>>>>> "im" == [EMAIL PROTECTED] com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
im> "dn" == darw_n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dn> I am willing to bet that when Beyer makes a track he is more
dn> listening than creating, he is toneshifting his own tracks
dn> while in the studio...
>> I think most of them have had to think pretty hard about what
>> they're doing, even if they can't (or won't) articulate the
>> results of that process. If you're not following a rote formula
>> (and sometimes even if you are, if you're doing it well),
>> making music is really hard. You _have_ to think about what
>> you're doing, even if it's not on some highfalutin theoretical
>> level.
im> True, but I believe there are a lot of producers out there
im> (experienced and not so experienced) who are operating on gut
im> feeling and instinct. There's a certain leap of faith and
im> logic that allows uninformed but passionate people to make
im> strong art (Basquiat?). It's the old "if it kick, it kick"
im> instinct. You cannot deny or minimize the desire of 313
im> creators to make sh*t happen on the floor (Detroit Grand
im> Pubahs?).
Hell no, and I certainly wouldn't want to try!
I'm not going to argue that techno as a genre is filled with self-
consciously avant-garde, Nietzschean "creators" who must consider the
implications of all their actions before they cast the first sequence
upon the digital void. As a rule, I think we're predisposed to sitting
in front of our computers and twiddling knobs and seeing what happens
if we crank up the compressor a little bit. Maybe we drool sometimes.
Most of the time we swear. In my admittedly limited experience, about
9/10s of making techno involves twiddling and tweaking and about 1/10
of the process is coming up with the original idea for a track. It's
also undeniable that many techno creators are almost painfully loyal
to their formulae -- once they get a sound they like, they don't want
to mess with it.
At the same time, the only way the music can progress is if artists
sit down periodically and say, "What's working for me in these tracks?
What's not? Why did everyone like that one track so much? Why do I
keep making tracks that sound like this? What am I trying to do here,
really?" Maybe they aren't articulating it that cleanly, but that's
the process that's going on under the skin. And I would contend that
the more minimal the artist, the more they think about this. I would
argue, in fact, that minimal music will only work if the artist is
thinking _especially_ hard about what they're doing. There's not
enough there there to obfuscate your intentions.
To recast what I'm saying in terms resembling darwin's original
argument, I think most of us who have been around for a while are
aware that "toneshifting" exists. I know that most of my peak moments
at raves were centered around hearing things in the music that aren't
there (in fact, the first time I noticed that effect was at a Psychic
TV show, long before I knowingly heard any techno). It's pretty hard
for artists consciously to put that stuff in there (to do so they'd
have to know how all our brains work, which is knowledge I'm unwilling
to credit them with). But at the same time, if you've worked with
loops for a while, you know how to use repetition to evoke those kinds
of effects, and I'd at least suspect the people who make the most
loop-happy tracks are trying, on a certain level, to mess with their
listeners' heads in exactly that way.
>> Finally, I don't think I've _ever_ met an artist who can,
>> godlike, take an idea and turn it into a finished work without
>> the idea being destructively altered at least a little along
>> the way. Stockhausen, maybe, but Stockhausen is a genius and
>> comes from a completely different tradition than anyone you and
>> I are likely to hear on a pair of 1200s / behind a 909.
im> I think you might be giving KS a little too much credit
im> (certainly "godlike" is a little strong). I imagine that,
im> when Stockhausen was in the thick of creating, he was
im> exercising a passion that obfuscated his ability to understand
im> how listeners might react to his music.
I'm not sure. If you believe what he says, works like _Hymnen_ were
fully scored before he ever started splicing tape (and if you want to
see something totally wild, get your hands on a Stockhausen practice
score someday). He may not have had any idea of how it would affect
his audience, but I do think he had a clear conception of what the
work would sound like before he even started the formal compositional
process, much less was able to hear what he was doing. Of course, he
could be lying (and cynical me is predisposed to thinking that he's
not averse to fudging the truth a little bit). I will say that reading
the program notes while listening to one of of Stockhausen's more
complex works is an incredibly enlightening and humbling experience.
Especially because it's very hard to figure out what he's trying to do
without doing so. But that appears to be a conversation for a
completely different list :).
im> Hindsight alone tells us what the transforming and significant
im> artistic statements are.
im> Everything else is "stuff I'm digging right now..."
Indeed. Elegantly put. Thank you.
Forrest
. . . the self-reflecting image of a narcotized mind . . .
ozymandias G desiderata [EMAIL PROTECTED] desperate, deathless
(415)558-9064 http://www.aoaioxxysz.com/ ::AOAIOXXYSZ::
