woo hoo! just the reply i was looking for...
quoted 17 lines Curious what you use specifically to make music then. You buy a Nord or a
> Curious what you use specifically to make music then. You buy a Nord or a
> DX7 or ANY synth for that matter and there it is, full of sounds, presets,
> patches, etc... You just plug it in & hit a key, instant sound. You can of
> course, modify patches or start w/a clean slate but then all you're doing
> is creating slight variations on the sound-creation engine in the synth &
> it's architecture. You buy a sampler, it's EMPTY save for a few tones
> (Sachiko M, a contemporary of Ikeda, et.al, plays a sampler with just the
> 256-value tones that come stock with it), you have no choice but to create
> yr own sound library from scratch. Whether you sample sound FX, concrete,
> or Led Zep is up to you. Even complex academic object-oriented & granular
> synth techniques offer trademark, classifiable sounds. Sampling makes way
> for complex sounds which otherwise would be unattainable via traditional
> synthesis methods. I'm a little more irked at trademark manufacturer sound
> sets (nord, Oberheim, etc...) then frequently re-occurring samples, besides
> one of the few things I like about sample based music is recognizing the
> sources, whether the pleasure I derive from it is more of a pat on the back
> than anything else...quoted 9 lines and i've noticed that some of the best (imho) music being created today
> >and i've noticed that some of the best (imho) music being created today
> >has a similiar approach...panasonic, ryoji ikeda, oval, etc...
>
> Out of those three, Oval samples EVERYTHING and Ryoji samples very
> frequently ('1000 fragments?'). Albeit, they're taking the samples and
> recontextualizing them to the point of unrecognizability, kudos for that &
> to John Oswald/Negativland/Coldcut et.al for coming up w/that angle...
> Yeah, panasonic do use an mpc live, but it's just for tones & organisation,
> everything else is still their own boxes.quoted 22 lines Hmm... yes, it's a VERY easy way to get a particular sound; record it, use
> Hmm... yes, it's a VERY easy way to get a particular sound; record it, use
> it. That shouldn't be viewed as a trite approach, seeing the cultural
> tabboos associated with it (fat royalty checks to JB, possible jail time to
> the producer), perhaps the opposite; sort of dangerous & rather punk. Don't
> get me wrong, un-creative sampling SUCKS, just like un-creative guitar
> playing or uncreative synthesis. Now there are far greater sampling faux
> pas that take place i.e. sampling contemporary artists like Autechre
> because you really can't figure out wot they're doing, that's completely
> insensitive (If you don't understand what Autechre are doing sound-wise,
> don't try to make Autechre-sounding tracks). But sampling soul tracks from
> 1969 and processing them often beyond recognition, that should be OK, in
> fact that should be encouraged. If I could create breaks somehow (I've
> played w/like 39 drummers over the last 10 years, all of which understand
> the Milford Graves/Sunny Murray school of free-improvisation well but fall
> short of the sort of Zigaboo/Idris/Purdie/Cobham groove that fuels
> breakbeat music) I would, but you can't recreate the feel of the amen, you
> just can't. You can say that the 303 is just filtered sine/square waves
> with envelope modulation, but can't really put your finger on why exactly
> that sound works. I mean w/breaks yr dealing with 1/1000's of a second
> timing differences, the chances of nailing the feel of something like amen
> are akin to getting struck by lightning, not to mention the late sixties
> hyper-compressed room-sound of the recording.