IDM Mailing Archive

Tony writes:

quoted 3 lines But then there's a lot to be said for music that isn't technically

> But then there's a lot to be said for music that isn't technically > perfect in terms of compositional style, rhythm programming, or > whatever.

oh i certainly have a LOT to say about that sort of music... how about "it sucks" for starters.

quoted 3 lines It's of no interest to me whether some artist does or doesn't

> It's of no interest to me whether some artist does or doesn't > know anything about rhythm programming if the sounds being created > are worthwhile, and in B12's case they usually are.

interesting point of view. personally, i find a well constructed track much more interesting that its component noises. i mean check out underground resistance. most of their classic tracks are just 909 and 303 with maybe one other synth or sample thrown in. in this day and age that should be unutterably boring, but it isn't. cos they are the masters of FEEL and GROOVE. Jamie Hodge writes:

quoted 3 lines I've always thought that Autechre would be better off as the

>I've always thought that Autechre would be better off as the >kid who does percussion, versus two.. I can't stand those schmaltzy synth >lines that always sludge up the great drum programming.

glad to see it isn't just me.

quoted 3 lines At the same time, I'm a bit wary of ANY string patches as of late..

>At the same time, I'm a bit wary of ANY string patches as of late.. >They're so easy to cull up from gear and they mask many weaknesses in the >artist's musicianship..

i totally agree. that's what i hate about a lot of this so called "intelligent jungle". it's just the same old thing with a big string wash thrown on top... as if big D-50esque chords mean anything anymore. i recognize that one of my weakenesses comes from all that classical training i had as a youth... i tend to follow really lame, standard progressions. i'm trying to get away from it. i'm much more interested in the tension generated by taking one chord, with a really dynamic, changing pad sound and seeing how the rest of the track rubs up against it. that's interesting harmonic motion, to me.

quoted 2 lines If anybody feels like heading up a discussion about the future of

>If anybody feels like heading up a discussion about the future of >timbres and sequencing in electronic music, please do.

reporting for duty, sir.

quoted 4 lines It seems to me that the stuff these guys are doing is superior

>It seems to me that the stuff these guys are doing is superior >because the process goes beyond sequencing, often involving tape >manipulation, acoustic and synthetics back to back, and a sense of >space in relation to time.

i'm not so sure about this "superior because it goes beyond sequencing" thing though. i mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with a sequencer, other than that it tends to become a crutch. i've been trying to use mine in ways that i'm unaccustomed to. it helps because i wind up making mistakes that i end up liking a lot.

quoted 1 line as usual, I'm coming off like a jerk, but I really want this music to mature

>as usual, I'm coming off like a jerk, but I really want this music to mature

don't worry about it. i feel like a jerk as well but hey, if the world wants to settle for an endless diet of B12 and Autechre and Freeform, then they get what they deserve. -j-

On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Jon Drukman wrote:

quoted 8 lines Tony writes:

> Tony writes: > > > But then there's a lot to be said for music that isn't technically > > perfect in terms of compositional style, rhythm programming, or > > whatever. > > oh i certainly have a LOT to say about that sort of music... how about "it > sucks" for starters.

I guess live TG sucks then. Well, you may think so, but they are considered by many to be innovators in electronic improvisation. 95% of Fax sucks too then (I know some would agree this statement...I don't!) since most of it is not compositionally "perfect." In fact, there is little music being made these days that is compositionally perfect. I like a well constructed rhythm track as much as anyone but there's more to music than perfect programming. I'm also wondering why I can never find anyone to sell me any of the early B12 vinyl and the Prelude-Pt.1 CD if B12 "sucks." I'll gladly buy any of these B12 items off anyone who thinks they suck (or even if you don't think they suck I'll still buy them from you!)

quoted 5 lines I have yet to hear

> > I have yet to hear > > anything from B12 that I really dislike, and much that I like. If that > > story about Warp turning dwn their latest album is really true that would > > be very sad indeed as some of Warp's output pales in comparison to works > > B12 has produced.

g303 wrote: =Eh? Warp most certainly have not turned down B12 latest. =And if you had been =reading IDM you should know this as I have, of late, mentioned it's imminent =release several times. I missed those posts, thanks for the correction. It's hard to read every post with the volume I get sometimes. There was quite a bit of discussion a little while back about Warp turning down their latest. Glad to hear it's coming out. Tony

At 8:06 PM 10/7/95, Goethe wrote:

quoted 7 lines But then there's a lot to be said for music that isn't technically

>> > But then there's a lot to be said for music that isn't technically >> > perfect in terms of compositional style, rhythm programming, or >> > whatever. >> oh i certainly have a LOT to say about that sort of music... how about "it >> sucks" for starters. >I guess live TG sucks then. Well, you may think so, but they are >considered by many to be innovators in electronic improvisation.

are we talking live music or recorded music? i hold live stuff to an entirely different standard. i thought we were talking about recorded music that "isn't technically perfect in terms of" blah blah blah.

quoted 2 lines 95% of Fax sucks too then (I know some would agree this statement...I

>95% of Fax sucks too then (I know some would agree this statement...I >don't!)

me neither! 99.9% of Fax sucks!

quoted 3 lines there is little music being made these days that is compositionally perfect.

>there is little music being made these days that is compositionally perfect. >I like a well constructed rhythm track as much as anyone but there's more >to music than perfect programming.

you're being misled by the word "perfect". we were talking about being able to enjoy music that may be deficient in one area but strong in another. my ability to enjoy music like that is severely lacking. it's gotta be a strong all around package (and this includes production quality) or i get turned off real fast. pardon me if i seem exceptionally grouchy today but the Blue Angels have been buzzing my neighborhood for a few hours now and i've got a splitting headache. :) -- Name: Jon Email: jsd@cyborganic.com Web: http://www.cyborganic.com/People/jsd

On Sat, 7 Oct 1995, Jon Drukman wrote:

quoted 6 lines At 8:06 PM 10/7/95, Goethe wrote:

> At 8:06 PM 10/7/95, Goethe wrote: > >I guess live TG sucks then. Well, you may think so, but they are > >considered by many to be innovators in electronic improvisation. > > are we talking live music or recorded music? i hold live stuff to an > entirely different standard.

I don't expect live material to be as polished but I generally just judge it as music, it's either good or not. I don't lower my standards of what I like because something is live instead of studio. e.g. Some of TG's live material is superior to some of their studio material.

quoted 1 line 95% of Fax sucks too then (I know some would agree this statement...I

> > 95% of Fax sucks too then (I know some would agree this statement...I

> >don't!)

quoted 1 line me neither! 99.9% of Fax sucks!

> me neither! 99.9% of Fax sucks!

If 99.9% sucks, then I guess you've heard all 115 CD's and 90 12"s they've released? I think you'd be suprised if you had. Sorry if *I'm* being grouchy but it gets a little tiring to hear people (you're not the only one) saying this "sucks" or that "sucks." (*especially* if people haven't heard a lot of what they are dismissing.) And saying something "sucks" doesn't contribute anything, it just make people upset that you're putting down music they like.

quoted 3 lines you're being misled by the word "perfect". we were talking about being

> you're being misled by the word "perfect". we were talking about being > able to enjoy music that may be deficient in one area but strong in > another.

Why bother trying to enjoy music that you view as deficient though? Unless maybe there is little music you think is not deficient in some area, in which case you have no choice I suppose... Still looking for B12-Prelude Pt. 1 CD. :) Tony

On Sat, 7 Oct 1995, Goethe wrote:

quoted 3 lines If 99.9% sucks, then I guess you've heard all 115 CD's and 90 12"s they

> > If 99.9% sucks, then I guess you've heard all 115 CD's and 90 12"s they've > released? I think you'd be suprised if you had. Sorry if *I'm* being grouchy

So far all I can say about FAX (from the few releases I've listened to) is that it's a little tricky to know what you're getting into. With comps, other labels, or even individual artists with a consistent schedule, you can look the thing over with some sense of what sort of sound is going to be on it. FAX is about as oblique about the artist & style as they can get, which is annoying if you're looking for something within that stack of 115 ;) so far I like the quality. Is there anyone who knows of a decent list that breaks down FAX artists by style, or perhaps a key to the enigmatic cover art which could be used to identify one FAX disc from an other within a huge drawer (such as the one they have at my local idm-aware shop)? sorry, but my listening to all the discs is beyond the tolerance of the record-shop guy, and he isn't very familliar with more than 5 of them. -graydon _______________________________________________________________________ ( "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." ^*^ ^*^ ) ( http://www.io.org/~coventry ) ( Peace you heathen! \ / ) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Graydon Hoare wrote:

quoted 7 lines So far all I can say about FAX (from the few releases I've listened to)

> So far all I can say about FAX (from the few releases I've listened to) > is that it's a little tricky to know what you're getting into. With > comps, other labels, or even individual artists with a consistent > schedule, you can look the thing over with some sense of what sort of > sound is going to be on it. FAX is about as oblique about the artist & > style as they can get, which is annoying if you're looking for something > within that stack of 115 ;)

First of all, all fax flames should be redirected to their regular residence, the ambient list... :)

quoted 4 lines so far I like the quality. Is there anyone who knows of a decent list

> so far I like the quality. Is there anyone who knows of a decent list > that breaks down FAX artists by style, or perhaps a key to the enigmatic > cover art which could be used to identify one FAX disc from an other > within a huge drawer (such as the one they have at my local idm-aware shop)?

The best fax resources available are, of course, located here at hyperreal. look under http://hyperreal.com/music/labels/fax/ My take on fax, from the somewhat limited exposure I've had, runs somewhere down the middle. Certainly there is some good stuff in there, its just obscured by the many others CDs that I dont particularly enjoy. I'd have to say Dreamfish was one of the highlights for me.. :: Alan M. Parry :: fluid@hyperreal.com :: <finger me for PGP key> :: http://hyperreal.com/~fluid

On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Alan M. Parry wrote:

quoted 10 lines On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Graydon Hoare wrote:

> > On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Graydon Hoare wrote: > > > So far all I can say about FAX (from the few releases I've listened to) > > is that it's a little tricky to know what you're getting into. With > > comps, other labels, or even individual artists with a consistent > > schedule, you can look the thing over with some sense of what sort of > > sound is going to be on it. FAX is about as oblique about the artist & > > style as they can get, which is annoying if you're looking for something > > within that stack of 115 ;)

I was thinking about doing something like this myself. Just a quick guide to style of each CD release and a quick 1-5 star review to help with prioritizing purchases or whatever. There's really nothing like this on the Fax page that has this sort of info in one place that's quick and easy to access. Although the page is fantastic. I've allready done the ratings, just need to find the time, and work on descriptions of styles if I decide to do it (that's the hard part!)

quoted 4 lines My take on fax, from the somewhat limited exposure I've had, runs somewhere

> My take on fax, from the somewhat limited exposure I've had, runs somewhere > down the middle. Certainly there is some good stuff in there, its just > obscured by the many others CDs that I dont particularly enjoy. I'd have > to say Dreamfish was one of the highlights for me.

I don't think anyone is expected to like every release (with 115 CD's how could anyone?) :) I would say the average person who likes ambient/idm might like 20-50% of the releases. This is true with many other labels but especially Fax just because of the nature of the label. The Fax fanatics probably like 80-90 percent, the fans but not fanatics probably like 60-70 % of the releases. then there are the Fax haters who say 90% or more sucks. This point of view I just have a hard time understanding since there is so much varience of styles on this label and so many releases that I would think anyone who likes ambient or idm would have to like more than this, but for whatever reasons they've decided Fax sucks. Oh well, their loss. Tony

On Sun, 8 Oct 1995, Graydon Hoare wrote: > So far all I can say about FAX (from the few releases I've listened to) > is that it's a little tricky to know what you're getting into. With > comps, other labels, or even individual artists with a consistent > schedule, you can look the thing over with some sense of what sort of > sound is going to be on it. FAX is about as oblique about the artist & > style as they can get, which is annoying if you're looking for something > within that stack of 115 ;) Over on the ambient list, it was recently announced that Pete has taken some of the S/N criticisms to heart and has altered the release schedule from the one a week of the past to one every other week. This should focus the output on more of the label's quality projects (although some people would debate this). As far as getting into the stuff, I'd recommend picking up the FAX USA comps I & II. I had a miserable experience trying hit or miss at the store, but the 1st compillation set me on the right track. Reviews of the 2nd aren't as positive, since it consists mostly of excerpts from longer pieces, but it's pretty worthwhile. All four CDs were bundled together as _Ambient Cookbook_ a while back, which has apparently been rereleased with wider distribution by FAX label itself. As far as the more IDM related releases are concerned, a quick scan of the ambient list will frequently turn up reviews of the trancier stuff. If you can lay your hands on it, I'd recommend getting _Fanger and Siebert_, which is an amazing electro-ambient disc. Check out the new Atom Heart, _Silver Sound 60_ while you're at it for a loungier feeling disc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Steve Boyer sboyer@violet.berkeley.edu | | http://violet.berkeley.edu/~sboyer | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

On Mon, 9 Oct 1995 sboyer@violet.berkeley.edu wrote:

quoted 3 lines All four CDs

> All four CDs > were bundled together as _Ambient Cookbook_ a while back, which has > apparently been rereleased with wider distribution by FAX label itself.

Yes. I believe the Ambient Cookbook release is now available on wider distribution on the Ambient World label. A great compilation indeed!