quoted 22 lines I totally agree. There has definitely been a tendency towards sound>I totally agree. There has definitely been a tendency towards sound
>design over melodic or compositional production in a lot of IDM. I
>don't hear too much of anything 'raw' anymore. Everyone new out
>there is very polished and sparkly, while lacking that body and
>warmth a lot of my favorite electronic music has at its core. Did
>anyone care that there was blatant peaking and production errors in
>a lot of Aphex Twin's earlier music? No, the melodies were
>amazing. There is definitely a lack of new artists seeking the
>melodic means to an end, rather than the textural one.
>A good example is Kettel, his musical output is very unpolished from
>a mixing/sound design perspective, yet his melodies and structure
>are not only warm and engaging, but have a style. You don't hear
>too many newer artists with a distinct melodic style in IDM anymore.
>-mark
>
>Def Con 1 wrote:
>
>>I think idm artists should focus more on the music &
>>melody versus glitches, dsp, etc. I really feel that
>>most of the idm coming out pretty much all sounds the
>>same, so there's no reason for me to go out and buy
>>it.
i don't really care if it's melodies / chords / song structure, or
textures / production / experimental noise. just has to be good and
interesting to listen to. i think the point of the flap over MAX/MSP
and other overused software is that the stuff is becoming very
generic. also, that the software is doing too much and the people
not doing enough.
my friend's computer has so many plugins that make amazing noises, i
no longer find it impressive just to hear a great sound on someone's
song if it sounds computer-based. on the other hand, certain pop
song hallmarks are so ubiquitous in most music you hear that this is
boring as well. there has to be a reason why the person chooses to
do what they do. not just, "well, i went from C to G because that's
the obvious change in that key and it makes everybody happy," or "i
grabbed a beat and threw a bunch of softsynth loops over it and ran
stuff through plugins because i could."
there may also be a tendency of programmers to get so involved in the
programming they don't make sure the piece is actually listenable
when they're finished. it's interesting to them because they spent
hours and hours tweaking custom patches and editing the shit out of
something, and they're focusing on these transitions rather than the
music as a whole. this might impress other programmer/musicians who
look for things like that, but it then becomes the electronic version
of yngwie malmsteen or any number of metal guitarists who are only of
interest to other guitarists, rather than ordinary people who listen
to music.
i like the richard devine final test - he takes drugs and listens to
the finished piece. just so he can get into a completely different
head than who he is as a programmer/musician. if it doesn't hit him
as a piece of music instead of a series of effects and edits, he goes
back and reworks it until it's better. a lot of music could
benefit from this kind of quality control (with or without the drugs).
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org