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

← archive index

[idm] DON'T PLAY THE HATER, GO LATE TO THE GAME

4 messages · 4 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: don't play the hater, go late to the game · the haters
2001-01-28 19:22Martin Re: [idm] the haters
├─ 2001-01-29 06:23Ed Hall Re: [idm] the haters
└─ 2001-01-29 07:38Matt U Re: [idm] the haters
└─ 2001-01-29 13:37Kent williams [idm] DON'T PLAY THE HATER, GO LATE TO THE GAME
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2001-01-28 19:22MartinI couldn't agree more with this msg, most people on this list have no conception of music,
From:
Martin
To:
Date:
Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:22:25 +0000
Subject:
Re: [idm] the haters
permalink · <E14MxPf-0004Zj-00@scrabble.freeuk.net>
I couldn't agree more with this msg, most people on this list have no conception of music, only sound... the inverted snobbery of raving about a particular sample or mix rather than someones voice or instrumental talent is absolutely negative, most idm artists and listeners seem to have no knowledge of anything not created using a sampler or sequencer programme...the ears of most listeners have been polluted by poor quality, bedroom mixing and mp3 conversion...many idm artists spend thousands of dollars on kit an often just regurgitate someone elses sound...quite a few 10 year old kids could do a similar job Martin Lee-Stephenson
quoted 27 lines I can't believe the utter stupidity of even discussing this. THE ONLY> I can't believe the utter stupidity of even discussing this. THE ONLY > TIME YOU HEAR ACTUAL MUSIC IS WHEN SOMEONE PLAYS AN ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENT > WITHIN THE RANGE OF YOUR UNAUGMENTED EARS. > > Everything else is DSP fuckery. Check out a copy of Mix Magazine sometime > and read one of the blow by blow descriptions of recording and mixing > a pop hit. Artists like Cex, Kid606, Kit Clayton, etc conceptually > turn the artifice of mass culture pop on their head, by flaunting and > abusing the tools the majors use to fool you into thinking you're hearing > music. It's the musical equivelant of the Centre Pompidou, with all the > ductwork and conduit on the outside. > > Shit, most of y'all probably don't even LIKE music that can be made by a > human being without electricity. Judge music on whether it moves you or not. > Don't whine about the electrons people shove around. > > kent williams -- kent@avalon.net > http://www.cornwarning.com -- Iowa's First Techno Record Label > http://www.mp3.com/chaircrusher -- tunes > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2001-01-29 06:23Ed HallAmazing! Most of the responses on this thread have done little but underscore Rjyan's poin
From:
Ed Hall
To:
Insipid Dour Matrons
Date:
Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:23:24 -0800
Subject:
Re: [idm] the haters
Reply to:
Re: [idm] the haters
permalink · <200101290623.WAA13584@screech.weirdnoise.com>
Amazing! Most of the responses on this thread have done little but underscore Rjyan's point: arguments about sound-fuckery vs. music or DSP for DSP's sake vs. DSP for music's sake aren't worth the bits they're written with when no terms are defined or concrete examples presented. Mix that with the implied self-abuse of those who subscribe to a list devoted to computer-produced music yet claim that such music is soulless and unworthwhile, and it becomes a scene straight out of Lewis Carroll. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are arguing over just what "music" is, not seeing that the question is fundamentally unanswerable. Is Amber better than EP7? Better what? They're different, certainly. Amber is a pretty poor example of using DSP to produce fascinatingly complex layered textures. EP7 is a pretty poor example of using simple means to make an evocative sonic landscape. But I'd argue that each is very, very good at what it does, and whether you like either, none, or both is more a matter of what music is to you than it is about any innate goodness or failure on their parts. Thus the question over whether Autechre is getting worse or better (or not) can only be answered in the context of what your personal definition of "music" is, and no one else's. Yet people continue to argue over such stuff as if their egos are at stake, despite overwhelming evidence that such discussions lead nowhere. That's not to say that fruitful discussion is impossible; it's quite useful, in fact, for people to discuss what they like or don't like about particular tracks, albums, and artists. Tastes differ (and it would be a boring world if they didn't), but if you describe just what it is you love or hate about a work, I'll be able to tell if your opinion is likely to match mine, and whether I should seek or avoid the item being discussed. But unless I know you pretty damn well, just the mere fact that something is "fucking good" or "dsp wankery" (to use two recent examples) is of no use to me (and I'd guess the majority of the list as well). Perhaps a half dozen people here go to the trouble of describing what they like or don't like in a given work (aside from meaningless polemics like "It's great!" or "It's shite!"). This makes it next to impossible for anyone to discern whether or not they might agree. And that makes the list pretty much useless beyond a source of news (e.g. new releases and performance dates) and a place where people vent more or less on- topic rants. Oh, and the periodic for-sale/for-auction posts that I never bother to read (though I'm sure someone does). Bring back reviews. Stop trying to argue people into liking what they don't like, or hating what they do like. And stop hurling insults just because you don't agree with something. Please. -Ed --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2001-01-29 07:38Matt UMaybe I've gotten confused here (really, could be, Egri Bikaver - Bull's Blood - Hungarian
From:
Matt U
To:
Date:
Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:38:19 -0600
Subject:
Re: [idm] the haters
Reply to:
Re: [idm] the haters
permalink · <5.0.2.1.1.20010129010816.009eba00@mail.mindspring.com>
Maybe I've gotten confused here (really, could be, Egri Bikaver - Bull's Blood - Hungarian wine - fantastic stuff), but it seems to me that the below line of thinking is contrary to it's own argument. As I understand it, Martin and Kent are contending that the degree to which DSP is utilized is irrelevant. The theory, that there is some music that is reliant upon DSP for its impact - which Martin and Kent are arguing against - calling "everything... DSP fuckery"; stands stronger because of their argument, not despite. The point is, as with any style of expression, musical or otherwise, there are certain salient devices which can be relied upon to trigger a sort-of pre-disposed reaction. Maynard Ferguson hitting the high notes is one example. Tom Hanks triumphing over adversity is another. Kid 606 relying on heavily processed sounds is an example relevant here. Yes, there is electronic processing in all the music we hear, short of acoustic instruments in person (though, strictly speaking, it is not necessarily digital). However, there is a difference between the music which relies on suprising and unusual timbre (a very common IDM device) and music which explores pitch, duration and volume as well. I, for one, find that music that relies on just one of the four fundamental properties of sound of proves to be of greatly limited interest. I won't pretend to be the one to delineate between the two, however, that's up to you. I just seek to acknoledge the issue. And yeah, it's worth discussing, I think that's why this list is here. Good night, Matt At 07:22 PM 1/28/01 +0000, Martin wrote:
quoted 30 lines I couldn't agree more with this msg, most people on this list have no>I couldn't agree more with this msg, most people on this list have no >conception of music, only sound... the inverted snobbery of raving about a >particular sample or mix rather than someones voice or instrumental talent >is absolutely negative, most idm artists and listeners seem to have no >knowledge of anything not created using a sampler or sequencer >programme...the ears of most listeners have been polluted by poor quality, >bedroom mixing and mp3 conversion...many idm artists spend thousands of >dollars on kit an often just regurgitate someone elses sound...quite a few >10 year old kids could do a similar job Martin Lee-Stephenson > I can't >believe the utter stupidity of even discussing this. THE ONLY > TIME YOU >HEAR ACTUAL MUSIC IS WHEN SOMEONE PLAYS AN ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENT > WITHIN >THE RANGE OF YOUR UNAUGMENTED EARS. > > Everything else is DSP >fuckery. Check out a copy of Mix Magazine sometime > and read one of the >blow by blow descriptions of recording and mixing > a pop hit. Artists >like Cex, Kid606, Kit Clayton, etc conceptually > turn the artifice of >mass culture pop on their head, by flaunting and > abusing the tools the >majors use to fool you into thinking you're hearing > music. It's the >musical equivelant of the Centre Pompidou, with all the > ductwork and >conduit on the outside. > > Shit, most of y'all probably don't even LIKE >music that can be made by a > human being without electricity. Judge music >on whether it moves you or not. > Don't whine about the electrons people >shove around. > > kent williams -- kent@avalon.net > >http://www.cornwarning.com -- Iowa's First Techno Record Label > >http://www.mp3.com/chaircrusher -- tunes > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > To >unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional >commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- To >unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional >commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2001-01-29 13:37Kent williamsOn Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Matt U wrote: > As I understand > it, Martin and Kent are contending
From:
Kent williams
To:
i'd do mary
Date:
Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:37:51 -0600 (CST)
Subject:
[idm] DON'T PLAY THE HATER, GO LATE TO THE GAME
Reply to:
Re: [idm] the haters
permalink · <Pine.HPP.3.96.1010129073028.3168A-100000@arthur.avalon.net>
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Matt U wrote:
quoted 6 lines As I understand> As I understand > it, Martin and Kent are contending that the degree to which DSP is utilized > is irrelevant. The theory, that there is some music that is reliant upon > DSP for its impact - which Martin and Kent are arguing against - calling > "everything... DSP fuckery"; stands stronger because of their argument, not > despite.
No. Not what I meant. I meant it's a dumb thing to argue over, and that people who say "i don't like too much dsp in my music" aren't considering how much dsp is in ALL their music. And I'm not saying it doesn't matter, because artistically and conceptually everything matters. And what matters most is whether the music moves you. And if it don't don't listen to it. And if it does, do listen. Things that kick my ass these days -- "Ptaah Decompressed" -- Chris Brann goes latin like Xavier Cugat. He deserves his very own Charo! Rich Devine "Lipswitch" -- 3 words: O MY GAWD. T Power "Long Time Dead" beating the new skool breaks boys at their own game, and staying true to his weirdness. Luomo "VocalCity" -- killer, killer, killer house music. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org