IDM Mailing Archive

Actually, a few weeks ago, my frind got ahold of the demo for this. We sat down in one night and recorded about 60 minutes worth of music. It was so damn easy...I mean...here I was, Analogue Bubblebath 1.... even with a 30 minute limit. Sort of calls into question the validity of music produced on that thing.

On 19 Aug 97, Random Junk wrote:

quoted 3 lines one of my all time favorite ambient CDs is "thursday afternoon" by

> one of my all time favorite ambient CDs is "thursday afternoon" by > brian eno, which was made by setting up a few tape loops and > letting them run for 60 minutes.

Interesting you should raise this : about a month ago I played my husband (who owns a recording studio and has *all* the toys) "Base and Apex" off Brian Eno's _After the Heat_ ... one of *my* all time faves. After literally 2 minutes he asked me to switch it off, because it 'bored him senseless' and he damned it as not being music and stated "If you give me five minutes with a sequencer, I can do that too". But the point is : HE DIDN'T (otherwise he'd be Eno...).

quoted 2 lines the fact that he didn't "do anything" for 60 minutes does not

> the fact that he didn't "do anything" for 60 minutes does not > reduce or negate the quality of the product.

Well - this is precisely the point to be argued. For me the mood induced by the loops and layers was sufficiently pleasing, without analysing their every origin. But maybe that's the difference between someone who works with the machines and somebody who just enjoys the end result. By the same token, he cannot watch a movie and relax : he's constantly deconstructing the dolby stereo mix, the various SFX etc. I * "Incomplete without surface noise" - Autechre

On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Irene McC wrote: } > the fact that he didn't "do anything" for 60 minutes does not } > reduce or negate the quality of the product. } } Well - this is precisely the point to be argued. For me the mood } induced by the loops and layers was sufficiently pleasing, without } analysing their every origin. But maybe that's the difference } between someone who works with the machines and somebody who just } enjoys the end result. } } By the same token, he cannot watch a movie and relax : he's } constantly deconstructing the dolby stereo mix, the various SFX etc. I try to take the same stance as you. Why treat the listening experience as a puzzle that must be figured out? I work with computers all day and the last thing I want to do while enjoying music is listen to each sound and think "ahh, that sound was created by flanging a backwards snare drum" or "those sounds are coming from brand X synth". Why not lose yourself in the music instead of trying to dissect it on a technical level? I know it must be hard for those surrounded with studio gear all the time (not me) to detach themselves from the process of creating the piece, but try -- it opens up so many other levels of the music to enjoy! | E r i c | [mail] franse@engr.arizona.edu | | F r a n s | [web] http://engr.arizona.edu/~franse | "Be happy or die" - The Art of Noise

this is a very good argument that i've actually used when arguing the validity of electronic music to my "punk rock" friends..... something to the effect of them saying," yeah...they're just twiddling knobs and pushing buttons, they're not playing real instruments" and me replying, "why focus so much on how the music is made, but how it sounds and how it makes you feel" i guess this is an old and played argument......but it's true.......ppl do the same thing w/ dj's ie......"wow that mix was flawless"......oh really, you can tell....shouldn't you be dancing out of your gourd or something instead of being persinickety on whether the dj dropped the needle at the right time (i've been guilty of this myself tho ;) ) well my 2 cents for ya........ aaron................

quoted 14 lines I try to take the same stance as you. Why treat the listening

> I try to take the same stance as you. Why treat the listening >experience as a puzzle that must be figured out? I work with computers >all day and the last thing I want to do while enjoying music is listen to >each sound and think "ahh, that sound was created by flanging a backwards >snare drum" or "those sounds are coming from brand X synth". Why not lose >yourself in the music instead of trying to dissect it on a technical >level? I know it must be hard for those surrounded with studio gear all >the time (not me) to detach themselves from the process of creating the >piece, but try -- it opens up so many other levels of the music to enjoy! > > | E r i c | [mail] franse@engr.arizona.edu | > | F r a n s | [web] http://engr.arizona.edu/~franse | > > "Be happy or die" - The Art of Noise

--- K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid. aaron@wired.com............................................................

quoted 10 lines Actually, a few weeks ago, my frind got ahold of the demo for this.

> Actually, a few weeks ago, my frind got ahold of the demo for this. > We sat > down in one night and recorded about 60 minutes worth of music. It > was so > damn easy...I mean...here I was, Analogue Bubblebath 1.... even with a > 30 > minute limit. > > Sort of calls into question the validity of music produced on that > thing.

Well Rebirth is no easier (or harder) to use than a real 303 or 808... so in fact youre questioning the validity of ALL techno pre 1990!!! heheh... Steve /k/./F/

quoted 9 lines From: Tim Gill <lovecrft@fishnet.net>

> From: Tim Gill <lovecrft@fishnet.net> > > Actually, a few weeks ago, my frind got ahold of the demo for this. We sat > down in one night and recorded about 60 minutes worth of music. It was so > damn easy...I mean...here I was, Analogue Bubblebath 1.... even with a 30 > minute limit. > > Sort of calls into question the validity of music produced on that > thing.

The assumption here is that the validity of music depends largely on the effort spent in producing it. We could look at it another way: starting with the question "What is this music intended to do to [for?] its listeners?" If the intent--the purpose of the music--is to manipulate the hearers' energy level so as to whip the floor into a frenzy, I think few would disagree that the musical procedures typical of straight-ahead techno are tremendously efficient (in the sense of requiring a minimal effort for a large impact)... and while it's true that the style comes from the machines to some extent, it's also true that the machines (especially all-in-one boxes like the MC303) are very well adapted for the style. This has nothing to do with interesting art, of course, but it isn't completely without merit, and it does have its own validity in the right setting. Or, who decided that "interesting art" is the only valid purpose for music? ... I write, even though I'd much rather hear interesting music than boring, functional, dancefloor music... J ________ \ / | Bee women: "What kind of corn soldiers are you?" H. James Harkins | Arthur: "Umm, oh, er, we're, uh, we're colonels." jharkins@acpub.duke.edu | \/ | - from "The Tick," now on Comedy Central, 6PM M-F "If we keep our attention focused on the present, we can be sure of one thing, namely that whatever we are attending to in this moment will change..." -- Jon Kabat-Zinn

At 07:57 PM 8/19/97 +0100, .... wrote:

quoted 17 lines Actually, a few weeks ago, my frind got ahold of the demo for this.

>> Actually, a few weeks ago, my frind got ahold of the demo for this. >> We sat >> down in one night and recorded about 60 minutes worth of music. It >> was so >> damn easy...I mean...here I was, Analogue Bubblebath 1.... even with a >> 30 >> minute limit. >> >> Sort of calls into question the validity of music produced on that >> thing. > >Well Rebirth is no easier (or harder) to use than a real 303 or 808... >so in fact youre questioning the validity of ALL techno pre 1990!!! >heheh... > >Steve >

Well, then I guess I am, because in my opinion generic techno isn't valid.

Generic techno? Are you referring to techno made with "standard" analog drum machines? I used to think that because they used such generic sounds, the music would be generic. I was wrong, of course. It isn't the samples which make the music. (although they help) --brett On Tue, 19 August 1997, at 18:20:49, Tim Gill wrote:

quoted 3 lines Well, then I guess I am, because in my opinion generic techno isn't valid.

> > Well, then I guess I am, because in my opinion generic techno isn't valid. >

quoted 13 lines Sort of calls into question the validity of music produced on that

> >> Sort of calls into question the validity of music produced on that > >> thing. > > > >Well Rebirth is no easier (or harder) to use than a real 303 or > 808... > >so in fact youre questioning the validity of ALL techno pre 1990!!! > >heheh... > > > >Steve > > > > Well, then I guess I am, because in my opinion generic techno isn't > valid.

But it would depend on youre description of generic techno, i have a fairfew detroit classics which could be termed generic due to their use of 808s 909s yamaha FM synths and cheap 8-bit samplers, the instruments used are almost identical on all these records...... but its the way the only available equipment at the time was used that makes these records special. Your chemicals and orbitals and autechres could have the wierdest and most wonderful instruments in the world, but they could never match the power of derrick may or the aphex twin armed only with an 808 and dx100. rant over...bed time.....mc-303 still sucks....and theres nothing decent on the learning zone on bbc 2.............. Steve /k/./F/

Ok, my whole point is that it took no musical talent really to create something sounded pretty good. Brian Eno's tape loops took musical talent to create something different and interesting. I'm not talking about actual man-hours of effort here. Also, keep in mind I am speaking of music created solely on the Rebirth...as soon as you add in other synths and keyboards, it strips away the limits. I mean, there are only so many sounds you can create with that thing.

quoted 31 lines The assumption here is that the validity of music depends largely on the

>The assumption here is that the validity of music depends largely on the >effort spent in producing it. We could look at it another way: starting >with the question "What is this music intended to do to [for?] its >listeners?" If the intent--the purpose of the music--is to manipulate >the hearers' energy level so as to whip the floor into a frenzy, I think >few would disagree that the musical procedures typical of straight-ahead >techno are tremendously efficient (in the sense of requiring a minimal >effort for a large impact)... and while it's true that the style comes >from the machines to some extent, it's also true that the machines >(especially all-in-one boxes like the MC303) are very well adapted for >the style. > >This has nothing to do with interesting art, of course, but it isn't >completely without merit, and it does have its own validity in the right >setting. > >Or, who decided that "interesting art" is the only valid purpose for music? > >... I write, even though I'd much rather hear interesting music than boring, >functional, dancefloor music... J > ________ > \ / | Bee women: "What kind of corn soldiers are you?" >H. James Harkins | Arthur: "Umm, oh, er, we're, uh, we're colonels." >jharkins@acpub.duke.edu | > \/ | - from "The Tick," now on Comedy Central, 6PM M-F > >"If we keep our attention focused on the present, we can be sure of one >thing, namely that whatever we are attending to in this moment will change..." >-- Jon Kabat-Zinn > >

Tim wrote: Also, keep in mind I am speaking of music created solely on the Rebirth...as soon as you add in other synths and keyboards, it strips away the limits. I mean, there are only so many sounds you can create with that thing. I write: I don't buy this argument. Sure Rebirth is limited, but so are the original machines. A piano is limited too, but people have managed to tinker with those for centuries and come up with some amazing music. Of course a piano is a little more complex (ie more keys and such) but still I think you could do some nice stuff with Rebirth. Some of my favorite techno could be taken as 'minimalist' ala Rebirth, like say Drexcyia. AT times I don't hear much more than 303 type sounds and an 808 or 909. Somehow they manage to create real eerie pumping techno with 'limited' instruments. I think there is a lot yet to do with something like Rebirth, and I guess that's why I bought it. To play with it. Figure out it's limitations. (coming from a non-music background, but also knowing I don't want to make acid house either). Figure out workarounds, and manipulate them to find a minimal groove; and I don't mean a Plastikman minimal groove either. Maybe that's the type of stuff you're referring to, because you pretty much can make a Plastikmanish track in about 5 minutes. peace Nate Nate Harrison Digital Magician Inc. www.digimagician.com nate@digimagician.com 313.994.7316

Tim Gill writes:

quoted 3 lines Ok, my whole point is that it took no musical talent really to create

> Ok, my whole point is that it took no musical talent really to create > something sounded pretty good. Brian Eno's tape loops took musical talent > to create something different and interesting.

see, you're still caught up in archaic notions of what it means to be a composer, or a musician. if some simple farting around on rebirth sounded pretty good (and you say it did, so i have no reason to doubt you), then that was musical talent in action! whether or not that talent consisted of hitting "randomize" on rebirth a few times or making tape loops is irrelevant. as zappa said (and as i'm so fond of quoting): art is what you put the frame around. if i stick an AM radio next to my computer, and announce that the sounds picked up while i play quake are my next album, then that is a sound composition (aka "music") for the duration that i declare it to be happening. as soon as i say "the performance is over" that is that, even if the radio keeps making noise. it is now no longer art, it is merely sound that happens to be falling out of a radio speaker. -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com SpotMedia Communications ...I was an infinitely hot and dense dot...

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Tim Gill wrote:

quoted 2 lines Ok, my whole point is that it took no musical talent really to create

> Ok, my whole point is that it took no musical talent really to create > something sounded pretty good.

So? Since when did creating music require "musical talent" on the part of the musician? And I don't say this just to piss all over your ideas, I really do mean it. If you were able to create something that sounded pretty good in a short amount of time, then stop feeling so guilty and pat yourself on the back. There is a rather large amount of great music out there that was created by people who didn't really know what they were doing either :) I've messed around with ReBirth for about half an hour in the past three days and have been able to create a halfway decent loop or two myself. Rather than being dismayed at how "easy" it was, I seem to be more struck with the posibilities of what I could do if I weren't essentially twiddling the knobs randomly. Out 2 Lunch With Lunchmeat (Fried Ice Cream Is A Reality), Paul wesley@interaccess.com

It's not that the music sounds bad. I'm saying it is invalid as music because a monkey could do the same with the same machines, pressing random buttons gets you a nice sounding song. In other words, there's nothing special about it. At 12:26 PM 8/20/97 -0700, Brett McCormick wrote:

quoted 15 lines Generic techno? Are you referring to techno made with "standard"

> >Generic techno? Are you referring to techno made with "standard" >analog drum machines? I used to think that because they used such >generic sounds, the music would be generic. I was wrong, of course. >It isn't the samples which make the music. (although they help) > >--brett > >On Tue, 19 August 1997, at 18:20:49, Tim Gill wrote: > >> >> Well, then I guess I am, because in my opinion generic techno isn't valid. >> > >

Tim Gill writes:

quoted 4 lines It's not that the music sounds bad. I'm saying it is invalid as music

> It's not that the music sounds bad. I'm saying it is invalid as music > because a monkey could do the same with the same machines, pressing random > buttons gets you a nice sounding song. In other words, there's nothing > special about it.

yeah, but if you put that monkey in a tank, and give him a record deal, then watch out! he could be bigger than the SPICE GIRLS.

quoted 2 lines Good point. But I also have the right to view that art, and have an opinion

> Good point. But I also have the right to view that art, and have an opinion > that it means nothing. That it is senseless.

ah, in that case you set yourself up as an art critic. and personally i don't put much stock in critics.

quoted 2 lines This all comes down to what you believe art IS. And each person has their

> This all comes down to what you believe art IS. And each person has their > own definition.

i think we need to arrive at one that is mutually satisfying, or our critical dialogues will suffer. a review that you write will be useless to me unless i know what your standards for art are.

quoted 5 lines You have broadened your definition so that Art can be anything. So,

> You have broadened your definition so that Art can be anything. So, > for you, this synth is vlaid because there is a person who sat down > and sais "I want to make some music." I have a more particular > view, I think. Art has to be something that only the person that > creates it could have created...all art should be a first...

nate harrison provided a very good response to this, i just have to say that i totally agree with him.

quoted 4 lines Well, I don't buy your argument. In my opinion the Rebirth is VERY

> Well, I don't buy your argument. In my opinion the Rebirth is VERY > limited in the amount of sounds and emotions that can come out of > it. In fact, it is very emotionless...it's main variance is amount > of intensity.

i have to disagree. i think it is possible to write LOTS of different styles of music with just a 303 and a drum machine. just because you can't visualize doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means your musical sensibilities are confined more by the equipment. i used to do all my music with a casio cz-101 and a cheap korg drum machine, and i created lots of different stuff. it was ludicrously difficult but one of the things that defines good art for me is knowing that the artist can transcend the limits of the gear. roger miller (the mission of burma guitarist, not the king of the road guy) used to do a show called "maximum electric piano" where the entire thing was sounds from one yamaha electric baby grand. he used an electroharmonix 16 second delay loop to build up huge walls of sound, or repeating rhythms, and then do crazy solos over the top through distortion pedals. it was pretty amazing.

quoted 2 lines With the Rebirth, you don't need talent. As I've said, a monkey

> With the Rebirth, you don't need talent. As I've said, a monkey > could do it.

time for you to put up or shut up, i think. please, produce this incredible monkey already. tell you what, we'll have him cut some demos, i'll put them on the net, and we'll open it up to a vote. if the majority of people who listen like it, i'll put his record out. jimg/skoop wrote:

quoted 1 line Yeah, true...but until it happens, all's there is is the mouse.

> Yeah, true...but until it happens, all's there is is the mouse.

as someone else pointed out, they are already working on the next Rebirth, which will not be limited to the mouse.

quoted 4 lines And frankly, though I don't know why, the concept of using a

> And frankly, though I don't know why, the concept of using a > computer (as in "desktop pc", not synthesizer) to make music doesn't > sit well with me. Probably because I spend all day at work staring > at them...

well, this is just a silly artificial distinction. the processors in my gear are incredibly similar to the processors in my computer. in fact, the k2000 (my main axe) has a motorola 68000 series as its main cpu, same chip that was in all the pre-powerpc macintoshes. all we're talking about is a different interface. and personally i'd rather have it all on my mac screen where it can be manipulated with mouse & keyboard, than sit hunched over that tiny little LCD display, paging through menus with buttons and knobs. in fact, there are programs which basically replace the synth's panel with nice big on screen graphic displays. tweaking a synth envelope with a mouse sure beats using arrow keys!

quoted 2 lines personally i find watching someone twiddling the knobs on the 303 to

>>personally i find watching someone twiddling the knobs on the 303 to >>be about as boring as a guitar solo.

quoted 1 line So how do you perform live? (Just curious)

>So how do you perform live? (Just curious)

i don't. precisely because i haven't thought of a way to do it that i would find interesting, if i were in the audience watching me. no dancing teddy bears for me, thanks. chris graves wrote:

quoted 4 lines regarding all this premade sample stuff (rebirth, etc). sure, i

> regarding all this premade sample stuff (rebirth, etc). sure, i > like some of the sounds it makes... but how can an artist feel good > about the music he made if none of the samples are his own? [sample > creation is part of the process (unless you are quite lame).]

first off, rebirth is mostly doing modelling. no samples. (well, the 808 sounds are samples, but the 303 section is all modelled). does it make a difference? i don't know, the model is that of a real 303, and is almost 100% identical... so there's the whole question of "why emulate something that already exists"... well, from propellerheads point of view "because people will pay for it". i personally wish they would put more knobs on it than are on the real 303 so we can make some truly warped noises, by manipulating the model at a lower level. version 2.0, maybe? but, we are straight back to the "does art have to be original or does it have to be good" debate... obviously for some people original == good. i can live with that, but i also think that you can kick serious ass with an 808 and a 303 if you put some thought into it. 0 (zero) wrote:

quoted 1 line Why dont people just get ONE synth and a frigging four track!

> Why dont people just get ONE synth and a frigging four track!

cos it's more convenient to have lots of synths? i mean, yeah, you can do a lot with one synth & a tape deck but it's easier when you have LOTS of stuff happening at once. i basically write all my music with all my gear running into the mixer and record it live to DAT. it's nice to be able to hear the entire thing at once. sorry for the length of this post. (not really) np: ed rush - technology. an excellent example of the power of recontextualizing, actually. this track is filled with lots of old belgian style 1992 rave noises, but reworked into a techstep framework. despite using cliched & played sounds, they don't sound cliched in the new context. that, to me, is really exciting. -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com SpotMedia Communications ...I was an infinitely hot and dense dot...

quoted 5 lines Tim Gill writes:

> Tim Gill writes: > > It's not that the music sounds bad. I'm saying it is invalid as music > > because a monkey could do the same with the same machines, pressing random > > buttons gets you a nice sounding song. In other words, there's nothing > > special about it.

i have a compilation cd which features both afx's analogue bubblebath, and some monkeys (no, really), and i still haven't decided which track i prefer - i bet the monkeys would fare better with a 303 than rdj would howling wildly. the seals on cd2 lay down some nice grooves as well, seguing beautifully into holger thingummy's sublime track boat-woman-song, which everybody should listen to at least once before they die

Good point. But I also have the right to view that art, and have an opinion that it means nothing. That it is senseless. This all comes down to what you believe art IS. And each person has their own definition. You have broadened your definition so that Art can be anything. So, for you, this synth is vlaid because there is a person who sat down and sais "I want to make some music." I have a more particular view, I think. Art has to be something that only the person that creates it could have created...all art should be a first... Just difference of ideals. At 12:43 PM 8/20/97 -0700, Random Junk wrote:

quoted 24 lines Tim Gill writes:

>Tim Gill writes: >> Ok, my whole point is that it took no musical talent really to create >> something sounded pretty good. Brian Eno's tape loops took musical talent >> to create something different and interesting. > >see, you're still caught up in archaic notions of what it means to be >a composer, or a musician. if some simple farting around on rebirth >sounded pretty good (and you say it did, so i have no reason to doubt >you), then that was musical talent in action! whether or not that >talent consisted of hitting "randomize" on rebirth a few times or >making tape loops is irrelevant. as zappa said (and as i'm so fond of >quoting): art is what you put the frame around. if i stick an AM >radio next to my computer, and announce that the sounds picked up >while i play quake are my next album, then that is a sound composition >(aka "music") for the duration that i declare it to be happening. as >soon as i say "the performance is over" that is that, even if the >radio keeps making noise. it is now no longer art, it is merely sound >that happens to be falling out of a radio speaker. > >-- >Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com SpotMedia Communications > ...I was an infinitely hot and dense dot... > >

I write: Well, I don't buy your argument. In my opinion the Rebirth is VERY limited in the amount of sounds and emotions that can come out of it. In fact, it is very emotionless...it's main variance is amount of intensity. And, come on, the piano is limited just like ANY single instrument can be. But they are small limits compared to what you CAN do with it. You can create any emotion, any texture, with a piano. And when have you ever hit random keys on the piano and come out with a masterpiece. You have to have talent to compose valid music. With the Rebirth, you don't need talent. As I've said, a monkey could do it.

quoted 33 lines You write:

>You write: > >I don't buy this argument. Sure Rebirth is limited, but so are the >original machines. A piano is limited too, but people have managed to >tinker with those for centuries and come up with some amazing music. Of >course a piano is a little more complex (ie more keys and such) but still >I think you could do some nice stuff with Rebirth. Some of my favorite >techno could be taken as 'minimalist' ala Rebirth, like say Drexcyia. AT >times I don't hear much more than 303 type sounds and an 808 or 909. >Somehow they manage to create real eerie pumping techno with 'limited' >instruments. > >I think there is a lot yet to do with something like Rebirth, and I guess >that's why I bought it. To play with it. Figure out it's limitations. >(coming from a non-music background, but also knowing I don't want to make >acid house either). Figure out workarounds, and manipulate them to find a >minimal groove; and I don't mean a Plastikman minimal groove either. Maybe >that's the type of stuff you're referring to, because you pretty much can >make a Plastikmanish track in about 5 minutes. > >peace >Nate > > >Nate Harrison > >Digital Magician Inc. >www.digimagician.com >nate@digimagician.com > >313.994.7316 > >

Well Tim if you do not buy my argument that's cool, but let me say this: when you wrote I have a more particular view, I think. Art has to be something that only the person that creates it could have created...all art should be a first... to Random Junk I believe, you hit upon one of the fundamental differences between modern art theory and postmodern art theory. Please allow me to generalize a bit here, because otherwise I could write a book of an email:) In modern art (and I mean visual art, but the trends/ideas I talk about carry into other fields of study), the point was to as you say 'be a first', and thus you have all the 'isms' of art (cubism, surrealism, minimalism, etc). The problem with this was that it cultured a certain elitism in the world of fine art, in particlar painting, where in many artists/subgenres competed with each other saying 'Look my painting is more intelligent than yours, mine is doing something better than yours.' The theory behind the work kept getting more esoteric and obtuse, and in the meantime, the 'first ideas' were being rapidly exhausted. Meanwhile the proponents of postmodernism were trying to redefine the rules of fine art a bit. To extend Random Junk's quote a little, the postmodernists' viewpoint was 'Hey you guys can out-intellectualize each other all you want. All your doing is putting pigment within a frame.' And thus, art truly is what you make it. The postmodernists realized to an extent that there was an end of 'the firsts'. This is why mixed media, collage and references to past styles (ie a -retro- look) is so prevelant in art as well as contempoary imaging all around you. The art of sampling, whether muscially or visually or whatever, is totally postmondern. I believe IDM type music in general is a postmodern art form. You might be wondering how this relates to our debate:) Well of course the Rebirth is limited. In some ways, you're right, you won't be creating anything on it that is a 'first', but what musician out there from AFX to Squarpusher to Orbital etc, is really a 'first'? That is what I meant by understanding the limitations of the medium. Know what it can do, know what it can't do, know what it can do very well. Know what it could do *if* you thought about it a bit. Rebirth can make music. Rebirth cannot make 'new' sounds. Rebirth is very capable of making crappy acid house. Rebirth is also capable of making very beautiful electronic music too, if you sat down and played with it for a few weeks. You're claim that 'a monkey could do it' leads me to beleive you probably sat down with it for a night, discovered it's novelty value, discovered you could basically make Richie Hawtin's entire discography in a night, and dismissed the software as devoid of value. What would happen if you played with it for a few weeks? IMHO you did not discover all the sounds that could come out of it. Sure, they are all 303 sounds, but done in the right way, they could be great. To say that it is 'emtionless' simply means one thing: you my friend haven't spent enough time in front of it! ANd hey, if that 303 sound is not your cup of tea, that's cool too but just know there are plenty of things you could do with Rebirth (as with the TB-303 or TR-808) that defy your notions of unoriginal or emotionless. Sorry for the long email, it's the art school graduate coming out in me:) I have the feeling Random Junk had dabbled a bit in Postmodern clutlure theory too. Peace Nate Nate Harrison Digital Magician Inc. www.digimagician.com nate@digimagician.com 313.994.7316

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Tim Gill wrote:

quoted 3 lines And when have you ever hit

> And when have you ever hit > random keys on the piano and come out with a masterpiece. You have to have > talent to compose valid music.

Well, the name John Cage does spring to mind...there are probably many examples of masterpieces created by hitting essentially random keys on the piano (I simply am not familiar enough with modern classical music to name them). And I'll state again - talent is not (no longer?) a requirement that must be fufuilled before creating "valid music". If you created a slamming track while fooling around with ReBirth, I would consider it to be every bit as valid as a track created by Photek, Juan Atkins, etc. What you have to rememeber is that "valid" is not a universally defined concept. I consider noise music to be "valid" but many either do not or do not even think that it is music. Play some IDM for your grandparents and you might get the old "What the hell is this noise? This isn't music!" reaction. Music is no longer the exclusive property of the formally educated.

quoted 1 line With the Rebirth, you don't need talent. As I've said, a monkey could do it.

> With the Rebirth, you don't need talent. As I've said, a monkey could do it.

I keep meaning to let my monkey try it out, but the fucker always gets bananas all over my computer every time he uses it. Out 2 Lunch With Lunchmeat, Paul wesley@interaccess.com

On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, wesley@interaccess.com wrote:

quoted 8 lines On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Tim Gill wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Tim Gill wrote: > > And when have you ever hit > > random keys on the piano and come out with a masterpiece. You have to have > > talent to compose valid music. > Well, the name John Cage does spring to mind...there are probably many > examples of masterpieces created by hitting essentially random keys on the > piano (I simply am not familiar enough with modern classical music to name > them).

Without starting a dissertation about Cage's compositional techniques, let me at least try to clear up a common misunderstanding. Cage was not concerned with randomness, but rather indeterminacy -- a fine but important distinction. Cage used techniques such as using the I Ching to arrange short phrases (Music of Changes), or allowing varying degrees of freedom to the players so the outcome is unpredictable within certain parameters (Fifty-Eight, the "time pieces"). One of the keys is to formulate the question so that any answer gives an acceptable result. But that is not random; it's an attempt to remove personal taste from one stage of the process, in order to open new possibilities. There's a link from my homepage that compiles some of my rants about this general area of discussion. A well-stocked library may have some books by Cage. I'd suggest _Silence_ if you can find it. --Mark __ <http://www.xnet.com/~mkolmar/BurningRome> ==> MPEG audio clips <== m u s i c : w e b : s o u n d d e s i g n : h t m l : c g i : e t c "We invented machines in order to reduce our work. Now that we have them, we think we should go on working." (John Cage)

On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, wesley@interaccess.com wrote:

quoted 3 lines Music is no longer the exclusive property of the formally educated.

> > Music is no longer the exclusive property of the formally educated. >

Have to say that I don't think music has ever been the exclusive property of the formally educated, just the means to reproduce if faithfully in the written form. There are many folk traditions that involve father passing music to son via physically showing them how to play things, very informal education. Does this mean that IDM is part of a folk tradition? Just a thought.

quoted 8 lines Out 2 Lunch With Lunchmeat,

> > Out 2 Lunch With Lunchmeat, > > Paul > wesley@interaccess.com > > >

Tim Those who set out to serve both God and Mammon soon find there is no God.

quoted 7 lines Music is no longer the exclusive property of the formally educated.

> > Music is no longer the exclusive property of the formally educated. > > Have to say that I don't think music has ever been the exclusive property > of the formally educated, just the means to reproduce if faithfully in the > written form. There are many folk traditions that involve father passing > music to son via physically showing them how to play things, very informal > education.

I thought about what it was that I was trying to say for a long time before I wrote the above line, and I think I failed to get my point across. What I meant is that it has traditionally been frowned upon for people to declare themselves musicians without having some sort of training on their instruments. Just as an overwhelming majority of Americans and Europeans would be upset if I declared myself a piano player without being able to read music, play songs, etc., I would imagine that Africans and Chinese people would be similarly chagined were I to declare myself a kora or pipa player. None the more clearly yours, Paul wesley2interaccess.com

quoted 2 lines Art has to be something that only the person that creates it

>Art has to be something that only the person that creates it >could have created...all art should be a first...

That does get tricky though. Would someone else have done something similar to 4'33"? Or would someone have hung up a blank canvas and called it art? What about exhibiting urinals? I think those were all "art," but I have a feeling the same works would come out eventually even if Cage or Duchamp had never lived. It isn't exactly "could have created," because *someone* would have played nothing and called it music, etc. It boils down to the idea at the root of the finished product--either having a new idea, or expanding upon or polishing an old one. And I think pop music falls under the category of polishing an old idea-it's still art, like it or not. Sam