i think what you mean to say kent is that when it's good it's good,
and when it sucks it sucks.....regardless of production techniques or
istruments. ;)
I think fab has summed it up nicely.
But, I have to add, that for different types of tracks, different types
of production work better, so it does make a difference if one type or
another is chosen....
That's my two cents.
Jamil
it's the ideas that count, nothing else IMHO
fab.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "list 313" <313@hyperreal.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: (313) In defense of new techno
On 7/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry Thomas, but I have to totally disagree on this one!
I know Kent might have some opinion on this...
I'm kind of all opinioned out at the moment.
I will say that the records that work, work because they somehow
partake of the mystical sea of un-suckiness, in ways that transcend
production techniques, sound design, hair styles, whoring publicists
and the rest.
Rob Hood has made a lot of tracks using sounds from his Yamaha QY70,
which is a book sized thinger with a sequencer and minimal builtin
sounds. In the hands of anyone else, it would sound like cheap crap.
Some of the best techno tracks are incredibly simple, but most people
either overcomplicate their music, or make simple tracks that sound
dumb. The best tracks always have something great about them that
can't be decomposed into production technique or melodies or
basslines.
