Well, you have to understand that there is a DEMAND for records with that pumped up sound, when most records are like this, records that are NOT tend to sound rather quiet and may unintentionally lower the energy. I guess I don't see anything wrong with making pumped up records if you are making them for club DJ's to play out in peak hour sets. A track made more for home listening or a deeper less aggresive set should probably not be made that way of course. Dance music does have a functional aspect, and I don't think one should say a record made for a peak hour type set can't still be good. The aesthetic of such records seems appropriate to their function...
/dave -----Original Message----- From: Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:47 AM To: 313@hyperreal.org Cc: spw Subject: Re: (313) Over-production (WAS - Re: (313) Suburban Knight) I agree. These technologies can be used to good effect, it's just that I think they're (unwittingly) used to take away some grit and dynamic range which you often hear in more soulful stuff, particularly the best Detroit stuff. (Though by no means all Detroit stuff - I am not into lazy generalisations based on geography.) When you're using nice kit, it can be tempting to make it sound as loud and pumped as possible, and I guess that this is what I hear a lot when I go record shopping, just over-indulgence, coupled with a lack of innovation and/or musicality. As for the Oakenfold thing....each to their own ;-) Just kidding! ----- Original Message ----- From: "spw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: (313) Over-production (WAS - Re: (313) Suburban Knight) > I can understand where people are going with the dry productions but > Pro-Tools and 'DIGITAL' music can sound really cool depending on how you > produce it. > Of course the typical prog-house, trance production has a cheap digial > quality to it with clean effects and reverb but a good dj can mix a Paul > Okenfold record or some pop dance record with an underground techno record > and make it sound cool. > > on 2/3/03 9:59 AM, Andrew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > Dennis, > > Ah, well I meant no offense. When he said it he seemed pretty amused, (I was > > talking to him about the possibility of mastering some of stuff, like > > thousands of others) and we both chuckled at the idea of just lathering in > > saturation, just for sake of sounding like ''whoever'' - it wasn't a Deep > > Chord release we talked about, I'd rather not name names. But I still think > > it's lame - it's like BC never happened. > > Anyway, the reason I posted was to hopefully spur a conversation about the > > total overproduction of music, which this thread had drifted on to. It seems > > like so many releases are guilty of digitising the soul out of the music, > > which could be due to the tendency to over-compress, normalize every sample > > (or the stereo master), or to get the mastering guy to take all the dynamic > > range out of a track by pumping it beyond measure. Pro-Tools is a definite > > culprit in giving releases a homogenous 'sound', unless your careful. Also > > with the advent of units like the Finalizer, more people are pre-mastering, > > which only aggravates the problem. It all makes for cool peak-time stormers, > > but for music with a little ''soul'', it can be a problem, in my opinion. > > What's interesting is that hip hop guys manages to imbue their music with a > > lot of spirit and soul and funk, while at the same time using whatever > > effects they can to pump up the music and make it louder, which his maybe > > due to their original sound sources, but also their unwillingness to be > > trapped into quantization and program beats in a different way. So maybe > > dance guys need to stop using sound modules and Roland kit, and open the net > > sound-wise? > > I'm just intersted in people's opinions, I've been dying to talk about this > > with intelligent people for a while now, and I'm not interested in being > > ''right'' - just talking about it. > > thanks, > > Andrew >
