There was a thread on this subject last year on the g-tech list. Funnily enough I used Axis 9 as an example of the merits of fade-ins rather than as a negative. I've copied it over from the archives:
"........it can make a track for me. Sometimes it can give an indication of the intended mood of a track. For example, like I said before if a track fades in it can project the feeling that it is not just a 5 minute piece, but a part of a bigger whole. Again it depends on how you view the genre. If I could give a classic example, the first track on the beige side of Axis 9 fades in and out, and is perfect in that context. It could have just boosted off from a solid start, but then you would KNOW exactly where the piece starts, you are not left to imagine what has happened before or after the part you actually hear, the part of the journey that you were not consciously travelling." from another post in the same thread: "I recently got given some new records on a couple of prominent labels associated with very loop based 4:4 tracks, and at home mixing them I am amazed at how ridiculously accurate my mixes sound. This is because it is SO easy to mix tracks that run to this over familiar formula. 2:4 4:4 8:4 there is no room for error. I'm not saying error is desirable, nor that I don't make or play tracks with that structure, but to me a whole set of that stuff without variation is just unbearably boring. To me that rigid loop stuff is just pure body music, and I like techno to stimulate my mind while my body is distracted by dancing. If I want a pure body effect I'll dance to house, it's more fun and interesting. So going back to the title of the post, what is techno to you? Is it a kit to be put together like something from IKEA, all the bits made the same so they fit..........neatly...........together? or what? Is criticising a techno artist for fading in a track (or adding an unusually structured section, or sticking an extra beat/bar in somewhere) not slightly barbaric? I mean, is techno not supposed to challenge conventional art forms? Indeed, is techno not art? Would you refuse to look at a great painting if you didn't like one particular brushstroke, just because it challenges the way you need to interact with it? Or would you take the challenge and learn to adapt to new or more complex situations because it can take you and your audience to another level on the techno experience?" After all, we are only talking about cueing up to a kick drum aren't we? It's not that much of a challenge!! ____ http://www.ARCart.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
