that harmony+melody are

> Also, aren't you going a little far by saying that harmony+melody are > completely useless in the 90's? Sounds to me like you're prescribing the > one path music must take...

whoa there sparky, it's called a JOKE. i didn't think anyone would take it seriously! i totally don't subscribe to that view myself. but i do think that in the area of electronic music that the total sound quality really is an important thing and can't always be factored out of the equation.

quoted 10 lines Hrvatski: were you the one to state that the standard definition of music

> Hrvatski: were you the one to state that the standard definition of music > is "what the composer wants to hear"? I've deleted that digest :( -- > anyway, don't forget that this idea (the cult of the genius, basically) is > very restricted to a specific geographical area, time and economic class > (19th-century and later Europe, especially Germany, and most prominent in > bourgeois levels of society). Javanese gamelan is built on totally > different social principles--collectivity--no one person originates or > owns a "composition"--it's a social action that happens to result in > highly organized sound--not "the standard definition" of music, but it's > still great music.

yeah, right on. i've been doing a lot of improv live playing lately and when it all comes together, it's fantastic. i did this gig with 8 other musicians and it was definitely messy in places but the good bits were great. -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan: Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.