From: <eric@synthesizer.org>
quoted 2 lines Well, that's a legitimate point of view, but to me that means abdicating
>> Well, that's a legitimate point of view, but to me that means abdicating
>> from any judgement of production (not musical) quality when you listen to
a
quoted 7 lines record.
>> record.
>
> Absolutely not. One thing about electronic music is that the production
> and musicianship decisions can happen concurrently with significant
> overlap between them. I don't make a distinction between production and
> musical quality because I can't be sure where one ends and the other
> begins.
If you produce yourself, then you can make an educated guess. That's what I
do, I accept that you prefer not to.
quoted 5 lines Your concept of production quality seems to be something akin to
> Your concept of production quality seems to be something akin to
> having a private channel *into the artist's brain* at the point *in the
> past* when the music was being made and being able to say "They didn't
> mean to do that, it was a mistake. It just slipped through." I don't even
> know where to begin with that one.
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? If you've made mistakes on
recorded audio of your own, you get familiar with the possibilities for
error. So I hear a record with a pounding beat that wimps out when the bass
drops, and I think 'the compression was a little off there'. I can still
enjoy the music, but I also know how it could be that little bit better. So
I try to be more aware of that when I'm doing my own stuff.
If you have production experience, and you insist that you can't be sure
where music ends and production begins, then you are abdicating making
judgements. That's OK, it's your choice as a listener to put your opinions
on hold. But that doesn't mean that people like me who pay attention to that
stuff are deluded.
quoted 7 lines might as well just buy records at random, and say Britney Spears is
>> might as well just buy records at random, and say Britney Spears is
>> as interesting as Aphex Twin.
>
> That's a ridiculous analogy. You've provided ample evidence that your
> listening experience tends to favor the analysis of technique-and-tools
> over a face-value hearing of the music, where a perceived misuse of sound
> can ruin your position as a listener.
I disagree. My understanding of technique and tools provides me with an
explanation of the mistakes that upset my face-value experience. OF course
sometimes I listen to music in anal(ytical) mode, but generally I prefer to
just get carried away with the music and relate to it on an emotional level.
So much so in fact, that analysing a track is pretty difficult for me; i
sometimes play stuff at the wrong speed when I'm trying to study it, so that
I don't lose my concentration and start dancing instead. I have some kind of
neurochemical imbalance...it rather gets in the way of musicianship,
actually.
quoted 1 line Certainly your knowledge of production can help you to understand why
> Certainly your knowledge of production can help you to understand why
something like
quoted 1 line that might be included, rather than limiting your concept of these sounds
> that might be included, rather than limiting your concept of these sounds
as errors to
quoted 1 line be excluded.
> be excluded.
Yes indeed, and that's why I've been at pains to mention of 'exploiting'
glitches - if someone finds the sound of CD skipping interesting (I do),
then I say go for it, and make a track incorporating ADC error sounds as an
essential element. But if a track is all about the warmth and richness of
drone, then I suspect it was never planned to clip.
quoted 4 lines You've really got to look at your use of the word "poor" to describe these
> You've really got to look at your use of the word "poor" to describe these
> sounds you're hearing, and how it causes you to marginalize production
> techniques that may require a greater degree of sophistication to hear as
> music.
Oooh, I'm so unsophisticated. I feel like Homer Simpson.Let me make it clear
that I am quite happy to listen to dirt, grot, and random clicks in all
genres of music, where they enhance or develop a musical idea. I have tracks
that are the aural equivalent of paint stripper. They're great.
quoted 1 line As an admitted newbie to this style of music
> As an admitted newbie to this style of music
I'm new insofar as I haven't been *making* it for that long, and my
(purchased) record collection is not very large. You seem to have the
impression that I think all lo-fi is crap, which is not the case. I'm
complaining about stuff that's trying to sound hi-fi but doesn't.
quoted 3 lines Beyond that, regardless of personal taste I don't see how anybody can
> Beyond that, regardless of personal taste I don't see how anybody can
> imply that someone like Mike Paradinas (to use your example) doesn't know
> his way around the tools he uses to create his sounds.
It's not my example, as I haven't heard his work. And I have never suggested
that people didn't know their way round the gear. What I objected to was
people putting out records that sounded like they didn't bother to listen to
the final mix before popping it in the post. I'm sure Mike Paradinas is
picking and choosing where to sharpen his audio edges, and I'm all for that.
quoted 2 lines I suppose you'd have to have a way of determining that the artifacts were
> I suppose you'd have to have a way of determining that the artifacts were
> indeed "scattered randomly".
Yes, the feel of the music I'm listening to. If a piece starts to clip and
begins to explore that, I'm interested. If it just clips here and there and
carries on like nothing happened, I suspect an oversight. It seems to me
that you're assuming that all released music is produced to a fixed quality
standard and that every click and pop has been judged and found essential to
the mood of the piece. I'd like to believe that, but I don't.
quoted 2 lines a sufficient definition of "random"? You can read one of John Cage's many
> a sufficient definition of "random"? You can read one of John Cage's many
> books to gain some insight into the use of randomness to musical ends.
I'll bear that in mind, thanks. FWIW, randomness in itself doesn't bother
me; my main tool is a modular DSP synth, and there's nothing I like better
than self-generating patches that I can't predict.
quoted 1 line I'm not interested in any discussion of validity.
> I'm not interested in any discussion of validity.
Plainly. But for myself, I try to be some way objective about whether the
sounds I'm making are interesting experiments or just incompetent or
careless junk. Perhaps I'm a slave to my own knowledge then, but it seems
essential to drawing a distinction between what is music and what is sound.
It might surprise you that I consider myself much better as a sound designer
than as a musician.
Anig Browl
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org