quoted 19 lines Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:38:44 MST>
> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:38:44 MST
> To: idm@hyperreal.org
> From: "szurkelpt ... . . . ." <denseorg@hotmail.com>
> Subject: interested parties.
> Message-ID: <20000309073844.25431.qmail@hotmail.com>
>
> my 2 cents on the gear subject.
>
> it doesnt matter what gear you have. its all about your psychology. i grew
> up playing live drums and the piano. and now i have only a sampler and 3
> computers in the studio here. i have been interested in making solely
> complex dsp music that has little to do with an acoustic environment. for
> me, the computer is the only solution to creating entirely different sounds
> that have no bearing on "realistic" properties, by the time a sound hits
> your mixer it is suddenly subject to the nature envelopes that occur.
> nevertheless, its ridiculous hearing all these wanks talk about how computer
> dsp doesnt oscillate like the nylon string of a guitar, blah blah blah. shut
> up please. its so boring.
Of course its all up to ones' imagination and ability, but to completely
ignore the aspects that working in different mediums forces on the
process is to be in the dark... the current conception is that working
in a computing environment "frees" the artist, but in fact it is highly
regimented and gently imposes its own will on the artist... of course
good artists can use that or work around it, but its a far different
medium than banging something and getting a noise out of it... of course
a good song or track is a good song or track, whether made on a computer
or a kazoo...
I enjoy and appreciate the entire spectrum of sound creation, both
acoustic and synthetic... there is something to be said for both... but
right now there is a glut of music made in computer environments that
just doesnt have the physical impact of music made in mixed
environments... but in the end its all down to taste... a recording of
an acoustic performance is like a photograph of a landscape and a
computerized audio piece is like a realistic rendering of that same
landscape via digital means... for me, the photograph resonates more
because it has a foothold in the natural world... which as much as we
might want to escape it, we were born in and we live in...
A good example for me is the evolution of Booth/Browns work... they
started using and 808 and a Juno, which was ok, but not
groundbreaking... then their mid period consisted of using analog
equipment, samplers and digitial audio environments in a way that was
incredibly exciting... the music had weight, complexity and interest...
but now they have gone completely digital, using mainly Logic and
virtual analog synths like the Nord... and their records from Chicli
Suite onwards have sounded tinny and lifeless to my ears... I really do
think that we know subconciously whether something has a realness to it
that acoustical and human methods impart to sound... but your experience
may be completely different
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org