IDM Mailing Archive

On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, g303 wrote:

quoted 6 lines At 23:05 04/10/95 -0700, you wrote:

> At 23:05 04/10/95 -0700, you wrote: > >B12 either are too lazy to work the rhythym tracks or they don't know > >how. Note that I tuned them out after ElectroSoma - maybe they've learned > >something about rhythm programming since then. > > Nope!

But then there's a lot to be said for music that isn't technically perfect in terms of compositional style, rhythm programming, or whatever. In my view there are many elements that are much more important. It's of no interest to me whether some artist does or doesn't know anything about rhythm programming if the sounds being created are worthwhile, and in B12's case they usually are.I have yet to hear anything from B12 that I really dislike, and much that I like. If that story about Warp turning dwn their latest album is really true that would be very sad indeed as some of Warp's output pales in comparison to works B12 has produced. Tony

On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Goethe wrote:

quoted 3 lines But then there's a lot to be said for music that isn't technically

> But then there's a lot to be said for music that isn't technically > perfect in terms of compositional style, rhythm programming, or whatever. > In my view there are many elements that are much more important.

That's where we differ. I've reached the point where the rhythm is THE most important element. For instance, right now I'm listening to some DEVO that a friend put on. Good songwriting, weird noises, and all I can think is - what boring fucking rhythms! Autechre seems to put a lot more effort into their rhythm programming and it shows - their beats evolve, change, go someplace. This is what I call rhythmic development (versus the usual chordal/melodic development which has been done to death, or the timbral development found in Trance). I find rhythmic development to be fresh, because its virgin territory in Western music. Meanwhile, my friend the Technopop head says "Where's the melody? This is boring." We're not listening to music in the same way. Neither one is right; we're just different. On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, JAMIE M. HODGE wrote:

quoted 5 lines I've always thought that Autechre would be better off as the

> I've always thought that Autechre would be better off as the > kid who does percussion, versus two.. I can't stand those schmaltzy synth > lines that always sludge up the great drum programming.. I haven't payed > attention to them recently, but if Flutter's any indication, I'll stick with > B12..

Ah, but the simple, repeated melodic figure is what holds Flutter together. If it was changing you'd most likely hear the rhythm as a chaotic jumbled mess... I've noticed that for most people, the melody occupies the foreground, and the rhythm the background. If you can reverse this you'll hear music in a radically different way. For me this occured when I was recording a lot of rap music, and I was listening to JUST the rhythm tracks of early 70s James Brown, to the point where I could hear the squeaking of the kick drum's pedal. That changed the way everything sounds. On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Irrational Phenomena wrote:

quoted 3 lines You're entitled to your opinion of course, and to some extent I'd have to

> You're entitled to your opinion of course, and to some extent I'd have to > agree that their stuff could use a little more inventiveness in the harmonic > department, the Gescom Clear release being a case in point. But, But, But ...

It's very hard to put together a track that's rhythmically, melodically, and timbrally complex. I think 808 State did it best on their Utd. State 90 album, and that appears to have been a fluke, an amazing confluence of the muses, which even they haven't been able to come anywhere close to duplicating....

quoted 1 line B12 always seemed pretty 'safe' to me both rhythmically and harmonically.

> B12 always seemed pretty 'safe' to me both rhythmically and harmonically.

That sums up my quarrel with them.

quoted 6 lines Things like filter sweeps, 303 squelching, running a drum machine through a

> Things like filter sweeps, 303 squelching, running a drum machine through a > fuzz pedal or a Korg MS20 have about had their run. To tell you the truth, I > think what mu-ziq does on 'Salsa With Mesquite' points in an interesting > direction -- FM synth abuse. Not just DX-100 bass but those groovy bell sounds > that you've been avoiding, along with the string patches. That and pitch-bend > abuse.

Yes, yes, and yes.

quoted 2 lines "It is a good world, generally (and especially when you totally ignore detail)."

> "It is a good world, generally (and especially when you totally ignore detail)." > --Darwin Grosse, who did NOT invent Eckankar.

Who is this Darwin Grosse fellow, and why does his name keep popping up in sigs vis-a-vis Eckankar? On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Jon Drukman wrote:

quoted 2 lines don't worry about it. i feel like a jerk as well but hey, if the world wants

> don't worry about it. i feel like a jerk as well but hey, if the world wants > to settle for an endless diet of B12 and Autechre and Freeform, then they get

I could subsist on an endless diet of Autechre! On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Irrational Phenomena wrote:

quoted 6 lines I guess my view on the issue is that if the real time performance involvement

> > I guess my view on the issue is that if the real time performance involvement > for a particular piece of music is pushing the 'start' button, then something's > been lost from the music. Sometimes the best thing about music is that it > is an irreproducible result. That's why that guy followed Charlie Parker > around for a year with a wire recorder, recording all his solos.

I agree - chance must be factored into the equation. There's also the dillemma - do you program 2 measures & hit play, or do you keep programming thru the entire song, so that each measure's unique? Most "artists" I hear are taking the easy way out. Chill Che