IDM Mailing Archive

<anthony@phatmac.demon.co.uk> writes:

quoted 2 lines I'm well up for a slanging match with any of you IDM is my world types

> I'm well up for a slanging match with any of you IDM is my world types > out there, so it there's life enough in ya, bring it on!

Well, it's late, but I'll try my luck. Not that I'm one of these purists you mention, but I suppose I did say the following:

quoted 5 lines Autechre are less guilty of stealing a particular sound than someone who

>> Autechre are less guilty of stealing a particular sound than someone who >> physically 'plays' an instrument because they select sounds for their >> records based on lots of different sounds they make. In other words they >> sculpt the sound. Playing a 'real' instrument involves sound >> manipulation, but essentially the sound has already been defined.

quoted 2 lines Bollocks, it seems you trying to suggest that synths somehow have a more

> Bollocks, it seems you trying to suggest that synths somehow have a more > expressive capability than 'real' acoustic instruments

No, because I don't believe they necessarily have. But I do believe that what they lack in expression of one particular sound, they make up for in being able to express a wider variety of different sounds. Tell me that using a trumpet and a multitrack tape machine gives a greater possibility for more variation in sounds than the use of a sampler and a multitrack. They are both instruments, yes, but which is the more versatile. I'd say the sampler, by far - and it much easier to learn how to use one fluidly, so the the rest is left pretty much up to your imagination. As for the synth, well I'm not so sure about it's versatility, it depends on the synth in question, but even a basic synth has a good selection of different sounds, it just depends on how much we have heard them before (why a lot of Detroit style techno has become stale - because the old presets don't do anything new) and how good they were in the first place. Next to me is a crappy Yamaha 'Music Station'. The sounds I can get out of it are 99% shit, but they are varied shit, and I like my shit varied. And anyway, Auechre's music is more than just synths, as is most music worth listening to these days. I think you'll find there are fewer and fewer records being made on just synths these days.

quoted 1 line why is it then that synths struggle to recreate the sound of acoustic instruments.

> why is it then that synths struggle to recreate the sound of acoustic instruments.

When I said this I was really talking about sampling as opposed to synths. Either way, no matter how poor an imitation of real sounds a lot of synth sounds are, at least there is the possibility of picking from a variety of them, rather than just the one base sound. The fact is you just don't get the opportunity to choose if you play nothing but one real instrument.

quoted 1 line What are synth sounds, if anything they are the ultimate in defined sounds.

> What are synth sounds, if anything they are the ultimate in defined sounds.

Well on most digital synths worth their salt you can modify the sounds fairly radically in a few different ways. Some even let you work between two patches. and analogue synths you can fuck up the sounds even more. On my other cheap synth the CZ-101 you can choose from about eight waves as your base sound and take it from there, changing the sound almost unrecognisably with the different parameters - tons of possibilities - it takes an age to do it, but it can be done. And this is your cheap £100 synth.

quoted 4 lines Bought to life by pages and pages of fucking parameters all revolving around the

> Bought to life by pages and pages of fucking parameters all revolving around the > numbers between 0 and 128 as defined by the MIDI specification... Standard > velocity key responses, offsets, tunings, MIDI channels, Pan, FX Routing, > Filters, envelopes...

Well you just said it yourself. Synth sounds can be 'brought to life' in many different ways like the ones you mention above, whereas an instrument such as the trumpet for example can only have its sound changed by blowing into it differently, and the combination of the three valves. Now there's a hell of a lot more expression in this one sound than in any synth sound, I'll give you that, but regardless of this it is still really just one sound. You could argue the point up to two or three sounds (say if you hit it against something/blow in the other end etc) but even then its hardly the most versatile instrument.

quoted 3 lines Even on the most simple level you try hitting a key

> Even on the most simple level you try hitting a key > on a keyboard playing a bass guitar patch, sure the sound gets louder and > the timbre of it changes the harder you hit it

Yeah, so it's not exactly like the real thing - and there's less expression - but there's more choice on a synth than just this one sound. It's a trade off between using one more expressive sound as a basis or the focus, or using lots of sounds to create a new overall sound. Most IDM seems to attempt the latter. But going back to the bass patch. When did you last here one of these sounds on the records talked about here on IDM? Aphex's 'Richard D. James' LP is the only one I can think of offhand. Most of these musicians are moving away from this kind of pick and mix sound which defined early house and techno into one where they have more freedom to chosen their own sounds (mostly by sampling). If your aim is to be original, surely by having a choice of more sounds you have the opportunity to get nearer to the sound that you desire.

quoted 2 lines if you did this [hit the string really hard] on a real

> if you did this [hit the string really hard] on a real > bass you'll get to the point where the string will break

I don't quite know what you're getting at here.

quoted 3 lines playing a

> playing a > keyboard monotonises even your playing style (would you really play an > ambient pad sound in exactly the same way as a slap bass).

But Autechre's music has nothing to do with 'playing style'. Surely it's much more to do with programming style and the sounds they 'choose'. Most of what I hear in Autechre's records does not sound as if it has been played directly in from a synth. The way I imagine Autechre making music is that they sample a hell of a lot of sound from things (static, machine noise etc) that make sounds that interest them, and select from that large amount what is going to form and define a track. These are sounds sampled not from someone elses musical work, but from the sounds around them. Playing a live instrument in a versatile manner takes a lot of time. Not many people have the time it takes to play a wide variety of instruments well (you don't have to play it well, but if you don't you are less versatile) and this is where we get back to the subject of collaborations. Collaborating with other musicians gives you more freedom of sound - and I think this is what Bjork is looking for when she records with Plaid/Mark Bell etc. As has been said before she is a singer/songwriter more than a musician, She probably could sit down and learn how to do it all herself, but if this doesn't work for her (which would seem to be the case) proves less satisfying and the end product turns out to be worse, why bother? It's a matter of being versatile and choosing the sound in any way you can (even by choosing which musicians you work with) and not letting the sound choose you. In my opinion, versatility can equal originality with the right person at the controls, and those artists out on a limb (such as Autechre) and isolated from any one scene, do tend to make music that sounds more individualistic and therefore is more original.

quoted 4 lines Synths create a

> Synths create a > world which define extremes and shift between them in a programmed fashion. > The only instrument on the planet which can break such a monotony is *your* > mind.

Agreed. And whether that mind does so by picking different people to play on their record (Bjork) or using lots of different programming techinques and equipment (Cylob/Autechre), or both (Bjork again) doesn't really matter as long as we haven't heard it done (better) before. But aren't we now back to where we started, wherever that was? So enough. I'm exhausted. All this debate has made me want to do is go buy Homogenic to see what it is like (something which I originally wasn't going to do due to Post being all over the place). Maybe Cylob should get a new LP out and strike while the iron is hot! Gb.