179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes
Search · subject · body · from · to
Advanced search
reset

← archive index

(idm) burning a hole in my bucket

2 messages · 2 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
1998-03-26 01:54Heatsink (idm) burning a hole in my bucket
└─ 1998-03-27 00:21Random Junk Re: (idm) burning a hole in my bucket
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1998-03-26 01:54HeatsinkI`d just like to chip in on the current cash-to-quality-ratio debate. As someone who has r
From:
Heatsink
To:
Date:
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:54:34 +0000
Subject:
(idm) burning a hole in my bucket
permalink · <3.0.5.32.19980326015434.008e3100@pop3.demon.co.uk>
I`d just like to chip in on the current cash-to-quality-ratio debate. As someone who has recently spent more than a few quid on studio equipment (and who a certain someone might have had in mind when they stirred up this debate <grin> ) , and who seems to be in a state of constant paranoia over whether his music is actually any good, I`ve got a personal interest in the topic. My view is that Great Music doesn`t discriminate between a minimal studio set-up and a top-flight set-up, that is to say, the equipment used in the production of Great Music is, generally, irrelevant. If you, as a music listener, look for qualities such as clean sounds, spacious reverbs, shiny EQ and all that other engineering crap to form your opinion of what you are listening too, then maybe you should give up and chop your ears off. If, however, you can judge a track by the things that actually make up its musical existance, like melody, rythm, structure, mood etc., then congratulations! You Know The Score. This view of the listener needing to know how to differentiate between Great Engineering and Great Music can also be applied to the producer. As producers also listen to music, this shouldn`t be too hard. Unfortunately, subjectivity often creeps in, and the phenomenon of "Producer`s Ear" is witnessed. No-one listens to their own music the same way as others listen to it, simply because of the bond between creator and created (anyone see the Ugly Baby episode of Seinfeld? ). You might get fed up of listening to it sometimes, and cringe at the cock-ups or cheesy sounds, but it`s yours, you made it, you own it (usually). Now, it`s up to others to decide for themselves whether it`s good or bad, but you wouldn`t have pressed record if YOU didn`t think it was any good at the time. Accepting this, I say that someone with a lot of top gear in their rack still only presses record if they`re happy with what`s coming out of their Genelecs. Any producer who thinks having a Lexicon can excuse their lack of talent is a fool; the one who uses that Lexicon as an aid to expressing their feelings is to be respected. Money should be second to music. Great, now someone`s going to write back saying "great grammar, but you`re full of shit... " <---HEATsink---?
1998-03-27 00:21Random JunkHeatsink wrote this: > My view is that Great Music doesn`t discriminate between a minimal
From:
Random Junk
To:
Date:
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:21:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) burning a hole in my bucket
Reply to:
(idm) burning a hole in my bucket
permalink · <13594.61356.714750.294593@hudsucker.gamespot.com>
Heatsink wrote this:
quoted 3 lines My view is that Great Music doesn`t discriminate between a minimal> My view is that Great Music doesn`t discriminate between a minimal > studio set-up and a top-flight set-up, that is to say, the equipment > used in the production of Great Music is, generally, irrelevant.
true.
quoted 4 lines If you, as a music listener, look for qualities such as clean> If you, as a music listener, look for qualities such as clean > sounds, spacious reverbs, shiny EQ and all that other engineering > crap to form your opinion of what you are listening too, then maybe > you should give up and chop your ears off.
that's pretty insulting. why should i let you dictate what i listen for in a piece of music? to me, sound quality is an inseparable part of the total package. we are in the business of sculpting sound. that's why we use electronic instruments and not pianos (although you can do some pretty rad shit with a piano if you're clever - anyone ever see roger miller's "maximum electric piano" shows?). to me, it's not about the performance, or the emotion (which is all they ever talk about over on daw-mac and boy is it irritating) - it's the SOUND. you cannot separate the notes from the hiss in my book. it's all part of that rich tapestry that oozes out of the speakers and into your ears.
quoted 3 lines If, however, you can judge a track by the things that actually make> If, however, you can judge a track by the things that actually make > up its musical existance, like melody, rythm, structure, mood etc., > then congratulations! You Know The Score.
bollocks. i thought we'd progressed beyond such outmoded concepts. rhythm, melody, structure, etc... that's stuff's for losers! wake up and smell the 90's. i don't want a tune, i want SOUND.
quoted 3 lines yours, you made it, you own it (usually). Now, it`s up to others to> yours, you made it, you own it (usually). Now, it`s up to others to > decide for themselves whether it`s good or bad, but you wouldn`t > have pressed record if YOU didn`t think it was any good at the time.
unless you just really needed the money. :) -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan: Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.