IDM Mailing Archive

On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, gmv500 wrote: } to further this "rock band, no wait they're IDM" thread ( I know I said let's end } it) I have a few comments: } } first I think anyone who is on this list must be required to own Artificial } Intelligence I+II, and Aphex's SAW I. } } those three CD's form the theoretical basis for IDM101!!!! However, don't forget Real Intelligence I + II on Rather Interesting. Those 5 titles will serve as a true litmus test for the incoming IDM students. | E r i c | [mail] franse@engr.arizona.edu | | F r a n s | [web] http://intermix.engr.arizona.edu/~franse | "Make the events occur that you want to occur" - The Black Dog

On 09-Mar-97, gmv500 scribbled something about (idm) Classes in IDM???:

quoted 2 lines first I think anyone who is on this list must be required to own Artificial

>first I think anyone who is on this list must be required to own Artificial >Intelligence I+II, and Aphex's SAW I.

quoted 1 line those three CD's form the theoretical basis for IDM101!!!!

>those three CD's form the theoretical basis for IDM101!!!!

I passed IDM101 and 202 by examination.. coz I don't have Artificial Intelligence I or II, but I do have SAW I :) what's next? IDM303? :) -- __ __\ \ Aurafix aka Hillie / PHD ^ DAMONES / /_\ \ http://www.clark.net/pub/buh/index.html \_____/ >> buh@clark.net >> < > .. >> .<>> >> > , m7= Do re mi fa so la ti .. Oh let's see if we can make it easier..

quoted 4 lines In preparation for your next course (IDM200) you will be required to listen to:

>In preparation for your next course (IDM200) you will be required to listen to: >- a minimum of 4 Apollo releases (two of which must be the 2nd comp as well a >Locust release) >- any release by Autechre (you choose)

quoted 1 line - Beaumont Hannant's Texturology

>- Beaumont Hannant's Texturology

Speaking of Beaumont Hannant....anyone know where I can the limited edition version of Texturology? Anyone want to part with theirs?????

gmv500 posted:

quoted 2 lines Be Bop jazz (which in my mind

> Be Bop jazz (which in my mind > takes an INTELLIGENT listener).

Now - somebody explain this to me, I missed class - why is it that as soon as some people start tripping off Bird they think they're in line for the bloody Presidency of Mensa, anyway? I thought it was the *musicians making IDM* who were the ones behind IDM's 'intelligence', not the listeners. If it all it takes to make IDM is an intelligent listener, then hell, IDM could just be a figment of the listener's imagination, an auditory hallucination. Who needs the rekkids? What use is trainspotting? I'm intelligent, I'm dancing, it's music to my ears, it's -- IDM! Remember - it's the *music* that's intelligent. Just because we happen listen to it & enjoy it doesn't make us Bertrand bloody Russells. One should always take a little time to pop a hole in one's own poseurship. signifier over signified signing off

This should get a huge number of responses. So I'll start.

quoted 5 lines it) I have a few comments:

>it) I have a few comments: > >first I think anyone who is on this list must be required to own Artificial >Intelligence I+II, and Aphex's SAW I. >

I agree with all of these, and I think that adding in Trance Europe Express volume 1, and Orbital's brown album would make a good weekend introduction.

quoted 11 lines those three CD's form the theoretical basis for IDM101!!!!

>those three CD's form the theoretical basis for IDM101!!!! > > after studying the CD's mentioned above, I think that anyone with any >ammount of measureable INTELLIGENCE will realize the following: > >I.D.M >- has NO vocals (by this I mean lyrics throughout the track, Banco de Gaia >has >vocals, but those are samples, not vocals like Bono) >- is made entirely thru means of electronics, none of that rock geetar >shit. (That

Here's where I start disagreeing. On my first read of this post, I didn't have any problems with it, but I do now. One of my top three records of last year was Scala - Beauty Nowhere. It's seefeel minus Mark clifford but still with Mark Van Hoen on Touch. I still find it hard to believe the rumours that these were 'only' demos. Guitars, lyrics, distortion. It's also idm. Deal with it. Some the 'things' they do, (processing and sampling themselves-wise) still blow me away.

quoted 6 lines - CAN be danced to (I consider headboppers to be dancing), but the focus

>- CAN be danced to (I consider headboppers to be dancing), but the focus >of the >music is on sounds more than booty shakeability. >- makes you think, not b/c it's got some political message, but b/c its >dependence >on repetition (loops) causes your mind to drift into deep thought

I'm split on this one. I go for the head aspect completely. Some songs and albums have had poltical messages. Orbital's In Sides comes to mind. Autechre's Anti ep. The Criminal Justice Compilation. I think you're totally off base with the repetition stuff. I thought the point of idm was that it wasn't repeated and looped. If it was it would be house or trance. I've been listening to _anti_ alot lately, (because I just got it, and thanks to the member who mentioned the newbury comix, I owe you big-time) and it's one of the best idm songs ever, and of course there are no repetitive beats. (We will turn a blind to the repetitive rhythm of the melody during idm101.) Other non-repeaters that come to mind are Aphex Twin - Start As You Mean to Go On. I tend to drift into deep thought during idm, but not because of the repetition. I think it's more because the constant changes force me to pay exclusive attention to the music.

quoted 6 lines IDM200 is a much more rigorous class then IDM101. it has a 50% dropout rate.

> >IDM200 is a much more rigorous class then IDM101. it has a 50% dropout rate. >The class includes penalties for failing to learn what is and what isn't IDM. >Any mention of U2/NIN/Smashing Pumpkins etc. will require the punishment of >listening to 72hours of DropBass 12"es. >

I think people can feel free to mention the above bands. Freedom of speech and all that. Of course we all have the freedom to them they are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Most importantly, you also have to tell them why.

quoted 3 lines Lecture and Lab start tomorrow morning,

>Lecture and Lab start tomorrow morning, >Professor GMV500:) >

np: Legion of Green Men - Spatial Specific A message from your guest lecturer, Phil Downey

At 22.58 1997-03-09 +0000, you wrote:

quoted 1 line - is made entirely thru means of electronics, none of that rock geetar

>- is made entirely thru means of electronics, none of that rock geetar

shit. (That

quoted 1 line means see you laterUnderworld/NIN/Chem Bros. Leave IDM; go suck Mtv dick)

>means see you laterUnderworld/NIN/Chem Bros. Leave IDM; go suck Mtv dick)

see you later squarepusher. see you later orb. see you later a lot of fuckin things gettin a lot of bandwidth here. why do you have this need to put up these lines of what's itm and what's not? can't you decide what's pc to listen to, or whass the matter? it's opinions like this which have made other types of music to simply stop evolving. -- Franz Enmark --- Extra Terrestrial -- -- there's a sheep loose in the lane, -- -- there's a goose asleep in the rain -- -- http://tbm.scicom.se/plod/ --- od? --

Philip Downey wrote:

quoted 2 lines those three CD's form the theoretical basis for IDM101!!!!

> > >those three CD's form the theoretical basis for IDM101!!!!

quoted 9 lines I.D.M

> >I.D.M > >- has NO vocals (by this I mean lyrics throughout the track, Banco de Gaia > >has > >vocals, but those are samples, not vocals like Bono) > >- is made entirely thru means of electronics, none of that rock geetar > >shit. (That > Here's where I start disagreeing. On my first read of this post, I didn't > have any problems with it, but I do now. > One of my top three records of last year was Scala - Beauty Nowhere.

Read it again, I said ROCK geetar shit. I don't care if an artist uses guitars. System 7 is all about guitars and I consider Fire+Water to have IDM value. I was refering to rock guitar style in IDM, like Chem Bros. I doubt Chem bros even use Guitars(samples maybe) but the music sure sounds like rock . If you listen to Amorphous Androgynous, you'll hear ton of guitar sounds, but it ain't ROCK. Is that a little better? I'm sure you know what I mean.

quoted 3 lines Guitars, lyrics, distortion. It's also idm. Deal with it. Some the

> Guitars, lyrics, distortion. It's also idm. Deal with it. Some the > 'things' they do, (processing and sampling themselves-wise) still blow me > away.

Well on the Scala thing, I am at a lost and will give you the benefit of the doubt. But are the lyrics/Vocals anything like what Chem Bros did with that OASIS guy? I sure hope not. You can have vocals/words in IDM (Dead Vent 7???) but anything like what I just mentioned I would never consider IDM. Please don't say it could be so or we'll Alanis take a stab at IDM. music is on sounds more than booty shakeability.

quoted 6 lines - makes you think, not b/c it's got some political message, but b/c its

> >- makes you think, not b/c it's got some political message, but b/c its > >dependence > >on repetition (loops) causes your mind to drift into deep thought > I'm split on this one. I go for the head aspect completely. Some songs > and albums have had poltical messages. Orbital's In Sides comes to mind. > Autechre's Anti ep. The Criminal Justice Compilation.

What I was trying to say, maybe not clear enough, was that IDM causes you to think b/c of it's repetitiveness of rhythms. By having that killer soundscape groove your mind is free to wonder to other things. Yes, Orbital may intend certain songs to have a political message, but hearing a certain synth sound is less likely to make you think about politics than someone shouting "Sunday Bloody Sunday." Regardless of an IDM track being political, I think the sounds themselves cause your mind to drift into thought. That is the way I experience it.

quoted 3 lines I think you're totally off base with the repetition stuff. I thought the

> I think you're totally off base with the repetition stuff. I thought the > point of idm was that it wasn't repeated and looped. If it was it would > be house or trance.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's true, but this would be learned in the second course, my whole perogative was to show that idm ain't rock. However you must admit, that there can be plenty of repetetive sounding IDM tracks. Loops may be a bad choice of words, but IDM is more repetive than other forms of music. It's sorta like jazz, the drummer always keeps that ding-dinga-ding going and anything can be played above that. I find the majority of IDM tracks to have something pretty constant above everything else going on.

quoted 3 lines I tend to drift into deep thought during idm, but not because of the

> I tend to drift into deep thought during idm, but not because of the > repetition. I think it's more because the constant changes force me to > pay exclusive attention to the music.

whatever works!

quoted 4 lines I think people can feel free to mention the above bands. Freedom of

> > > I think people can feel free to mention the above bands. Freedom of > speech and all that. Of course we all have the freedom to them they are > ABSOLUTELY wrong. Most importantly, you also have to tell them why.

I never said they couldn't. I only said (trying to be humourous) that we'd subject them to 72 hours of DROP BASS 12"es! The guy who started the U2 thread just didn't get it. U2 has absolutely nothing to with IDM, nothing. I never said censor anyone. If someone is wrong they will know why, and then be forced to listen to DROP BASS for a long time. Maybe then they'll become hard acid fans, which is more interesting than whatever Bono is doing lately (imo). ...looking for the perfect beat, gil ps The Beattles have a lot more to with IDM than U2, anyone remember that Fireman (something like that) that Paul McCartney released a few years ago?

gmv500 wrote:

quoted 4 lines first I think anyone who is on this list must be required to own Artificial

> first I think anyone who is on this list must be required to own Artificial > Intelligence I+II, and Aphex's SAW I. > > those three CD's form the theoretical basis for IDM101!!!!

"Theoretical basis" is nice. It gives us a datum to work from but does not necessarily limit us. A good test with this U2 thread is how do you relate or show the link between POP and SAW1, say.

quoted 2 lines after studying the CD's mentioned above, I think that anyone with any

> after studying the CD's mentioned above, I think that anyone with any > ammount of measureable INTELLIGENCE will realize the following....

(lists quite a few indicators / rules-of-thumb that work in general but in my opinion come AFTER the fact.) I've always liked the "language" model of music. That is, a track has a vocabulary, a grammar, a style and a message. I suspect that the grammar - the structural aspect of the music - is the parameter which is experimented with most by the "required listening" (RL) artists mentioned above. The next parameter on the hit list is probably the vocab - the sonic arsenal - knob twiddling, sampler fiddling etc. Style tends to affect both these parameters and is a very difficult parameter to define - we know that AFX's style evolved from SAW1 to RDJAlbum and that it differs from, say, Kenny Larkin, but how do you define it?? - very much an open question. Finally Message - what is the artist saying / alternatively, what is the listener hearing?. In rock'n'roll the lyrics form an important part of it - the backing adds the emotion. The RL examples above are abstract. Without lyrics we are given more freedom to draw our own conclusions and think. Okay, so the RL examples above demonstrate experimentation and very importantly _expression_ in Grammar, Vocab, Style and Message. Accordingly, the listener has lots to think about, lots to focus his/her intellect or intelligence on. If you analyse U2's latest album this way then what do you find? We see a shift in style and vocab towards those used in the IDM domain. But the expression is still very much through conventional song (albeit dance). Too few language dimensions are being manipulated to qualify as IDM (wrt the RL datum above). Just a first-cut, -- ____ ______ ____\ Q-Force mailto:qforce@graviton.levels.unisa.edu.au \_____ _____\ Visit http://graviton.levels.unisa.edu.au/~qforce/ \____

Q-Force wrote:

quoted 2 lines .... Too few language dimensions are being manipulated to qualify as

> .... Too few language dimensions are being manipulated to qualify as > IDM (wrt the RL datum above).

Got carried away towards the end. Sounds wanky to me now. Also this is way too absolute a thing to say. Stick "IMO" in front to take the curse off it. -- ____ ______ ____\ Q-Force mailto:qforce@graviton.levels.unisa.edu.au \_____ _____\ Visit http://graviton.levels.unisa.edu.au/~qforce/ \____

quoted 3 lines "Theoretical basis" is nice. It gives us a datum to work from but does

> "Theoretical basis" is nice. It gives us a datum to work from but does > not necessarily limit us. A good test with this U2 thread is how do you > relate or show the link between POP and SAW1, say.

Actually, it all comes back to SAW 1. Don't believe me? U2 produced Pop with the help of Flood, who also produced The Downward Spiral for Nine Inch Nails. Nine Inch Nails were remixed on Further Down the Spiral by Aphex Twin, who made SAW1! See how it works? This can be done for almost anyone BTW. How about Frank Sinatra? Glad you asked. Frank Sinatra was in High Society with Bing Crosby, who sang and duet with David Bowie on a Christmas special in the 70's. David Bowie toured with Nine Inch Nails, who were remixed by Aphex, who made SAW1. This little game works for just about anyone. Stupid huh? One more for fun, how about New Kids on the Block? Donnie Wahlberg of New Kids on the Block is the brother of Malk Wahlberg (aka Marky Mark) who was in Fear. Fear had a song by White Zombie on its sountrack, who were had a remix by the Dust Brothers on a recently released remix LP. The Dust Brothers produced Odelay for Beck, who was recently remixed by the Aphex Twin, who made SAW 1. Ok, ok, sorry (i know I'm a bad boy).... -Gonzi.

Gonzi (Fresh) wrote:

quoted 12 lines "Theoretical basis" is nice. It gives us a datum to work from but does

> > "Theoretical basis" is nice. It gives us a datum to work from but does > > not necessarily limit us. A good test with this U2 thread is how do you > > relate or show the link between POP and SAW1, say. > > One more for fun, how about New Kids on the Block? Donnie Wahlberg of > New Kids on the Block is the brother of Malk Wahlberg (aka Marky Mark) > who was in Fear. Fear had a song by White Zombie on its sountrack, who > were had a remix by the Dust Brothers on a recently released remix LP. > The Dust Brothers produced Odelay for Beck, who was recently remixed by > the Aphex Twin, who made SAW 1. > > Ok, ok, sorry (i know I'm a bad boy)....

You certainly are. Not really what I had in mind. :-) (But it certainly illustrates that one has to resort to pretty tenuous links to associate U2 with IDM.) -- ____ ______ ____\ Q-Force mailto:qforce@graviton.levels.unisa.edu.au \_____ _____\ Visit http://graviton.levels.unisa.edu.au/~qforce/ \____

quoted 5 lines IDM200 is a much more rigorous class then IDM101. it has a 50% dropout rate.

> >IDM200 is a much more rigorous class then IDM101. it has a 50% dropout rate. >The class includes penalties for failing to learn what is and what isn't IDM. >Any mention of U2/NIN/Smashing Pumpkins etc. will require the punishment of >listening to 72hours of DropBass 12"es.

now do the brandon spivey and richard devine 12"s on drop bass count as idm? the strange organization 445 e. 9th st ny.ny.10009 212.505.3025

Man, I thought idm was the kind of music it's listeners were not categorising... Well, you asked for it: gmv500 <gmv500@earthlink.net> wrote:

quoted 2 lines I.D.M

> I.D.M > - has NO vocals (by this I mean lyrics throughout the track, Banco de

Gaia has

quoted 1 line vocals, but those are samples, not vocals like Bono)

> vocals, but those are samples, not vocals like Bono)

Bye bye RDJ ("Milkman"), bye bye all intelligent music that will be made in the future _with_ vocals.

quoted 1 line - is made entirely thru means of electronics, none of that rock geetar

> - is made entirely thru means of electronics, none of that rock geetar

shit. (That

quoted 1 line means see you laterUnderworld/NIN/Chem Bros. Leave IDM; go suck Mtv dick)

> means see you laterUnderworld/NIN/Chem Bros. Leave IDM; go suck Mtv dick)

Bye bye RDJ ("Didgeridoo"), bye bye all intelligent music that will be made in the future _with_ acoustic instruments.

quoted 1 line - a track can be of any length (from some Pete Namlook 60mins of synthi

> - a track can be of any length (from some Pete Namlook 60mins of synthi

noodling

quoted 1 line to some 30 second Black Dog fill)

> to some 30 second Black Dog fill)

ok

quoted 1 line - CAN be danced to (I consider headboppers to be dancing), but the focus

> - CAN be danced to (I consider headboppers to be dancing), but the focus

of the

quoted 1 line music is on sounds more than booty shakeability.

> music is on sounds more than booty shakeability.

ok

quoted 1 line - makes you think, not b/c it's got some political message, but b/c its

> - makes you think, not b/c it's got some political message, but b/c its

dependence

quoted 1 line on repetition (loops) causes your mind to drift into deep thought

> on repetition (loops) causes your mind to drift into deep thought

Bye bye RDJ again. I thought IDM was mainly NON-repetitive music, which made it intelligent because there was more work to it than just making one measure and repeating it one thousand times.

quoted 1 line - most often it IS better performed from your home stereo than live

> - most often it IS better performed from your home stereo than live

....which might (or will) change.

quoted 1 line - is NOT rock (which is exactly why I joined this list)

> - is NOT rock (which is exactly why I joined this list)

....or we'd call it IRM...

quoted 1 line - is HIGHLY addictive

> - is HIGHLY addictive

That depends on you, not the music.

quoted 1 line In preparation for your next course (IDM200) you will be required to

> In preparation for your next course (IDM200) you will be required to

listen to:

quoted 2 lines (...)

> (...) > - anything by RDJ

who I have now proven to be not idm, according to your definition. IMO the difference between idm and all other dance music, is the fact that idm is not intended to be a commercial succes (see my earlier posting), but is a new form of art. The makers are trying to experiment with the new possibilities of technology and music. I have a strong feeling that you (gmv500) listen to idm because it's 'hot' and not (yet) discovered by the masses. These are my last words on what is idm. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M a t h i a s V e r r a e s ET.Phone.Home@ThePentagon.com 'Le corbeau, honteux et confus, jura, mais un peu tard, qu'on ne l'y prendrait plus.' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Mathias Verraes wrote:

quoted 4 lines IMO the difference between idm and all other dance music, is the fact that

> IMO the difference between idm and all other dance music, is the fact that > idm is not intended to be a commercial succes (see my earlier posting), but > is a new form of art. The makers are trying to experiment with the new > possibilities of technology and music.

Commercial is a pretty elastic term. Anyone who puts out records hopes to make money on the deal. But there is a vaste difference between big corporate record labels and independents. Independents can afford to take risks because their up front costs are usually very small compared to what a corporate label will put into a mega-release. IDM is about connecting a like-minded audience with the music makers without so many layers of corporate cruft. It is still a commercial enterprise. It just works on a whole different level. Fact is, those who know will seek it out, and those who don't can buy whatever sony or wea is selling today. To the extent that bigger labels do get involved, if they do it right, I think it's great. Virgin/Caroline/Astralwerks have done a very respectable job of getting great music in people's hands. And a Rephlex/Sire deal is great news for us in the US. ON NOW: Assembled 19 -- BIG UP STEFAN! --------------------------------------------------------------------- "i love the smell of new carpet. it makes me dizzy. just like when you fall in love." -- Mike Dvorkin Home Page, featuring Reagan on Black Velvet, the EMP Compilation CD, samples of my music, etc http://soli.inav.net/~kent/ Kent Williams kent@inav.net CADSI 2651 Crosspark Road Coralville IA 52241 (319) 338 6053 (home) (319) 626 6700 x 219 (work) (319) 626 3488 (fax)

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Kent Williams wrote:

quoted 17 lines On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Mathias Verraes wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Mathias Verraes wrote: > > IMO the difference between idm and all other dance music, is the fact that > > idm is not intended to be a commercial succes (see my earlier posting), but > > is a new form of art. The makers are trying to experiment with the new > > possibilities of technology and music. > > Commercial is a pretty elastic term. Anyone who puts out records hopes to > make money on the deal. But there is a vaste difference between big > corporate record labels and independents. Independents can afford > to take risks because their up front costs are usually very small > compared to what a corporate label will put into a mega-release. > > IDM is about connecting a like-minded audience with the music makers without > so many layers of corporate cruft. It is still a commercial enterprise. > It just works on a whole different level. Fact is, those who know will seek it > out, and those who don't can buy whatever sony or wea is selling today. >

To continue this thread of discussion, I agree partially with both of the above authors. However, the main point I think they are missing is that IDM has nothing to do with sales, commercialism, sell-outs, or indie releases. It has to do with the individual. I think Mr. Verraes got very close to the issue at heart with as near a concrete definition as possible, that IDM "is a new form of art." It is technology wedded to music, but it is much more. Whether or not it sells is besides the point. The focus of art (in my mind) is to move the audience to a new appreciation of forms (or non-forms). Art is not something which requires agreement or a following, but is internalized and individual. True, many movements which develop a mass audience stagnate and lose sight of the original intent, and instead become materialistic and consumpionist. This is much of what is wrong with modern popular music today. My definition of IDM is exactly that -- mine. Holding to that pattern, others definitions of IDM are theirs. The beauty of the system is that no one definition is correct, true, or applicable. Instead all (or any) are correct to the individual. I know that may infuriate many who feel they are the end-all of IDM censorship, but it is part of the nature of art and this discussion list. I apologize for extending this point longer than was probably necessary, so I'll conclude with at least one useful part --- Can anyone tell me where to find a complete Speedy J discography? And as well, how was the "Ginger" EP? Thanks ahead of time. Courteously yours, J

Mathias Verraes wrote:

quoted 13 lines ...

> > ... > > Read it again, I said ROCK geetar shit > ... > > but the music sure sounds like rock . If you listen to > > Amorphous Androgynous, you'll hear ton of guitar sounds, but it ain't > ROCK. > ... > > my whole perogative > > was to show that idm ain't rock. > ... > > Where'd you get the rockophobia ? ;-)

I don't have any rockophobia. I was listening to Black Sabbath last night. My radio station at work is glued to the classic rock station. However, IDM is not rock and I prey it doesn't go the rock route that it seems to be starting . If you would like, there was an excellent article in XLR8R not long ago about techno going down the same path of rock and its frightening. I can put it up on the list (if they want it) hence the Cc. But I think most, including me, are getting tired of the thread. later, gil

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:25:20 +0100, Mathias Verraes <ET.phone.home@ThePentagon.com> wrote:

quoted 2 lines Bye bye RDJ ("Didgeridoo"), bye bye all intelligent music that will be made

>Bye bye RDJ ("Didgeridoo"), bye bye all intelligent music that will be made >in the future _with_ acoustic instruments.

<pedantic mode on> Didgeridoo wasn't made with a real didgeridoo, it's a sampled sound. <pedantic mode off> Doesn't change the thrust of the argument though: it's perfectly possible to make IDM with acoustic instruments, maybe even 100% acoustic? (or house for that matter, Ten City anyone?) Otto OnNow: Headspace001 (great EP!)

On 12 Mar 97 11:01 -0600 (-1100), Otto Koppius wrote to me:

quoted 3 lines Doesn't change the thrust of the argument though: it's perfectly possible

> Doesn't change the thrust of the argument though: it's perfectly possible > to make IDM with acoustic instruments, maybe even 100% acoustic? > (or house for that matter, Ten City anyone?)

One of the aspects of electronic music that intrigues me so much, is artists like Autechre who approach their music with the intent to create electronic sounds, not music that could be reproduced by accoustic instruments. Certainly artists like Kraftwerk have been trying for decades to make machine music more acceptable in traditional spheres. But it bothers me that some people still think in terms of accoustic as real, and digital as something synthetic.... making it less than real. It's like blowing through a pipe is less real than turning a knob. But enough with Freud already! onnow: Noise Unit "Drill" (off beat!) Lame Thread Prevention in Effect: Aaron Michelson --------------------------------------------------------------------- aw-teck'r (autechre) "Everything you Know is Wrong" For reviews, interviews, art & trash http://www.on-it.net/~aaron/ aaron@defiant.on-it.net

In message <52807.s9008624@mail.student.utwente.nl>, Otto Koppius <o.r.koppius@student.utwente.nl> writes

quoted 9 lines On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:25:20 +0100,

>On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:25:20 +0100, >Mathias Verraes <ET.phone.home@ThePentagon.com> wrote: > >>Bye bye RDJ ("Didgeridoo"), bye bye all intelligent music that will be made >>in the future _with_ acoustic instruments. > ><pedantic mode on> >Didgeridoo wasn't made with a real didgeridoo, it's a sampled sound. ><pedantic mode off>

If it's sampled sound...how does he modulate it so that it goes all squelchy like at the very end of the track? -- Ben Coffer Hybrid Productions http://www.hybridgame.demon.co.uk/

On 12-Mar-97 Ben Coffer wrote:

quoted 3 lines Didgeridoo wasn't made with a real didgeridoo, it's a sampled sound.

>>Didgeridoo wasn't made with a real didgeridoo, it's a sampled sound. >If it's sampled sound...how does he modulate it so that it goes >all squelchy like at the very end of the track?

samplers have filters (well, the good ones do). with something like the k2000, for instance, you can actually string 3 different filters in a row and modulate various qualities of all of them in real time... it's pretty damn cool. anyway the digeridoo in the aphex twin track doesn't even sound like a real digeridoo at all, it sounds like a synth. Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- System Administrator SpotMedia Communications

At 18:36 1997-03-12 +0000, you wrote:

quoted 14 lines In message <52807.s9008624@mail.student.utwente.nl>, Otto Koppius

>In message <52807.s9008624@mail.student.utwente.nl>, Otto Koppius ><o.r.koppius@student.utwente.nl> writes >>On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:25:20 +0100, >>Mathias Verraes <ET.phone.home@ThePentagon.com> wrote: >> >>>Bye bye RDJ ("Didgeridoo"), bye bye all intelligent music that will be made >>>in the future _with_ acoustic instruments. >> >><pedantic mode on> >>Didgeridoo wasn't made with a real didgeridoo, it's a sampled sound. >><pedantic mode off> > >If it's sampled sound...how does he modulate it so that it goes >all squelchy like at the very end of the track?

<Pedantic and stupid mode on> You can get that very Digeridoo-sound from a Korg MS-20 and squelch it around as much as you like. My bet is that he´s done it with a MS-20 or something similar. And here´s my guess to what RDJ´s doing onstage nowadays: He´s got all the music on DAT, and he´s just lying there playing Tetris on his laptop. He has no need or intention to make it more complicated than that! Erik

Some things you can only do with acoustic instruments, and some only with synths. We shouldn't we unite them, if we can make better music that way ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M a t h i a s V e r r a e s ET.Phone.Home@ThePentagon.com 'Le corbeau, honteux et confus, jura, mais un peu tard, qu'on ne l'y prendrait plus.' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aaron Michelson <aaron@defiant.on-it.net> wrote:

quoted 4 lines One of the aspects of electronic music that intrigues me so much, is

> One of the aspects of electronic music that intrigues me so much, is > artists like Autechre who approach their music with the intent to create > electronic sounds, not music that could be reproduced by accoustic > instruments. Certainly artists like Kraftwerk have been trying for

decades

quoted 2 lines to make machine music more acceptable in traditional spheres. But it

> to make machine music more acceptable in traditional spheres. But it > bothers me that some people still think in terms of accoustic as real,

and

quoted 2 lines digital as something synthetic.... making it less than real. It's like

> digital as something synthetic.... making it less than real. It's like > blowing through a pipe is less real than turning a knob.

quoted 11 lines One of the aspects of electronic music that intrigues me so much, is

>> One of the aspects of electronic music that intrigues me so much, is >> artists like Autechre who approach their music with the intent to create >> electronic sounds, not music that could be reproduced by accoustic >> instruments. Certainly artists like Kraftwerk have been trying for decades >> to make machine music more acceptable in traditional spheres. But it >> bothers me that some people still think in terms of accoustic as real, and >> digital as something synthetic.... making it less than real. It's like >> blowing through a pipe is less real than turning a knob. > >Some things you can only do with acoustic instruments, and some only with >synths. We shouldn't we unite them, if we can make better music that way ?

That's right, when you blend things then you normally get the best result. That's why debates like the analog vs. digital one is pretty pointless, because you can take the good things from analog synthesizers and integrate with the possiblities that digital equipment has brought us. I think Autechres latest album is a good example of this, because it sounds certainly more digital than their previous works do, but I guess there's a lot analog shit going on there as well... Johan. ,,, /'~'\ ( 0 0 ) +----------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo----------------------------+ Johan Jaatinen Electronic music maker Anika@Info.LiU.SE Oooo. Radio DJ MU WILL RISE AGAIN .oooO ( ) Vegetarian +-----------------------------( )----) /------------------------------+ \ ( (_/ \_)