IDM Mailing Archive

At 08:57 PM 5/19/98 -0500, thatcat@ix.netcom.com wrote:

quoted 1 line it is far easier to record a keyboard part into a sequencer than to

>it is far easier to record a keyboard part into a sequencer than to

step-enter or otherwise program the notes.

quoted 1 line now, i'm not saying that ae are recording everything live at once,

>now, i'm not saying that ae are recording everything live at once,

obviously they are recording many tracks of things into the sequencer and editing. but unless ae are doing something far different (and far more tedious) than other musicians, it all starts with playing live keyboard parts into the sequencer. as for techno artists getting crisp and rhythmically precise beats, one can quantize a played part into an exact pattern. another element of liveness in ae's recent works that is often overlooked is the fact that not all the percussion is looping throughout the tracks...often things playing a fairly steady rhythm will slip up or mutate into something else. take for example the remix they did for spacetime continuum, the kick and snare parts do not always fall in the same place; it sounds a bit live and sloppy. It really depends on the composer. Step time isn't any more tedious than playing live if you're experienced (I find that older people have more trouble with step-time because they didn't grow up w/ computers). I sometimes step things in, sometimes play things in, it all depends how I'm feeling. I used to own a recording studio in partnership with Chris Brann of Wamdue Productions, and we were in several bands together. Chris is an incredible keyboard player, far more skilled than I'll ever be. However, when composing Chris would step EVERYTHING into his sequencer. I asked him why. He said that it was faster - he could capture what he felt the first time. His sense of timing was such that he knew how many 1/384ths of a measure to put between notes. Unfuckingbelievable. Chris started using a sequencer when he was 12, so it was as natural as playing a keyboard to him. I don't think you can use your own experience to predict how Autechre use their equipment. My guess would be that they do some things in unorthodox ways. Che

On 05/19/98 23:15:37 you wrote:

quoted 3 lines It really depends on the composer. Step time isn't any more tedious than

>It really depends on the composer. Step time isn't any more tedious than >playing live if you're experienced (I find that older people have more >trouble with step-time because they didn't grow up w/ computers).

when i first started making music, i step-entered everything because i couldn't play keyboards. i found it fairly tedious, and very difficult to do anything rhythmically interesting...i.e., at least on my sequencer (which i realize is probably partially responsible for my dislike of step programming) you either have to enter straight 8th (or 16th or 32nd or whatever) notes...which i find rhythmically boring...or keep going back and forth changing the note values every couple of notes...sucks all the fun out of writing, for me. also, step recording seems to require you to know more of what you're writing before you step record it...i.e. you have to decide on a rhythm, and then is that an eighth note then a dotted quarter or two eighths and a rest or...? it's just not the way i think. i guess it was silly to assume that no one thinks like that. but it does sound to me like most ae tracks are too intricate to be completely programmed, unless they spend weeks and weeks on each tra! ck. but again i could be wrong.. .i know they don't have day jobs! as for age influencing like/dislike of step recording, i've had a computer of some sort or other since i was 9 or 10...?

quoted 8 lines I used to own a recording studio in partnership with Chris Brann of Wamdue

>I used to own a recording studio in partnership with Chris Brann of Wamdue >Productions, and we were in several bands together. Chris is an incredible >keyboard player, far more skilled than I'll ever be. However, when >composing Chris would step EVERYTHING into his sequencer. I asked him why. >He said that it was faster - he could capture what he felt the first time. >His sense of timing was such that he knew how many 1/384ths of a measure to >put between notes. Unfuckingbelievable. Chris started using a sequencer >when he was 12, so it was as natural as playing a keyboard to him.

very odd indeed.

quoted 2 lines I don't think you can use your own experience to predict how Autechre use

>I don't think you can use your own experience to predict how Autechre use >their equipment. My guess would be that they do some things in unorthodox ways.

i wasn't just using my experience, but the experience of everyone i've ever met who was an electronic musician. obviously i still shouldn't have made generalizations from that, though. "a dream is worth a thousand pictures, the mouths of lampreys a thousand more..."

On Wednesday, 20-May-98, thatcat@ix.netcom.com wrote [about Re: How Music Is Made (Re: (idm) Ae new lp - a quick mention]:

quoted 4 lines On 05/19/98 23:15:37 you wrote:

>On 05/19/98 23:15:37 you wrote: >>It really depends on the composer. Step time isn't any more tedious than >>playing live if you're experienced (I find that older people have more >>trouble with step-time because they didn't grow up w/ computers).

I grew up with computers and I have big problems with both step programming and live recording..

quoted 7 lines when i first started making music, i step-entered everything because i

>when i first started making music, i step-entered everything because i >couldn't play keyboards. i found it fairly tedious, and very difficult to do >anything rhythmically interesting...i.e., at least on my sequencer (which i >realize is probably partially responsible for my dislike of step programming) >you either have to enter straight 8th (or 16th or 32nd or whatever) >notes...which i find rhythmically boring...or keep going back and forth >changing the note values every couple of notes...sucks all the fun ou

I use a tracker called Octamed Sound Studio for my amiga that has tracking editing, like FastTracker2 on PC, but also has full MIDI capability.. For me, this is the ideal way to make music on computer, you can just enter notes.. and to change things it's as simple as scrolling back up and changing, you don't have to edit something like 10 times, and edit complex tick numbers, and things. the current program is a bit limited due to the fact how it's set up, you need to make a longer patterns and faster speeds in order to get good snare rushes or other kinds of things.. like increasing resolution on a screen, in fact it's what it's called, the line resolution when converted GM tracks to Octamed format.. With some jiggery pokery ;) I reckon it can be made so that it doesn't have any drawbacks whatsoever.. i dunno, it's just IMO.. I find live recording and/or steprecording really annoying when it comes to making interesting music.. I too have said to myself "I wonder how Ae and AFX do it." :)

quoted 2 lines put between notes. Unfuckingbelievable. Chris started using a sequencer

>>put between notes. Unfuckingbelievable. Chris started using a sequencer >>when he was 12, so it was as natural as playing a keyboard to him.

quoted 1 line very odd indeed.

>very odd indeed.

yeah.. I can believe it.. but I've been using a tracker since I was 13, so.. I guess it all depends what kind of background you come from. __ __\ \ / /_\ \ \_____/ "..in whatever you do, if you can't break new ground, what's the point?" - James Cameron