I would actually make a difference between Hawtin mix CDs and live
performances.
His 'mix CDs' are made in the purpose of providing a new experience to
the listener. They are quite unconventional. It clearly appears that the
last two de9 episodes could not be done 'live', and that explains Hawtin
purpose was to make something 'new' rather than the traditionnal DJ set.
Keeping in mind he wanted to make a brand new piece of music makes a
small matter the fact he uses pre-existing music for that IMO.
Hawtin live performances are actually very basic DJ sets with tons of
effects above the tracks (which I find boring). The use of the computer
is actually just related to the use of Final Scratch, that allows him to
play a lot of unreleased music and some edits. So well there is no big
concept around that thing, except the concept behind any DJ 'rock the
floor wich the music you play'.
Benoît.
Arturo Lopez a écrit :
What do you people think about Hawtin's approach to music? I'm calling
it hypersampling. So we're on the same page, I'm talking about taking
snippets and loops from a wide library of pre-existing music, and then
inserting those little snippets into a dj set via the current software
of choice. I think it brings up a number of supposed pros and cons.
On the one hand, it seems to give the artist a incredibly wide range
of possibilities, taking just those parts of tracks that you like and
putting them together in any way/shape/form that you like, hopefully
coming up with something interesting as a result.
On the other hand though, I feel like there's no "soul" left, for lack
of a better term, with what you end up with. If you gut a track to
just take the little part that you like, you are still gutting a
track, something that was part of a cohesive sound that the producer
of said track was going for. You end up with a hundred little pieces
that might sound like very interesting little loops, but string them
together for an hour and I frankly get a little bored with the
results. Hawtin's mixes sound like flipping the channel on your TV
every 3 seconds. There's no hook, it's just loop after loop after
loop, even if put together in interesting combinations.
This is very different from mixing records or even using regular
samplers for the occasional insert or loop. You still come up with
interesting new sounds when you've got two records playing at the same
time, but I feel like it's more of an additive process, with both
parts still intact and forming that nice third record, you know? The
listener can follow what is going on, and take part/enjoy the new
sounds being added, with a clear reference to what is changing and
what is being dropped in. With this hypersampling stuff, everything
is so completely stripped of its original source that it becomes
irrelevant where it came from. I get a great feeling from hearing two
or three distinct tracks put together in interesting ways to form new
sounds, not two or three drum loops and five high-hats and some random
sound effect from 20 different tracks.
"...perhaps that one of the last remaining walls (or most of it)
between the Studio and the Club has come down." That's Hawtin's quote
from that RA link the other day. I personally think that wall can be
very important, and shouldn't be knocked down. Beethoven didn't write
a great symphony on the fly during a show, he wrote them in the
studio. This isn't to discredit the awesome amount of talent and
exciting things that live P.A. work brings about, some stuff is
certainly better on the fly, but Hawtin's approach seems to discount
and not really care about the sources of what he is extracting. One
of the earlier posts described this mix as sonic wallpaper and I would
agree, although I think the 2nd half does pick up a bit. There's no
"there" there.
As for Hawtin, I think he's a far better producer than performer. He's
written some very, very good tracks, especially most of the plastikman
stuff, I just don't care for the new approach to performing.
-Arturo
