Well stated. I like that you have sounds that you can't get out yet. Thought I was the only one. Sometimes I think about what would happen if I was able to realize everything in my head finally, you know, get it allllll out. It's kinda scary to think about. Like all my "special" is inside there and if I let it all out I won't have any "special" left. Dunno. Freaks me right out though sometimes. Like that bird that's always watching me in the morning. Can't even sleep with the blind open anymore...peeping bxstard...
K Mwnb -----Original Message----- From: Dale Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:46 PM To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) really I rambled on too long and I thought this message was too big to fit through the chokepoint. Then I thought that figuring this out might entitle me to get my WorldGeek(tm) membership card back... I figured maybe it was just all the profanity, so I edited it for prime-time... Nothing. Then finally Kent emailed me like the novice that I am, after reading my two blocked attempts, and told me it was simply because I wasn't sending in plain text. Alas, I'll never get back into the club... At 12:25 PM 8/30/2006, Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote: >On 8/30/06, Dale Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>--but I thought you said the tools didn't matter? Which is it? All >>the ground is already broken then? > >the tools DON'T matter, as long as theyre not being used a substitute >for ideas and good music. which in the case of dylan and kraftwerk, >they werent. in the case of X number of computer musicians, they are. >i prefer people who keep it simple and limited because it makes it >almost ALL about the ideas and music as opposed to some programming >trick or DSP nonsense. For every hack artist that installs some software and declares themselves a musician there are hundreds of individuals in the past who picked up a guitar and thought they were rock stars. Dylan knows how to play guitar, etc... Kraftwerk knows how to work their synthesizers (and they use a computer as their sequencer--if not having moved completely over to software synthesis in their own studio already)... hell, *I* know how to work synthesizers too... Producing sound in real-time within the computer is just another tool. Either you're good at it or you aren't. Some get the A grade... others get the F... and a whole lot of in between. Personally, if we're talking about tools, I only use Live and one plug-in, which is simply a synthesizer that I like. I've rarely even read a manual for a piece of gear. I've figured out all of the synthesis parameters out there myself, and have usually stayed out of gear discussions because I already had the tools/gear I wanted and really didn't care about anything else. I was never a gear head, I am a music head. There are so many people out there that are exactly the same way... many that have strolled in and out of this list over the years. >>Do you think people really just press return on their computer? > >uh, yes? isnt it obvious? Yes, every morning I wake up, turn on my computer, double-click the Live 5.0 icon on my desktop, and press return. The songs just come pouring out. Check my page. It's astounding. I hope nobody else figures out what program I use. I'll be ruined. >>Did you receive my point about all the new technologies in music... >>or even art in general, such as photography, always receiving >>resistance in their infancy? > >its not really a new point, Extraneous insult ignored. >and i understand it. however, im skeptical You may understand it, but I'm not sure if the point is sinking in. Is photography art? If so, why? All you have to do is press a button. Some people make masterpieces with their Polaroids while others make trash with their elaborate camera systems.... and vice versa. I'm also a designer. Should we dismiss all of the art and design of today that was made with a computer? I love progressive design, but there is a lot of garbage out there and I cringe at something awful I see every single day. Do I blame the tool? Blame the artist. Samplers. Some people sample entire loops of other people's music, add a beat, and sing over it. Other people use a sampler to record just a drum kick, the sound of a glass breaking, or their grandmother belching, then rework it and use it successfully in a track as an instrument. Are samplers evil because MC Hammer and Puff Daddy blatantly misused them? What if someone had a disease of some sort, like Parkinson's, where they just couldn't keep their hands steady, but they had a brilliant mind just overflowing with creative vision, and the computer allowed them to finally bring those visions to reality and share them with us? Are they not keeping it real? Stephen Hawking doesn't keep it real. He's a hack. I have sounds in my head that I've never heard in real life and I've still never been able to get them out, but with software I'm a little bit closer. I'm sorry if the sound I want to use in a song isn't made by an analog synth, korg wavestation, guitar, ukelele, tribal drum, leaf blower, car crash, or anything else found in the universe today. Isn't that striving towards something groundbreaking? Trying to realize something that no one has ever heard before? Many people are trying to achieve this goal using the computer. Alternately, though, simply making a sound that no one has heard yet doesn't make it good. You still need creativity and skill to make it worthy of recognition. Knives can kill, but they also cut your dinner. Cars can suck up oil, but they also move you around efficiently. You can download porn on the internet, but you can also do an instant search for almost any piece of information you are looking for. So many tools at our disposal... and it is up to the individual to use them in good conscience. >of any technology that makes things more complex for no reason. More complex for no reason? I find music production in the PC much simpler, and satisfying. To set up my old studio I had to first plug in a network of AC/DC supply, then hook up a network of patch cables to my mixer, then hook up a network of midi cables to my sequencer. I could spend hours and hours trying to get rid of line noise, unsuccessfully resetting up my synths to sound just like they did the week before so I can finish a track I was working on before I was inspired to work on another idea, etc... etc... All of the same tools now exist in the computer. There are synthesizers, samplers, mixers, and sequencers at my fingertips. It is the same thing I have been doing for years but much more stable and intertwined for much better mix quality. I've spent at least $15,000 over the years on gear and never came close to a mix quality that I have in the PC... I would need to rent an outside studio to do that.... and who wants to leave their house at 3am to explore music in someone else's studio?... or spend the money if they don't have to? >with >the power of the modern computer based stuido, it should easily be >possible for people to crank out tunes much better than the original >house and techno tracks, right? well that's just not happening, only a >deluded person would say that the quality of tracks has increased in >direct proportion to the complexity of the equipment being used to >make them. It's so simple isn't it? 1) Software production has raised the bar significantly. It is easier for a skilled artist to make a more well-produced track. I speak from over 20 years of experience making music with real gear I can sink my teeth into and working on a computer makes it so much easier for me to explore my imagination. If you switch to PC production and simply plateau at the level you were at previously with meatspace gear, then you need to push yourself... unless you already had access to a top of the line studio and gear, which I do not. If you were horrible then, you will most likely be horrible now. 2) There is one huge liability to the development of making music entirely within the PC, and that is Bit Torrent. Anyone with an internet connection can download software to their heart's content and call themselves a producer. No longer are aspiring electronic musicians bound to spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to get their studio up and running. You speak of the quality of music not increasing in direct proportion to the complexity of the equipment, and you are correct, but there are more factors involved that you haven't considered and I believe your skepticism to be misguided. Further, this does not discount the accomplishments of truly gifted artists... and for them the quality of music is progressing rapidly. There is simply more trash for you to weed through, as there has been for every other form of music as the instruments and tools they used became more readily available... and now distribution is also at the hands of anyone with an internet connection. You can download the same amount of trash from any other genre popular today. Electronic music is no different. "All I need is a red guitar, three chords, and the truth"? What was he talking about there? Part of it was a complaint about how easy it is/was for anyone to make it as a musician-- Pick one of three chords? ie: Press return? No, there is no comparison there. Now the truth on the other hand... >>History has proven that the antagonists always end up looking like >>fools... are you just trolling? > >always, eh? You got me on the technicality of the word 'always'. Of course, there is no absolute. I surrender. Regardless, the world is much more complex than I think you want to see it, but that is reality. There are many things to consider in any issue that arises. This applies to all facets of life. As far as music is concerned there have always been hacks, and as time goes by many of them become more easily recognized. If they are using a pre-fab beat programs full of presets, then people are going to ask why they sound like so many other artists out there and get bored or dismiss them entirely. blah blah blah...
