IDM Mailing Archive

On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Ravis One wrote:

quoted 2 lines Syncing as in on beat. Even funk players play on beat, or on the back beat

> Syncing as in on beat. Even funk players play on beat, or on the back beat > with some shuffle. RDJ showcases some sloppy programming.

How about this... instead of chucking around blanket statements, name a track or two that you think feature particularly sloppy programming. Then I and others can try to listen from your perspective and see for ourselves what merit your position might have (instead of the responses so far, which have simply reacted from the position that the album blew many of us away when we first heard it, so technical criticisms must be nonsense--not exactly a good way to argue, folks). Were you talking about "Logon Rock Witch," by any chance? If so, I can see your point there... but that track is clearly meant to be funny, and you have to admit, it's the only track on RDJ that sounds like that! Other tracks are musically engaging and technically irreproachable--"4," "to cure a weakling child," and "inkey$" stand out for me (off the top of my head). J PS Oh yeah, and "peek" whatever the hell that number is... and "yellow calx" too... and "girl/boy"... ________ \ / | 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

On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, H James Harkins wrote:

quoted 7 lines On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Ravis One wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Ravis One wrote: > > Syncing as in on beat. Even funk players play on beat, or on the back beat > > with some shuffle. RDJ showcases some sloppy programming. > How about this... instead of chucking around blanket statements, name a > track or two that you think feature particularly sloppy programming. Then > I and others can try to listen from your perspective and see for ourselves > what merit your position might have (instead of the responses so far,

The entirety of both Hangable Auto Bulb EPs (as I remember them). Sloppy rhythm programming that lacks both a consistency or fluidity that would suggest the microtiming was at all deliberate. If you move the timing of individual hits by just a couple ticks forward or backward, it can make a large difference in the rhythmic feel -- from robotic to robo-funk, to a slippery groove, or the rhythm of an engine badly out-of-tune. The production did not sound deliberately gritty or rough, but just plain sloppy. The early material (SAW1, AB1, AB3 and others) demonstrated the limits of the boombox (or whatever) he was mixing to, but at least the mixes were reasonably well-balanced -- better than the HABs, and I can't imagine how he would not have had regular access to far better equipment by that time, to shape the sound any which way, if he chose. --Mark Kolmar __ <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)

quoted 2 lines large difference in the rhythmic feel -- from robotic to robo-funk, to a

> large difference in the rhythmic feel -- from robotic to robo-funk, to a > slippery groove, or the rhythm of an engine badly out-of-tune.

why can't that be deliberate? i like the HABs. lots of people do. maybe sloppy programming isn't such a bad thing.

In message <3.0.1.32.19970822181454.006c24b0@pop.mindspring.com>, Ravis One <ravis1@mindspring.com> writes

quoted 10 lines what's this idea about syncing things then? what are you on about?

>> >>what's this idea about syncing things then? what are you on about? >>everything that you hear on RDJ is absolutely as it was intended. it's not >>about syncing 32nds and 16ths and having smooth rhythms, it's about >expression >> >Syncing as in on beat. Even funk players play on beat, or on the back beat >with some shuffle. RDJ showcases some sloppy programming. If that's what >was intended, fine. If he's laughing at the people who bought it, so am I. >

Uh? You're suggesting there are rules to music....well, if there *are* rules then I'm glad someone's breaking them. -- Ben Coffer Hybrid Productions http://www.hybridgame.demon.co.uk/

At 08:18 PM 8/23/97 +0100, you wrote:

quoted 15 lines In message <3.0.1.32.19970822181454.006c24b0@pop.mindspring.com>, Ravis

>In message <3.0.1.32.19970822181454.006c24b0@pop.mindspring.com>, Ravis >One <ravis1@mindspring.com> writes >>> >>>what's this idea about syncing things then? what are you on about? >>>everything that you hear on RDJ is absolutely as it was intended. it's not >>>about syncing 32nds and 16ths and having smooth rhythms, it's about >>expression >>> >>Syncing as in on beat. Even funk players play on beat, or on the back beat >>with some shuffle. RDJ showcases some sloppy programming. If that's what >>was intended, fine. If he's laughing at the people who bought it, so am I. >> > >Uh? You're suggesting there are rules to music....well, if there *are* >rules then I'm glad someone's breaking them.

I do not follow or imply any rules. I just like Natural rhythm and dislike RDJ album. Note, I said:

quoted 1 line If that's what was intended, fine.

>>If that's what was intended, fine.

If you blow up a lab doing an experiment, is that cool or RDJ? _ / \ /\ /__/ \ / \ \ / \AVIS \\\\ ravis1@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~ravis1/