On 3/27/07, David Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First of all, your argument was about whether things were intuitive. Now you are saying it doesn't matter if things are intuitive. But it does matter because I can spend MORE TIME MAKING MUSIC and less time doing setup and unimportant technical stuff. So that kick ass riff, is gonna kick more ass, cus I could focus more on it.
but it is the ONLY thing that you should be focusing on! if you have a 101, there is nothing to do to get that riff except push a couple knobs and then play it. doing the same thing on a computer involves alot more. maybe if people took a more traditional approach to song writing, it would solve these problems. sit there with a guitar or piano and come up with your melodies. then sit there with a drum set and come up with the rhythms. rely on ZERO technology, and make the important decisions. then go through the process of integrating the technology into the song. keep the songwriting and engineering aspects separate. just about no one does that in electronic music.
Also your point of view is very "non-techno", in my opinion, it's basically anti-techno. your ideas of music sound a lot closer to what I'd expect a rock person, or even a hippie/jamband kind of fan to say, honestly. The whole cult of "authenticity" and intuitive brilliance and all that nonsense.
in a way, it is. the things that make music great dont change. its about feelings.
IMO what makes techno distinct is that the kind of sound a synth makes DOES matter - timbre has become an essential part of the composition. It's the timbre that makes techno something other than 70's funk and disco, really.
if a song is only good because its synth sound is good, is the SONG really good? this is coming from someone who sees the rhythm tracks made with a simple drum machine as one of the most important musical innovations of the last 100 years. but the reason those things are great is because of how they were used: to augment and change up previously existing songs. listening to a whole set of nothing but rhythm tracks is worthless. there are ways to use timbre that can improve a song. but alone, its not gonna be very interesting.
In fact 20th century music as a whole, including classical and jazz, really brought about a shift that made timbre equal to rhythm, melody, and harmony as a music element. And in fact, in math terms those things are indeed related. So you basically want to go back to the 19th century ... how very punk rock of you ... ;-)
if timbre was being treated as an equal, that would be fine with me! at this point in electronic music, many people treat it as the ONLY thing! thats where my problem comes in....
PS> I don't really ever need to hear Strings of Life again, I don't know why people like it so much.
but the point can be applied to classic song X of your choice, not just SOL.... tom
