IDM Mailing Archive

Well, my old headphones broke last week, and I went out and purchased a really really nice pair of Sony In-Ear buds. These are the headphones that have rubber tips that go inside your ear and act as a subwoofer. It gives gorgeous bass and crystal clear highs. So what's my point? Well, after listening to a good 3 to 4 dozen cds of all genres, I've noticed that maybe five cds out of the dozens had no peaking or pops or some mixing/mastering errors. The worst cds? IDM artists, of course. Aphex, of course, has peaked in quite a few of his songs, most notably "next heap width", the last track on I Care. But after listening to a bunch of other artists, I noticed certain songs and at times, whole albums, had horrible quality mixing with numerous instruments peaking and creating ugly pierces and pops that were obviously not intentional (if they were, it wasn't used in a creative tasteful context). The thing is, it's hard to hear these errors on normal speakers, and lower quality headphones, too. So, who were the perpetrators? Well, Marumari's The Wolves Hollow album was damn terrible in this area. Muziq's Lunatic Harness and Full Sunken Breaks (as Kid Spatula) were not bad overall, but in certain songs, worse! Now my question... what's the deal here? I also dabble in the field of writing wanky electronic music, and have been doing so for more than a couple years and have been able to keep peaking near or AT zero without any digital distortion, unsavory pops, etc! Certainly I can see that maybe Mike P recorded a keyboard lick melodically perfect, and decided not to redo it for the sake of perfect tone, but isn't that what I pay these signed artists for? Aren't they using a lot of software nowadays, too? I write my stuff all on software, with the occaisonal sample, and I have no problem with ill bred pops and distortion. Granted, I am a texture hobbit and love my crisp clean sound, but to hear professionals put out great songs that could sound better kind of gets me down. I nearly spend as much time mixing stuff down and mastering as writing the track itself. Any unintentional distortion or pop really fucks my shit right up. It's not complicated to clean up. It does take some extra effort. Just some thoughts for debate. Maybe this should have gone on IDM making, but I think its an issue big enough for all to be concerned about. Of all the artists in my cd collection, one has consistently put out absolutely crystal clear, spotless recordings, as well as amazing music. I won't tell you who they are, but their name rhymes with Raw-Neck-Er. btw, get those headphones... it's like listening to an album all over again. you hear shit you've never heard on any speakers or headphones (including overlooked mistakes)... fucking unbelievable. -Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

wow those sound like really cool earphones... On a different but somewhat similar note- I've always wanted to get binaural headphones / microphones [they are twin mic's that go into your ears so that: 1- no one knows your recording them and 2- it records in a fashion very similar to the way you hear stereo with your own little ears [due to location and your head acting like a head... um, yeah...] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Mark wrote:

quoted 1 line Any unintentional distortion or pop really fucks my shit right up.

> Any unintentional distortion or pop really fucks my shit right up.

if that's your attitude, I think you're coming at this music from the wrong POV. Of course the music isn't perfect, it's human. You sound like the DJ who criticises another DJ b/c he or she slips up or has some rough mixing in an otherwise emotional set. "if i took the time and dedication to become a flawless DJ everyone else should as well" -Gil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

--- Mark <mef@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:

quoted 8 lines Well, my old headphones broke last week, and I went out and purchased a

> Well, my old headphones broke last week, and I went out and purchased a > really really nice pair of Sony In-Ear buds. These are the headphones > that have rubber tips that go inside your ear and act as a subwoofer. > It gives gorgeous bass and crystal clear highs. So what's my point? > > Well, after listening to a good 3 to 4 dozen cds of all genres, I've > noticed that maybe five cds out of the dozens had no peaking or pops or > some mixing/mastering errors. The worst cds? IDM artists, of course.

I make electronic music on my computer. My friends upstairs are in a rock band. On my computer, I can put out a crisp - almost professional sounding - recording in a matter of a few hours from the time that the concept for the song appeared to me. I guess the equivalent would be them dropping a few grand on an 8 track tape recorder and a few microphones and recording a demo, which obviously would sound bad for it's own reasons. Point being: IDM groups might fool a lot of people with their crystal clear mostly digital production, but a lot of it's still "low budget" and amateurish due to money limitations and the fact that most IDM musicians insist on being their own producers as well - with or without any kind of training. That said, I do often worry that I'm going to get some kind of hearing damage from ultra high frequencies or some other kind of destructive audio signal from some of these noisier IDM groups (or even myself) that may have little idea of how to filter such things. I'd be interested in any insight regarding possible hearing damage from listening to amateurish digital music on headphones. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

turn down the treble. make sure that your sound is wide and covers the bell curve. compare your harsh sounds to those used by Ae and Speedy J [among others]- they get it right, it's industrial- but never harsh [well, relatively speaking of course]. grab a copy of "how to make professional mixes" and read it through. The manual that comes with the fin****er 96k is a great read. I might be able to email it to someone if you are interested, I don't think it is too big. Use your own ear to judge what is harsh, and why. Make people listen to it and see if they cringe in pain... =))) ~That said, I do often worry that I'm going to get some kind of hearing ~damage from ultra high frequencies or some other kind of ~destructive audio ~signal from some of these noisier IDM groups (or even myself) that may ~have little idea of how to filter such things. I'd be ~interested in any ~insight regarding possible hearing damage from listening to amateurish ~digital music on headphones. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 3 lines btw, get those headphones... it's like listening to an album all over

> btw, get those headphones... it's like listening to an album all over > again. you hear shit you've never heard on any speakers or headphones > (including overlooked mistakes)... fucking unbelievable.

I've had a pair of these headphones for 6 months or so with the slimline Sony Discman (had to buy separately) and I'm in full agreement with you - fascinating readdressing of how inner ear 'phones work - they're called Sony Fontopia aren't they? The flexible plastic surrounds function pretty much like wax ear plugs and block a large amount of external sound. The speaker itself is held suspended in the ear rather than being placed against anything so there's a greatly improved sense of dynamics - in particular Pole sound stunning: Betke's attention to all parts of the spectrum is amazing. Recommended. (£30 to £40 in the UK) All the best, Colin. _____________________________ "... and life is a song sung low and cool to rouse the gentle spirit." (Jeff Noon)

quoted 5 lines From: Mark <mef@ecst.csuchico.edu>

> From: Mark <mef@ecst.csuchico.edu> > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:19:38 -0700 > To: idm@hyperreal.org, pat@beerho.com, eric@beerho.com > Subject: [idm] IDM = poor mixing/production? >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

From: Mark <mef@ecst.csuchico.edu>

quoted 12 lines Well, after listening to a good 3 to 4 dozen cds of all genres, I've

> Well, after listening to a good 3 to 4 dozen cds of all genres, I've > noticed that maybe five cds out of the dozens had no peaking or pops or > some mixing/mastering errors. The worst cds? IDM artists, of course. > ... > worse! Now my question... what's the deal here? I also dabble in the > field of writing wanky electronic music, and have been doing so for more > than a couple years and have been able to keep peaking near or AT zero > without any digital distortion, unsavory pops, etc! Certainly I can see > that maybe Mike P recorded a keyboard lick melodically perfect, and > decided not to redo it for the sake of perfect tone, but isn't that what > I pay these signed artists for? Aren't they using a lot of software > nowadays, too?

For sure. I guess it's a question of how much time you want to put in on production. Removing clicks and pops is pretty easy - many editors will do it for you to a very high quality. Even if you don't trust 'automatic' routines, fixing it usually a matter of just lowering the volume of the offending wave crest slightly and applying a gentle bell envelope to the flat (clipped) portion to round it off. This sort of thing was OK when music was recorded and released only in analogue format - I have some Lee Perry dubs which are soaked in tape hiss but still sound good. But when it comes to digital it really gets in the way of the music. It does not make it sound more 'live' or spontaneous. Some reviewers see it as a deliberate lo-fi statement ('which implies we live in a post-species art depreciation ethical framespace' or something), but unless the artist starts exploiting the clicks as an actual sound element it just sounds like crap. I think it's kind of insulting to listeners and only gives skeptics a greater excuse for muttering about unlistenable noise.

quoted 4 lines Of all the artists in my cd collection, one has consistently put out

> Of all the artists in my cd collection, one has consistently put out > absolutely crystal clear, spotless recordings, as well as amazing > music. I won't tell you who they are, but their name rhymes with > Raw-Neck-Er.

It's kind of interesting that rhymes comes from the sustained part of the syllable rather than the transient. Or maybe I have too much time on my hands. But yes, Ae are masters of turning noise into music without unecessary noise. From a purely production standpoint, it's also worth studying techniques of good psytrance producers like X-dream and Hallucinogen. You may not like the straight-up dance style, but there is no shortage of creative sound and editing techniques in that genre.

quoted 3 lines btw, get those headphones... it's like listening to an album all over

> btw, get those headphones... it's like listening to an album all over > again. you hear shit you've never heard on any speakers or headphones > (including overlooked mistakes)... fucking unbelievable.

I'll have to try them. I use Sennheiser HD270s which are fantastic in the studio, but a bit large and heavy for walkabout. 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

quoted 6 lines Some reviewers see it as a deliberate lo-fi statement ('which implies we

>Some reviewers see it as a deliberate lo-fi statement ('which implies we >live in a post-species art depreciation ethical framespace' or >something), but unless the artist starts exploiting the clicks as an >actual sound element it just sounds like crap. I think it's kind of >insulting to listeners and only gives skeptics a greater excuse for >muttering about unlistenable noise.

Oh come on. I don't know what school of music making you're trying to apply to the musicians you speak of, but isn't it possible they don't subscribe to your rules? And what does that mean to your argument, that they *should*? The $15 (+/-, natch) these CDs cost doesn't include veto power over their production techniques. If there's an insult to be had, it's in the myriad of musicians trying to get their piece of a stylistic cash cow, not those who are putting the wrong sounds in the wrong places. Maybe the insult you perceive is that they know why those sounds are there, and you can't figure it out. It's not personal, they don't know you. -eric onnow: Agent-X, "Mission 2 EP" (Shockwave) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

From: <eric@synthesizer.org>

quoted 3 lines Oh come on. I don't know what school of music making you're trying to

> Oh come on. I don't know what school of music making you're trying to > apply to the musicians you speak of, but isn't it possible they don't > subscribe to your rules?

You have some good points here...

quoted 3 lines If there's an insult to be had, it's in the myriad of musicians trying to

> If there's an insult to be had, it's in the myriad of musicians trying to > get their piece of a stylistic cash cow, not those who are putting > the wrong sounds in the wrong places.

That's very true. I'm not trying to dis anything that sounds rough; one of my favorite albums is rather poorly produced electronic music but the energy and the enthusiasm there more than compensates.

quoted 3 lines Maybe the insult you perceive is that they know why those sounds are

> Maybe the insult you perceive is that they know why those sounds are > there, and you can't figure it out. It's not personal, they don't know > you.

Well you're quite right about it not being personal. I was trying to refer to the feeling you sometimes get when you listen to a record and get a clear feeling that the artist has just not bothered. Imagine a track where there was some very smooth silky pad that clipped a bit as it peaked. If it doesn't relate to anything else going on in the track, and there's no exploitation of the aural contrast between smoothness and the harsh clipping, then you can make a fair guess that it was just overlooked. I suppose that doing my own recording makes me less tolerant of sounds that I would regard as errors in my own stuff. On the other hand, it's hard to dispense with one's own listening experience when forming value judgements about what sounds good or bad. If a track has a gritty or choppy feel, great. If it's meant to be smooth, then why not polish it? 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

quoted 5 lines Imagine a track where there was some very smooth silky pad that clipped

>Imagine a track where there was some very smooth silky pad that clipped >a bit as it peaked. If it doesn't relate to anything else going on in >the track, and there's no exploitation of the aural contrast between >smoothness and the harsh clipping, then you can make a fair guess that >it was just overlooked.

No I can't. As long as there's the possibility that the texture was designed exactly how it was laid down, there's no assumption to be made about why it sounds the way it does.

quoted 5 lines I suppose that doing my own recording makes me less tolerant of sounds that

>I suppose that doing my own recording makes me less tolerant of sounds that >I would regard as errors in my own stuff. On the other hand, it's hard to >dispense with one's own listening experience when forming value judgements >about what sounds good or bad. If a track has a gritty or choppy feel, >great. If it's meant to be smooth, then why not polish it?

You're confusing your music-making predilections with your listening experience, which tends to influence musicians' descriptions of music that they themselves didn't make. Questions of intent are a mind-game to no end, and why should anyone care whether you would make the same choices if you were the composer? You yourself say its a matter of intolerance. -eric --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

From: <eric@synthesizer.org>

quoted 5 lines you can make a fair guess that it was just overlooked.

>> you can make a fair guess that it was just overlooked. > > No I can't. As long as there's the possibility that the texture was > designed exactly how it was laid down, there's no assumption to be made > about why it sounds the way it does.

':-. 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 record. Now, I'm not the high priest of production, but when I hear something that really sounds like a glitch it's interrupting my musical experience. On a practical note, that might mean avoiding an otherwise good track when I'm DJing, because few people want to hear clipping noises amplified to party volume.

quoted 3 lines You're confusing your music-making predilections with your listening

> You're confusing your music-making predilections with your listening > experience, which tends to influence musicians' descriptions of music that > they themselves didn't make.

Well, I'm a musician, what else can I do? If I'm going to totally suspend my own listening criteria, I might as well just buy records at random, and say Britney Spears is as interesting as Aphex Twin. Sure, I am listening through the filter of my own taste and experience. But that's because a recording (usually) contains some kind of intentionality on the part of the artist. They're trying to communicate with me as a listener, and poor production may get in the way of my understanding what they're attempting to say. All the same, my musical taste doesn't seem to interfere with listening to the full-spectrum, total surround sounds in my garden/street/etc.

quoted 2 lines why should anyone care whether you would make the same choices if

> why should anyone care whether you would make the same choices if > you were the composer?

The same reason I ask for comments and feedback on my own material, to make it sound good. Maybe it's a valid 'choice' to leave digital artefacts scattered at random across a CD, but then it's an equally valid choice not to bother playing in time or in tune on conventional instruments. I suspect you can tell the difference between a deliberately twisted rendition of something and one that is merely played badly, the same way you can tell the difference between a kid getting their first violin lesson and Yehudi Mehuhin. I'm trying to arrange some public download space at the moment, so please feel free to criticise my music when I post a link to it. I can take it as well as give it out :) 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

quoted 7 lines No I can't. As long as there's the possibility that the texture was

>> No I can't. As long as there's the possibility that the texture was >> designed exactly how it was laid down, there's no assumption to be made >> about why it sounds the way it does. > >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 >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. 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.

quoted 3 lines Well, I'm a musician, what else can I do? If I'm going to totally suspend my

>Well, I'm a musician, what else can I do? If I'm going to totally suspend my >own listening criteria, I 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. Certainly your knowledge of production can help you to understand why something like that might be included, rather than limiting your concept of these sounds as errors to be excluded. This is not to say that "error" has not been used to great musical effect by Atom Heart, Oval, and DJ Sneak (among others, natch).

quoted 5 lines Sure, I am listening through the filter of my own taste and experience.

>Sure, I am listening through the filter of my own taste and experience. >But that's because a recording (usually) contains some kind of >intentionality on the part of the artist. They're trying to communicate >with me as a listener, and poor production may get in the way of my >understanding what they're attempting to say.

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. As an admitted newbie to this style of music, you might be interested (or not...) to explore the wide history of "bad production" being incorporated the music that is discussed on this list, often to wonderful effect. You are certainly limiting yourself to a subset of IDM. 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.

quoted 7 lines Maybe it's a valid 'choice' to leave digital artefacts scattered at

>Maybe it's a valid 'choice' to leave digital artefacts scattered at >random across a CD, but then it's an equally valid choice not to bother >playing in time or in tune on conventional instruments. I suspect you >can tell the difference between a deliberately twisted rendition of >something and one that is merely played badly, the same way you can tell >the difference between a kid getting their first violin lesson and >Yehudi Mehuhin.

I suppose you'd have to have a way of determining that the artifacts were indeed "scattered randomly". Is "I can't figure out what the relevance is" 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. At any rate, I'm not interested in any discussion of validity. Can one not use child's play in creating deliberately twisted works, or deliberately twist something to sound like child's play? Insert your own VVM, Basquiat, or Wesley Willis joke here. -eric onnow: Pullman, "Turnstyles and Junkpiles" (Thrill Jockey) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

~Maybe it's a valid 'choice' to leave digital artefacts ~scattered at random across a CD, but then it's an equally ~valid choice not ~to bother playing in time or in tune on conventional ~instruments. Very good point. Com'on IDm artists, stop making noise, and make music. Being experimental and "cutting edge" doesn't have to mean that it is any less musical and less needing of quality or talent. Learn to mix, master, make good music, and explore your media. Bad mixes are just 'corner cuts' hidden behind silly shields of "well, i just chose to make it sound bad" - when really it's just laziness and a lack of ability, subconiously, IMO. It's a mild "fuck you"... to the listeners. Aphex has loads of that oozing, some of his albums are just SOOO badly mastered... sigh. BUT, he is talented, so it gets you all pudgy and in a twist, don't it? =) BUT if you dig that, fine. Everyone has their standards and their appreciation of what is art/music, what is quality [recording], talent, effort, laziness and what is not. If you like that tape his sound, that record 'pop', or if you like that fat, "sounds like a live concert" sound... etc. Same debate as Loud versus Clear sound systems... I must admit, there is also something to be said for raw sounds, its all place, and context- but never forget your audience [unless you don't want one, eh?] =) IMO Good mastering artists, people to learn from: Orbital, Ae, Eat Static, Speedy J, Orb, Prodigy and many others... Sebz. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

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

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Anig Browl wrote:

quoted 3 lines If you have production experience, and you insist that you can't be sure

>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.

How any listener can be sure that another's production decision wasn't made for its musical effects is beyond me. Even so, I don't think that has anything to do with abdicating some judicial duty. Whatever that could be.

quoted 5 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.

From your original post (referring to MuZiq): <quote>

quoted 3 lines Certainly I can see that maybe Mike P recorded a keyboard lick

>Certainly I can see that maybe Mike P recorded a keyboard lick >melodically perfect, and decided not to redo it for the sake of perfect >tone, but isn't that what I pay these signed artists for?

</quote>

quoted 3 lines It seems to me that you're assuming that all released music is produced

>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 suppose it's an assumption that I figure that the person making the music is fully satisfied with its sound, sure. I can only assume what their motivations are.

quoted 2 lines It might surprise you that I consider myself much better as a sound designer

>It might surprise you that I consider myself much better as a sound designer >than as a musician.

Mr. Murch on line 2! ;) -eric --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 9 lines <quote>

> <quote> > >Certainly I can see that maybe Mike P recorded a keyboard lick > >melodically perfect, and decided not to redo it for the sake of perfect > >tone, but isn't that what I pay these signed artists for? > </quote> > > >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.

What was Frank Zappa's quote again about mistakes and better music? I don't know what paths between CD release and master the music of Mu-ziq or Aphex or Devine or anybody take... maybe the artists have full control of the sound of the final product until manufacturing.. or maybe there are people who do some post-production/mastering in the middle. But given the nature of how each's music is made (i.e. by him/herself only), I'm guessing any 'mistakes' one perceives in the final product was either A) unnoticed, B) intended, or C) noticed but not cared about. What I'm really trying to say is, 'mistakes' are subjective. This might apply more comfortably to loud guitar music more than anything, but I prefer occasional mistakes in all types of music. In fact, I figure mistakes occurring along the way of experimenting with the creative process has made many of the tracks we enjoy most that much more special. How many times have you fooled around with making noise, loops, or music in any form -- whether band practice, or farting around with the latest digital drum machine you just downloaded -- and discovered some mistakes that create cooler sounds than you ever imagined? ======================================================================= Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> ======================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

And now that I read Mike P's response, I went back and listened to "The Fear", and hence the occasional clips I thought were intentional...(Not 'intentional' in the 'going out of your way to recreate the clips', but more in the 'there are clips, and they will stay') Granted, artists are almost always more critical of their work than their fans are; but, again, artifacts in the final release don't negatively sway me (and I suspect others) in any way. Things like bad, subtstantial production decisions do... If something has a 'vibe' above all else, fuck the occasional artifacts along the way. What is ironic as rain on a wedding day about all of this is that one of the basic components of electronic music can be seen as a side-effect of clipping -- the square wave. Take a sine wave, over-amplify it, then reduce it back down to its original amplitude. Extreeeeeeeme clipping, maaaaaann! ======================================================================= Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> ======================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

you just quoted me, who made the original headphone/mix post. anig never mentions Mike P. -mark eric@synthesizer.org wrote:

quoted 52 lines On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Anig Browl wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Anig Browl wrote: > >> 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. > > > How any listener can be sure that another's production decision wasn't > made for its musical effects is beyond me. Even so, I don't think that has > anything to do with abdicating some judicial duty. Whatever that could be. > >>> 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. > > > >From your original post (referring to MuZiq): > > <quote> > >> Certainly I can see that maybe Mike P recorded a keyboard lick >> melodically perfect, and decided not to redo it for the sake of perfect >> tone, but isn't that what I pay these signed artists for? > > </quote> > >> 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 suppose it's an assumption that I figure that the person making the > music is fully satisfied with its sound, sure. I can only assume what > their motivations are. > >> It might surprise you that I consider myself much better as a sound designer >> than as a musician. > > > Mr. Murch on line 2! ;) > > -eric > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > >