IDM Mailing Archive

hi there. please allow me to make some comments thank you drive thru On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 BigKumquat@aol.com wrote:

quoted 4 lines << I can live with sampling when it's used as an instrumental substitution,

> > << I can live with sampling when it's used as an instrumental substitution, > no different really than someone using a 303 instead of a trombone.>> >

if youre using sampling as a substitute why not just go all the way and get the real thing? i certainly dont think there is any problem with using a sampler as a substitute for a real instrument..its a matter of personal opinion i believe.

quoted 4 lines << In this way I find sampling to be an evil demon sent by the devil to

> << In this way I find sampling to be an evil demon sent by the devil to > corrupt the musical art form, making talent or imagination obsolete. Thank > goodness the fuckers who do this > are easy to spot and ignore or I'd be completely disillusioned.>>

also refering back to the trombone comment before...im sure that if an african tribesman saw a trombone hed probably look at it as some sort of tool of the devil...on a lighter note..most people who are steeped in the tradition of their ways look at new technology as somewhat frightening if not downright disgusting. the question to ask is do you let it use you? or do you use it? alot of people that just grab large pieces of sample information and slap them in to a song without doing anything individual to them are victims of the former but there are lots of things that could not be accomplished without the use of samplers..

quoted 5 lines << A thought: If you gave one hundred monkeys MPC-3000s and let them loose

> > << A thought: If you gave one hundred monkeys MPC-3000s and let them loose > for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually come up with > nothing whatsoever at all, whereas you could give them Oberheim > Matrix-12s and they would come up with all sorts of great shit. >>

this here statement insinuates that it takes brains to work an mpc3000 whereas you could just beat on a matrix-12 for a while without a clue in the world and still come up with something...now is that really a good thing? in the end i dont think it matters how you make music as long as you make something that feels good to you. and a sampler is just simply a tool to meet an end just like a trombone or a drum kit...and there certainly are bad trombone and drum players out there. these views are not even my own...in fact im not even myself. cya. c.pant/

BigKumquat@aol.com wrote:

quoted 6 lines << I can live with sampling when it's used as an instrumental substitution,

> > << I can live with sampling when it's used as an instrumental substitution, > no different really than someone using a 303 instead of a trombone.>> > > And I suspect that most people on this list listen to more 303 than trombone. > So the replacement has surpassed the original...in some quarters.

Not capricious on gratuitous substitution, substitution with a purpose. As when Hrvatski points out that you can get some amazing sounds through sample teaking and whatnot that you could never get out of trad. synthesis. Or using a sampler to do loop multitracking, which is why the Yamaha SU10 keeps looking more attractive to me every day.

quoted 2 lines Are you familiar with collage as a visual art form? It was practiced by

> Are you familiar with collage as a visual art form? It was practiced by > Picasso and other well-known artists.

But good collage has an idea and artistic direction behind it, whereas the Chembros just take newsprint and spray adhesive to a piece of posterboard and come up with predictably pedestrian results.

quoted 3 lines While I love the sound of a good Oberheim, I'd take the MPC-3000 material

> While I love the sound of a good Oberheim, I'd take the MPC-3000 material > over the Oberheim material in a second. Without question. But are they > "mad" monkeys? Or, is Peter Naismith among them?

No, they are new world monkeys equipped with prehensile tails, giving each of them the ability to manipulate one more slider in real-time than Autechre can. Tom

quoted 4 lines A thought: If you gave one hundred monkeys MPC-3000s and let them loose

> A thought: If you gave one hundred monkeys MPC-3000s and let them loose > for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually come up with > nothing whatsoever at all, whereas you could give them Oberheim > Matrix-12s and they would come up with all sorts of great shit.

quoted 1 line While I love the sound of a good Oberheim, I'd take the MPC-3000

> > While I love the sound of a good Oberheim, I'd take the MPC-3000

material

quoted 1 line over the Oberheim material in a second. Without question. But are

> > over the Oberheim material in a second. Without question. But are

they

quoted 5 lines "mad" monkeys? Or, is Peter Naismith among them?

> > "mad" monkeys? Or, is Peter Naismith among them? > > No, they are new world monkeys equipped with prehensile tails, giving > each of them the ability to manipulate one more slider in real-time than > Autechre can.

well, assuming the monkeys don't die after their normal lifespan, and they accomplish "infinite" time, wouldn't they eventually make/find every audio possibility? now, if there were "infinite" monkeys as well, they could do it all instantaneously... disclaimer: Here at the IDM-List School of Theoretical Physics, etc etc hmm.. -derek +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make me happy. -J.D. Salinger

being a "mad" monkey I feel a need to respond. Throughout this whole argument I have observed one thing. 1. there are those who look at music strictly from an intellectual point of view I said this before but if you only look at music from an intellectual stance you are missing out. Music sometimes is just meant to be enjoyed not over analyzed. If it sounds good to you then why does it matter if it was sampled or not? This does not mean you can't analyze and theorize about it. What it means is that sometimes music is just music; while other times it is an intellectual pursuit. Learn to know when to apply those principles. I guess what I am saying is that you cannot say "samplers bad; synthesis good". They both have their places and their purposes. And I have never understood the assertion that in order for music to be good it has to be hard to make. Difficulty is a matter of perspective. next question: so why do I sample? simple. I cannot play drums and have no rhythm to speak of. So what I do is find a sample I like. I then use it's underling structure as my basis. Then the sample is processed and generally destroyed until it does not sound anything like the original. However, the structure (though by this point it is not apparent) is still there. Example: I sampled a basic hip hop beat. Slowed it down; distorted it; applied reverb (and a host of other things). I then placed it into my sampler and from my sequencer set the bpm to around 300. The end result was a 4/4 beat. But it still had the depth of the original sample without sounding a thing like it. -daniel Head Monkey Mad Monkey Records http://monkey.eliteware.com

quoted 5 lines well, assuming the monkeys don't die after their normal lifespan, and they

>well, assuming the monkeys don't die after their normal lifespan, and they >accomplish "infinite" time, wouldn't they eventually make/find every audio >possibility? >now, if there were "infinite" monkeys as well, they could do it all >instantaneously...

Wait a minute here, i'm guessing there are uncountably many different sound variations/sequences that could be made, so if we only have a countably infinte number of monkeys (how could we have an uncountable number? we could just ask them to stand in line and then we'd know that thy're only countable) and a countably infinite amount of time (well, if you break time into seconds, and monkeys really can't do more than thing a second), then we would still have a countable sert of sounds that these monkeys made. So i'm sorry, unless you have a countably infinite number of sounds (which i find doubtful), we'll not even touch on what could actually be done. That is assuming that these monkeys can do everything that a person could and are totally random monkeys. So the question is, how large is the set of all the different sound possibilites? Countable? Uncountable? Please use transfinte numbers Aleph-Naught, Aleph-One, etc. in any response. _________________________________ Adam Roesch / roesch@augsburg.edu University of Idaho / Moscow / ID / USA Visit my Fila Brazillia/Pork Recordings fan site: http://dogbert.augsburg.edu/~roesch/pork/ "Because success needs killing" TRICKY

This is getting silly, but I had to chime in :) From the keys of Moonlight:

quoted 5 lines Wait a minute here, i'm guessing there are uncountably many different sound

> Wait a minute here, i'm guessing there are uncountably many different sound > variations/sequences that could be made, so if we only have a countably > infinte number of monkeys (how could we have an uncountable number? we > could just ask them to stand in line and then we'd know that thy're only > countable)

infinity, by definition, is uncountable. Only numbers are countable, and infinity isn't a number, but a concept we use to describe limits as numbers become increasingly large.

quoted 1 line SNIP<

>SNIP<

quoted 3 lines So the question is, how large is the set of all the different sound

> So the question is, how large is the set of all the different sound > possibilites? Countable? Uncountable? Please use transfinte numbers > Aleph-Naught, Aleph-One, etc. in any response.

hehe :) I think the real question is how large is the set of distinct sounds that the human ear can actually hear. You can tweak a sound an infinite number of ways. For instance, take filter knob that is set at 0 and goes to 11 (spinal tap!). Now turn it halfway to full, or to 5.5. Turn it halfway to 11 again, or to 8.25. Repeating this gives you 9.625, 10.3125, 10.65625, etc, etc. You'll never turn the knob all the way over, but you'll get closer every time, thus producing a new sound every time (assuming your gear is good enough). The ear isn't going to be able to distinguish every sound, though. ok, now I have to get back to studying for my calculus final....

quoted 3 lines _________________________________

> _________________________________ > Adam Roesch / roesch@augsburg.edu > University of Idaho / Moscow / ID / USA

-- .....................................k.e.l.s.e.y...d.a.m.a.s...... --------------------------------------anagram@cats.ucsc.edu------- -http://www.porter.ucsc.edu/~anagram/ --------------- ..................................................................

quoted 4 lines infinity, by definition, is uncountable. Only numbers are countable, and

> infinity, by definition, is uncountable. Only numbers are countable, and > infinity isn't a number, but a concept we use to describe limits as numbers > become increasingly large. >

DING DING DING! Sorry, please play again. Without getting deeply into set theory: There is indeed a distinction between countable infinity and uncountable infinities. There is, in fact, a hierarchy of infinities. Enjoy the vertigo - 3

quoted 6 lines well, assuming the monkeys don't die after their normal lifespan, and they

> well, assuming the monkeys don't die after their normal lifespan, and they > accomplish "infinite" time, wouldn't they eventually make/find every audio > possibility? > > now, if there were "infinite" monkeys as well, they could do it all > instantaneously...

Well, like the original theorem where the monkeys write Shakespeare on all the typewriters, there are limits. If the monkeys all had english language typewriters they couldn't exactly start coming up with the collected works of Naguib Mahfouz except in translation. So here our monkeys would be limited to the sonic capabilities of the Oberheim Matrix-12, which while quite impressive do not cover the entire spectrum of possible music or sound. Now if you gave 50 of the monkeys MPC-3000s and the other half Matrix-12s and patched them into each other, that would be the shit. I think then you could accomplish close to what you are proposing. Either that or more Ae clone stuff. Tom

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

quoted 1 line well, assuming the monkeys don't die after their normal lifespan, and

> > well, assuming the monkeys don't die after their normal lifespan, and

they

quoted 1 line accomplish "infinite" time, wouldn't they eventually make/find every

> > accomplish "infinite" time, wouldn't they eventually make/find every

audio

quoted 17 lines possibility?

> > possibility? > > > > now, if there were "infinite" monkeys as well, they could do it all > > instantaneously... > > Well, like the original theorem where the monkeys write Shakespeare on > all the typewriters, there are limits. If the monkeys all had english > language typewriters they couldn't exactly start coming up with the > collected works of Naguib Mahfouz except in translation. So here our > monkeys would be limited to the sonic capabilities of the Oberheim > Matrix-12, which while quite impressive do not cover the entire spectrum > of possible music or sound. > > Now if you gave 50 of the monkeys MPC-3000s and the other half > Matrix-12s and patched them into each other, that would be the shit. I > think then you could accomplish close to what you are proposing. Either > that or more Ae clone stuff.

So *that's* what Funkörung's been using. -derek

quoted 6 lines BigKumquat@aol.com wrote:

>BigKumquat@aol.com wrote: >> >> << I can live with sampling when it's used as an instrumental >substitution, >> no different really than someone using a 303 instead of a >trombone.>>

I forget which artist said it, but aren't most instruments samplers in their own way - what is a guitar but an instrument that millions before have played the exact same notes on, just in different order? That seems like the most intelligent stance on sampling; it's no different than "notes" re-arranged in a new progression. Only when a song/section of a song gets used in a wholesale copy (ie Puff Daddy) is sampling really a un-creative process. J "No rose without a thorn. But many a thorn without a rose." - Schopenhauer Join The Party @www.cpusa.org ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.