I wrote:
quoted 4 lines I picked up Bytes after (the admittedly brilliant) Spanners and was
> >I picked up Bytes after (the admittedly brilliant) Spanners and was
> >initially disappointed as well. Bytes doesn't have nearly the rhythmic
> >complexity, timbral variety, or compositional develpoment of Spanners.
>
and then Ben Coffer replied:
quoted 3 lines Uh? that's obvious isn't it? Bytes came *before* Spanners, an artist
> Uh? that's obvious isn't it? Bytes came *before* Spanners, an artist
> develops their talent thru time/experience not randomly.
>
to which i say:
Well of course, except that the jump from Bytes to Spanners seemed to be
more of a quantum leap than an artistic progression. Bytes sounds to me
like most good techno (for lack of a better word) but much better; i.e.
it's simply a matter of finding the right loops to go with the right chord
progressions to go with the right timbres, and put the changes in the
right places.
Much of Spanners, on the other hand, seems to have been made in a
completely different manner. Most of the time, it doesn't follow the
standard build-it-up, pile on the layers convention of techno. There is
ebb and flow, development, and timbral variety within individual tracks.
Every note, every choice is deliberate. Unlike Bytes or Parallel or
Temple, Spanners could never really be the source of a remix album. Which
is a good thing in my book.
-arjun
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~arjun