That pretty much hits the nail on the head for me- during the weekend
James Pennington and I were discussing how he often leaves tracks for
years without releasing them - "the ultimate test- the test of time"-
if you set out to make music that is of the "now" or "futuristic"
then generally your stuff wont hold up as well stuff that's just
"good". The idea that new producers have a "template" or at least a
well known framework is, in my eyes. very true indeed.
Jason
On 23 Aug 2006, at 15:32, Jamil Ali wrote:
My own 2 cents:
I think you see the same thing in all types of music. A style is
developed at some time, and it's innovative at the time, and it
sounds great. After the style is pioneered, it remains popular
with people who love it, and they start making tracks in that
style, using the same ideas. And since it's been done before they
have templates to work from and they can elaborate on and 'perfect'
the ideas that were already there, to the point where they're doing
them 'better' and more sophisticated than the originals.
But, it just doesn't move you like the stuff done when it was
breaking new ground. So you'll hear some melodic techno nowadays
that sounds great, and it's all done perfect, you can't fix a note
or a timbre or anything. You hear it and you think "this couldn't
be done any better", "this is a perfect example of that kind of
(for example) melodic techno" - but it kind of bores you.
For me, this applies to all types of music, not just some kinds of
techno. In my experience, if the track wasn't breaking a little
new ground at the time it was made, it just doesn't have the same
amount of life in it, and I think over the long run it will do even
less for you, whereas the stuff that was breaking ground at the
time sounds good forever.
Jamil
