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

← archive index

(idm) Max/Takemura

7 messages · 6 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 3 subjects: (idm) bucket brigade · (idm) max/takemura · (idm) the gear thread, cheap boxes
1998-03-25 20:04siliconvortex Re: (idm) bucket brigade
├─ 1998-03-25 21:13Random Junk Re: (idm) bucket brigade
│ └─ 1998-03-26 05:35Solenoid (idm) the gear thread, cheap boxes
│ └─ 1998-03-27 00:51Hrvatski (idm) Max/Takemura
├─ 1998-03-25 23:13spacecake Re: (idm) bucket brigade
└─ 1998-03-26 01:02Hrvatski Re: (idm) bucket brigade
└─ 1998-03-26 13:54Zenon M. Feszczak Re: (idm) bucket brigade
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1998-03-25 20:04siliconvortex>Okay, this has been boiling up for a bit. <whistle> let the bubbling bile flow! >how many
From:
siliconvortex
To:
, Hrvatski
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 20:04:53 -0000
Subject:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
permalink · <01bd5829$46a89a40$60f5989e@sub-con-geo>
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
1998-03-25 21:13Random Junksiliconvortex wrote this: > this kind of gear wasn't really the focus of what i was saying
From:
Random Junk
To:
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
Reply to:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
permalink · <13593.26818.338760.701246@hudsucker.gamespot.com>
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.
1998-03-26 05:35SolenoidOn Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Random Junk wrote: > siliconvortex wrote this: > > this kind of gear
From:
Solenoid
To:
Random Junk
Cc:
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
(idm) the gear thread, cheap boxes
Reply to:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
permalink · <Pine.GSO.3.96.980325201329.2548A-100000@thetics.europa.com>
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 <------+
1998-03-27 00:51Hrvatski>I For instance, how many people are really up to >exploiting all of the functionality of
From:
Hrvatski
To:
Date:
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:51:24 -0500
Subject:
(idm) Max/Takemura
Reply to:
(idm) the gear thread, cheap boxes
permalink · <v03007800b140a26b5f6c@[209.61.75.5]>
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 __________________________________________________
1998-03-25 23:13spacecakeAt 08:04 PM 3/25/98 -0000, siliconvortex wrote: >>I have, definitely. Getting the MAC with
From:
spacecake
To:
little fluffy coulds...toodoodaa
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:13:45 -0500
Subject:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
Reply to:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
permalink · <3.0.5.32.19980325181345.007a94c0@mail.iname.com>
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:
1998-03-26 01:02HrvatskiSorry for yet another word-for-word analysis. I'm not doing this in defense as much as I'm
From:
Hrvatski
To:
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 20:02:16 -0500
Subject:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
Reply to:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
permalink · <v03007803b13f4b5b755a@[209.61.76.29]>
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 __________________________________________________
1998-03-26 13:54Zenon M. Feszczak> >>experimental music is no different - >>experimental music is a market where the listen
From:
Zenon M. Feszczak
To:
Date:
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:54:56 -0500
Subject:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
Reply to:
Re: (idm) bucket brigade
permalink · <v04003a00b1400da6051c@[159.14.31.10]>
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