Re: (313) re: production
On 8/31/06, Stoddard, Kamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think all the dudes who know the technicals and still suck, should just become engineers and bring in a producer with creative ideas who didn't have to be concerned at all with the technicalities. That would sort all this out and then creative people would never be tempted to overproduce because they wouldn't know how to work the gear. Oh wait! That's how it used to work since like, forever. And crap was still the overwhelming outcome. Oh well. There's no hope for music. There never was. Idiots will win on sheer numbers. Give up. Die. those kinds of arrangements did of course produce the motown stable of artists, philly international, etc etc. id say that if you have a good vision and a stable of artists to work with, that kind of arrangement will produce good stuff more often than a bunch of engineers sitting around twiddling their knobs tom
Re: (313) re: production
On 8/31/06, chthonic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so let's extend this argument one further - if people don't care as much about spoils that are not hard-won, why should anyone truly care about music? some people work very hard to discover and purchase and listen to music. i know i do. tom
Re: (313) really
On 8/31/06, Stoddard, Kamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course computers are used for lots of stuff. Guitars have one purpose. No-brainer. but it does help create the problem! Hey! you ever see this band called peelander-z? I have. One of the things they do in their act is at a certain point they recruit audience members to come up onstage and play their instruments for them while they do other things with bowling pins and such. Before this though, they get the music to such a fever pitch of screaming guitar-feedback madness that, unless the dude who got picked for drums sucks bad you can barely tell it's not them. Ever hear of the noise core rock stuff. A lot of that is just guys that can't play guitar a lick hitting the strings as hard as they can and screaming. As long as you market it right you can sell anything. Music is no exception and knowing this, I can't believe you still see this as an issue with the artists/tools instead of with the idiots that buy it. yeah, it might be marketed and sold, but its not going to be really hitting people musically. things like that are fun to see live, more like performance art. we used to book local cats like the joysticks (who went on to produce that girltalk guy iirc! E) and big daddy bullseal to do goofy things while bands and deejays played. and i can appreciate that kind of thing for sure. but it still doesnt make the music good! Any new convenience will make people do less to achieve more by definition. If it didn't make things easier, it wouldn't be convenient would it? It would be making things more complicated (which we both abhor). I personally stick with gear when I can, but I wouldn't let these cats off the hook as easily as you Tom. I'd never let a punk fakin' uncreative hack blame his wackness on the availability of the arpeggiator (which, when introduced to the all gear studio world, heard the same cries of but they just hit that random button) or some preset. im not sure any of them are blaming the gear! i think theyll support it because it helps them camoflauge their lack of good ideas. I've heard cats work them fxcking presets to the bone. And in my experience in big studios, that cost model has proven to weed out more of the creatives and put the control factor solely in the hands of those with the cash to pay. Usually that's not the guy who's tormented by his creative genius. I've had to watch more than a few real live geniuses get raped for their ideas and soul because they either needed the money to get a studio, or were under the thumb of the guy that paid for the time (AR). so it's a good theory, but it actually works the other way around in real life (according to my experience). this is true, which is why i said i support the idea of music making being easy to obtain in theory. of course, you could just rock old thrift store kinds of gear, and really wack hardware. i use the hr-16 which can be had for like $75 or less even! dr rhythms are another source of good variety of sounds and programmability at a really cheap price. you could save your lunch money in high school for a couple weeks and afford a used one. You been buying some of it, some gets obscured by the shxtpile of weak shxt, and the rest is on the way. If you haven't found it and we tell you it's there, maybe you just gotta dig deeper...or in another hole/shop. :)I run with a crew of real sampleheads and the crate diggers credo has always been, it's out there...I just gotta cop it before you. So go get it man. that is who i run with! but the problem with that is that we're buying all old records. we dont want to be buying only old records, we want new stuff. we did an order from hardwax a couple weeks ago to pick up some of the new stuff we needed that wasnt around here. we still ended up ordering mostly older records. i go wherever the music is, i check sites like juno, hardwax, emporium50, submerge, picadilly, etc. im a fiend baby, if its out there and its good, ill find it somehow. i check peoples reccomendations on various lists and message boards in many many genres. i might miss some things here and there, but as soon as i find out about them, i hunt them down. I think this is where the crux of the matter lies. No tool will make up for artistic integrity and creativity. What it can do is allow you to approximate these with less effort. If you choose to be happy with that, okay then. Plenty of guys I know are happy just to go outside, play some football, get hurt again and call it a day. They're not shooting for the premier league or anything and that's fine. but if youre just making music for yourself to listen to or whatever, thats one thing. but putting it out in wide distribution on vinyl is as much responsible for why people dont wanna buy records anymore as anything else. if the music was better, people wouldnt mind paying! For me it's a no- lose situation. See, for every crap record out by dj slackfingers, there's someone with crap
Re: (313) re: production
many ifs in that sentence. while i agree that some of the motown output was classic, it also had a formulaic quality to it that's plagued the pop industry ever since. e.g. had a hit? next single will be a rehash of that hit. also, this is probably the wrong list to mention this name, but stephen stapleton (nurse with wound) is almost more a knob-twiddler than anything else, but he's also a great artist in my opinion, pushing the boundaries of music and experimentation. there have also also several engineer/producers who had both the skills and the creativity to being out the best in an artist, cutting out one step in the committee version - flood comes to mind. d. -- Original Message -- From: Thomas D. Cox, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:15:19 -0400 On 8/31/06, Stoddard, Kamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think all the dudes who know the technicals and still suck, should just become engineers and bring in a producer with creative ideas who didn't have to be concerned at all with the technicalities. That would sort all this out and then creative people would never be tempted to overproduce because they wouldn't know how to work the gear. Oh wait! That's how it used to work since like, forever. And crap was still the overwhelming outcome. Oh well. There's no hope for music. There never was. Idiots will win on sheer numbers. Give up. Die. those kinds of arrangements did of course produce the motown stable of artists, philly international, etc etc. id say that if you have a good vision and a stable of artists to work with, that kind of arrangement will produce good stuff more often than a bunch of engineers sitting around twiddling their knobs tom Sent via the WebMail system at chthonicstreams.com
Re: (313) re: production
On 8/31/06, skept [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: seems like some of you are blaming the bad computer generated music on producers having ridiculous amounts of vst effects and instruments which causes them to over use them and not even take the time to learn them and use them to their fullest capabilities. as opposed to a studio where one would spend a lot of money on one thing and learn every last little detail about it, produce the greatest sounds it could etc. first off i agree with that completely. but it's not like the people who have every vst effect and instrument in existence are buying them. so the problem with the bad computer generated music is software piracy not the computer itself. software is expensive just like hardware (maybe not completely comparable price ranges). if people bought every piece of software they use i am assuming they would devote a lot more time to mastering it and would have less distractions from other toys causing better computer music to be produced. but its also the general design of the software. do people REALLY need more than 16 tracks to make a dance song? 16 tracks would get LAUGHED at by today's standards. people want infinite tracks so they can make infinite small changes to their infinite bit depth sample of someone in a little room banging on a drum set. music would be better had this nonsense just never existed. tom
Re: (313) re: production
i completely agree on the 16 track comment. i'll add it to my previously mentioned thoughts about vsts which have already drastically affected the way i work... with software. i disagree about music being better off had software not existed. it is too absolute. a mix of hardware along with a computer and certain software is what i personally prefer. why not have lush sound and convenience all in one. but its also the general design of the software. do people REALLY need more than 16 tracks to make a dance song? 16 tracks would get LAUGHED at by today's standards. people want infinite tracks so they can make infinite small changes to their infinite bit depth sample of someone in a little room banging on a drum set. music would be better had this nonsense just never existed. tom
Re: (313) Production
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 03:57:32PM -0400, Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote:
i dont think i agree with this part though. i feel like truly great
music speaks to all people, reguardless of what their taste might
be. for example, as a favor at our wedding, my wife and i made mix
CDs. the number of people whom have commented to us about them since
then is insane. they really LOVE them. and the first track is carl
craig's a wonderful life! theres tracks from 50s r+b to disco to
techno to rock on there. and the songs are such that they speak to the
peoples' souls directly. and we got comments from people from age 11
to age 70. music is probably the most universal language there is for
the human species. the best music does the same thing, reguardless of
who made it or where it comes from.
tom
Though I do believe that some of the greatest art manages to convey
something without you necessarily needing knowledge beforehand about its
background or cultural context, I don't think that is true to most art,
even truly excellent art.
Whether it is visual or musical, even 99.99% of the most excellent
examples of art have a certain cultural relativity to them and to
appreciate it you need to have a certain grasp of the context.
If someone gave your mix CD to some bushmen or nomadic tribe that is
unfamiliar with Western music, would they feel that the music speaks to
their souls the same way your wedding guests did?
If you had given the guests at your wedding party a mix CD of Chinese
opera, Tibetan chants, Appalachian yodelling and musique concrete, do you think
the music would speak to their souls?
--
{}0+|
(313) cheesy house
Hey peoples. Ive decided to add some cheesy house to my vinyl collection. Terrence Parker styles:) Anyone recommend any good online stores? Ive hit up opusrecords once. They seem to be preety good Trying to get hold of a few shaun escoffery records, bucketheadz, erro, DJ Disciple,SARA DEVINE/LOUIE VEGA SPECIAL. etc Any ideas Thanks ed ps anyone who gotr back to me about my whats hapening in sydney question, thanks. I meant to write back but my sister deleted all the messages so sorry
Re: (313) cheesy house
Hey, I've got a mix of cheesy house right here! I think you're best bet is traxsource.com where you can find many of these tracks. PS. 313 relevance = Paul Randolph track http://www.jameshurlbut.net/mp3/mixes/newhousemix.mp3 Chaten Afo Interlude Franck Roger and Alix Alvarez -The Mood- sole channel jaymz nylon - A side (dj spinna remix) - nylon Franck Roger and MSelem feat Chris Wonder - You Can Be The One (Dj Spinnas Free Radikalz main vox remix) Liquid Dope feat. Chronkite - i_want_you-(k-dope_dub)- dope wax liquid dope feat. chronkite - i_want_you(dub_reprise) - soul heaven Marlon D - the uc anthem (sax_remix) - sole channel Mr V feat Lady Sah - Untitled Love Affair - Sole Channel Soulstation-You Paul Randolph - On My Dub Quentin Harris feat Robert Owens - always (reel soul vocal) StealVybe - Relief Ferrer Chandler- RisingTheSun Ame - Blade_Dancer (Beatless Version) quentin harris feat Rich Medina - spiritual life peven_everett - cant do without - soul heaven Quoting ed612313 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hey peoples. Ive decided to add some cheesy house to my vinyl collection. Terrence Parker styles:) Anyone recommend any good online stores? Ive hit up opusrecords once. They seem to be preety good Trying to get hold of a few shaun escoffery records, bucketheadz, erro, DJ Disciple,SARA DEVINE/LOUIE VEGA SPECIAL. etc Any ideas Thanks ed ps anyone who gotr back to me about my whats hapening in sydney question, thanks. I meant to write back but my sister deleted all the messages so sorry
Re: (313) really
All I want to listen to is honesty. .simon
(313) re: production
also, this is probably the wrong list to mention this name, but stephen stapleton (nurse with wound) is almost more a knob-twiddler than anything else, but he's also a great artist in my opinion, pushing the boundaries of music and experimentation. Both Stapleton and Tibet have done some excellent work, Coil would be my favourites in this area but some of the production ideas these guys have come up with are, indeed, brilliant... m
Re: (313) re: production
soon people are going to have to apologise for using software. *goes in the cellar to fetch his analog equipment* - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:23 AM Subject: (313) re: production also, this is probably the wrong list to mention this name, but stephen stapleton (nurse with wound) is almost more a knob-twiddler than anything else, but he's also a great artist in my opinion, pushing the boundaries of music and experimentation. Both Stapleton and Tibet have done some excellent work, Coil would be my favourites in this area but some of the production ideas these guys have come up with are, indeed, brilliant... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:26, fab. wrote: soon people are going to have to apologise for using software. *goes in the cellar to fetch his analog equipment* Most people wouldn't notice the difference and I'm sure the other 99.9% don't actually care m
Re: (313) re: production
Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:29, Martin Dust wrote: On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:26, fab. wrote: soon people are going to have to apologise for using software. *goes in the cellar to fetch his analog equipment* Most people wouldn't notice the difference and I'm sure the other 99.9% don't actually care m
Re: (313) re: production
On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m
Re: (313) re: production
before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P f. - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Brunton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
On 1 Sep 2006, at 10:08, fab. wrote: before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P True, true but this makes no difference as it's more difficult to control temperature etc and the behavior of old circuit boards, if only was as simple as above... m
Re: (313) re: production
You're preaching to the converted here- I use 50% old school hardware and 50% Digital Software stuff- the joyous thing about the software is that it's the same in the morning as the night before- the joyous thing about the hardware is the interface- ie dedicated sliders for functions that don't move around or have 18 different meanings depending on what mode you are in. And the sound. Jason On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:53, Martin Dust wrote: On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m
Re: (313) re: production
of boobies - Original Message - From: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:08 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P f. - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Brunton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
no, that's what you should be doing slacker. - Original Message - From: /0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 1:24 PM Subject: Re: (313) re: production of boobies - Original Message - From: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:08 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P f. - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Brunton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
on about the difference between digital and analogue okay now you are all just winding me up .. to me it's all about the system .. aka . the sound system at the end of the day ' dance music is about the PA . the actual speakers that the sound is coming out of. Techno is about dance floor reinforcement, so if you are not thinking about the final product. ie: the sound system on the floor .,. then just forget it .. you could spend a thousand hours in the studio, but if you play in a club where the cross over is set wrong . then . its all a waste of time .. please, please, please .. if you make, or play dance floor music, you should be worrying about your FOH sound like a guitar player worries about the tuning of their guitar! if you really want to push the future, if you really want to push sound, to break the curve, set the dimension think about the sound system .. this is your instrument! imagine a chef that did not care what plates his food was served on .. imagine a painter who did not care to understand his canvas .. dance music, TECHNO is all about the sound, its about the physical presence of the sound waves .. so all the talk mutter about computers means nothing to me .. if you do not understand the the fundamental basics of sound reinforcement .. what we are dealing with is the the presentation of sound through large sound systems .. thats what techno was built for! It's electronic sound .. which is the evolution of the electricity ... with out electricity .. we would not have modern sound systems . the speaker is your instrument .. like a guitar players instrument is the interaction of the strings with the body of the guitar .. with out a speaker we have no TECHNO ! the future of music ' is within the establishment of sound as a space Theo is onto the right tangent . the boy understands what is important, and has been trying to represent this through cut ups, mash downs and spatial social representation. if anyone is truly listening to TECHNO .. and following the relationship to space, dimension cultural architecture, then you will begin to see sound as space, as dimensional communication. why the muck is everyone getting stuck inside the wires .. when everything about TECHNO is what is going on in real space, in the environments that surround us .. I am inspired by vision, by honesty .. I am moved by Artists who define reality, who decide what is important and use sound as a medium to realize their own truth. Stop messing around on the inside ' and start looking at sound around you. Forget about the internal, and look at what is happening in front of the speakers, look at what is important on the floor, in the dance. This is about communication, this is about presenting sound ideas. All I want to listen to is honesty. .simon
Re: (313) really
ha ha ah http://obscure.co.nz/profiles/turnstyle Obscure loves Techno! psst: NZ techno mailing list http://obscure.co.nz/incoming/909_revolution haha http://obscure.co.nz/profiles/lrs --- www.obscure.co.nz www.psurkit.net -- m. +64 275 606012
Re: (313) re: production
on about the difference between digital and analogue okay now you are all just winding me up .. to me it's all about the system .. aka . the sound system So that's why all records are cut in mono these daysjessshhh m
Re: (313) really
It may be me, but.. Isn't a computer just a hardware synthesiser with a different interface? In fact I think some synths actually have computers inside them, I could be wrong though. There is some irony in technophobes on a techno mailing list? 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. Do you think people really just press return on their computer? uh, yes? isnt it obvious? 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, and i understand it. however, im skeptical of any technology that makes things more complex for no reason. 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. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
RE: (313) really
Original Message- From: Michael Lees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 September 2006 13:38 Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) really It may be me, but.. Isn't a computer just a hardware synthesiser with a different interface? Yes. To qualify that though, dedicated RAM in digital synth vs. RAM used by myriad other competing applications (meaning potentially less available for sound quality) plus more than likely better DACs in digital synths than in a computer and even an external soundcard. Finally, the routing: for a synth it's likely more direct - out of box into mixer/pre-amp, vs. in a computer, lord knows where else it's been, plus again, likely, the gain will need to be boosted. As we know any extra messing you have to do to a signal before you can use it is going to degrade it, relatively speaking. Ken
Re: RE: (313) really
To qualify that though, dedicated RAM in digital synth vs. RAM used by myriad other competing applications (meaning potentially less availablefor sound quality) a friend of mine has some neat winxp tricks to get around this. he has a really tweaked out machine where he has disabled all but the absolutely necessary services to run the machine and to use the necessary audio and other hardware of course. then there is more to be done once the machine is started up. he starts 1 explorer to launch everything from. then he kills every last process that is not needed. the box doesn't have a desktop, start menu or anything. just all black with one explorer window. it runs beautifully. if any of you are interested i can send the guide that he followed to the list this evening from home. - Original Message - From: Odeluga, Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 1, 2006 8:46 am Subject: RE: (313) really To: 313@hyperreal.org To qualify that though, dedicated RAM in digital synth vs. RAM used by myriad other competing applications (meaning potentially less availablefor sound quality) plus more than likely better DACs in digital synths than in a computer and even an external soundcard.
Re: (313) re: production
But, couldn't you also just keep taking that arguement back against practically ANY new musical technology that was invented? Do people REALLY need more than 2 tracks to make ANY music? Humans only have 2 ears, and most consumer playback hardware only has 2 tracks, left and right. Anything else is superfulous. I suppose I could argue that multitrack recording ruined music, and we would have been better off had Les Paul never invented it. Before multitrack recording, if you wanted to make music you actually had to invest the time to learn how to play an instrument, and play it WELL. Recorded music was written and performed only by people who were willing to put in the years of training and practice that were required to do it well, you had to have an actual band that was capable of all playing the material together and in one take. No overdubs. No layering. No re-takes. Now, with multitrack recording, you've got singers that couldn't put together a solid performance to save their lives and instead rely on overdubs, punching in and out, and multiple takes to get a good performance. Ditto on guitarists, drummers, and on and on. Heck, it's enabled people to get rid of the concept of a band alogether. You've got people sitting in rooms alone with racks of synths and sequencers tapping out little patterns and eschewing any kind of collaboration or real performance, people who couldn't actually PERFORM the songs if they had to. Darn that Les Paul, he's ruined music. I don't have a problem with any of this personally, just as I don't have any problem with using computers and softsynths. I'm just playing devil's addvocate and extrapolating out the point to a further degree. And there certainly ARE some people in the world who would argue in favor of many of these points. People who would claim techno isn't REAL music, simply because of the tools and methodology that's used to produce it. Besides, if you REALLY want to point to the villian for the sad state of music today, I would suggest pointing to the internet. There have always been tons of people making really BAD music, but before the internet it was so much more difficult to distribute it and share it with the world, so it was easier to avoid and ignore. Sure, there are more people making bad music now than ever before, but were it not for the internet we wouldn't have to hear so much of it. :) but its also the general design of the software. do people REALLY need more than 16 tracks to make a dance song? 16 tracks would get LAUGHED at by today's standards. people want infinite tracks so they can make infinite small changes to their infinite bit depth sample of someone in a little room banging on a drum set. music would be better had this nonsense just never existed. tom
RE: (313) cheesy house
Can anyone provide a comprehensive definition of cheesy house? What are the characteristics? Cheers, lrh
Re: (313) re: production
John Coleman wrote: But, couldn't you also just keep taking that arguement back against practically ANY new musical technology that was invented? Do people REALLY need more than 2 tracks to make ANY music? Humans only have 2 ears, and most consumer playback hardware only has 2 tracks, 2 Channels? Quite a few have 5 now (Ears I mean). The argument about tracks is pointless. It's all about choice. Just because a computer offers you infinite tracks doesn't mean you have to use them. Plus it's a software design choice it has no affect on the sound. If you put your drums on one track or 10,000, the song is gonna sound the same. However it's often very convenient to be able to lay out your drums on individual tracks so you can apply affects/control volume etc. to them individually. It's all about choice. Heck, it's enabled people to get rid of the concept of a band alogether. You've got people sitting in rooms alone with racks of synths and sequencers tapping out little patterns and eschewing any kind of collaboration or real performance, people who couldn't actually PERFORM the songs if they had to. I think there is a common misconception that producing music with a computer is easy. Making music in general is easy, anyone can pick up a guitar practice for a week and make up a three cord song. Making good music is the difficult part - if Dale's computer does work by just pressing return he's lucky. If you're good at using an instrument/synth it doesn't imply you'll make good music, and vice versa. I don't have a problem with any of this personally, just as I don't have any problem with using computers and softsynths. I'm just playing devil's addvocate and extrapolating out the point to a further degree. Ditto. You post wasn't literal, was it? Besides, if you REALLY want to point to the villian for the sad state of music today, I would suggest pointing to the internet. There have always been tons of people making really BAD music, but before the internet it was so much more difficult to distribute it and share it with the world, so it was easier to avoid and ignore. Sure, there are more people making bad music now than ever before, but were it not for the internet we wouldn't have to hear so much of it. :) I say stop the internet! The 313 should use snail mail - imagine that... I think I'd be thankful for junk mail. -Mike This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
RE: (313) cheesy house
It stinks like Puite de Lisle. Have I missed anything out? Ken -Original Message- From: Lee Herrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 September 2006 15:16 To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: (313) cheesy house Can anyone provide a comprehensive definition of cheesy house? What are the characteristics? Cheers, lrh
RE: (313) cheesy house
Boo yah! Give the man a ceegar! -Original Message- From: fab. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (313) cheesy house it smells and has holes in it :P - Original Message - From: Lee Herrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 4:15 PM Subject: RE: (313) cheesy house Can anyone provide a comprehensive definition of cheesy house? What are the characteristics? Cheers, lrh
(313) re: production
Techno is about dance floor reinforcement, so if you are not thinking about the final product. ie: the sound system on the floor .,. then just forget it .. ^95% of techno i've heard had nothing to do with dancefloor..what sort of a sleeve you've pulled out this joke from? unless you meant straight DANCE MUSIC... but then call it what it is.. neutral speakers/environment are the standard if you asked me, be it 30 or 3 W. if a well recorded trak doesnt translate in a club - the sound system needs a fix. personally i dont give a f***, my techno plays under 85dB as i want to keep it till im really old.. /12
RE: (313) cheesy house
dunno - but here's some great house from my friend's label http://www.deephavenmusic.com/ they've got a few things coming up that are impressive - I think this label is going to be big amongst house crowds (especially those that are gospel minded) MEK Lee Herrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/01/2006 09:15:55 AM: Can anyone provide a comprehensive definition of cheesy house? What are the characteristics? Cheers, lrh
RE: (313) cheesy house
Talking about Gospel house don't forget Outlet have TP playing- THE RUCK Featuring the legendary high-risk manoeuvres of DJ TERRENCE PARKER (TPMT Music, Chosen Few Records, Detroit) With further all-in turntable mayhem from the fearless Ruck residents... The Outlet Collective, Nick Wilson Lee Bolton Saturday 9th September 2006 @ Troy, 10 Hoxton Street, N1 - Tickets £8 adv/£10 on the door Available via [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 07967 332 964 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 September 2006 15:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: (313) cheesy house dunno - but here's some great house from my friend's label http://www.deephavenmusic.com/ they've got a few things coming up that are impressive - I think this label is going to be big amongst house crowds (especially those that are gospel minded) MEK Lee Herrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/01/2006 09:15:55 AM: Can anyone provide a comprehensive definition of cheesy house? What are the characteristics? Cheers, lrh
Re: (313) really
I would love to see that guide! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To qualify that though, dedicated RAM in digital synth vs. RAM used by myriad other competing applications (meaning potentially less availablefor sound quality) a friend of mine has some neat winxp tricks to get around this. he has a really tweaked out machine where he has disabled all but the absolutely necessary services to run the machine and to use the necessary audio and other hardware of course. then there is more to be done once the machine is started up. he starts 1 explorer to launch everything from. then he kills every last process that is not needed. the box doesn't have a desktop, start menu or anything. just all black with one explorer window. it runs beautifully. if any of you are interested i can send the guide that he followed to the list this evening from home. - Original Message - From: Odeluga, Ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 1, 2006 8:46 am Subject: RE: (313) really To: 313@hyperreal.org To qualify that though, dedicated RAM in digital synth vs. RAM used by myriad other competing applications (meaning potentially less availablefor sound quality) plus more than likely better DACs in digital synths than in a computer and even an external soundcard. -- Jamil Ali (416) 364-9227 ext. 31 www.orcsoftware.com
Re: (313) re: production
im booking my flight, get your cans ready, sweety :D fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no, that's what you should be doing slacker. - Original Message - From: /0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 1:24 PM Subject: Re: (313) re: production of boobies - Original Message - From: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:08 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P f. - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Brunton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
(313) really Dos
And so on:: 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. yeah, but obviously there are ALOT more artists out there doing stuff and putting it out there because of the easy availability of computers. so theres a ton more artists putting out a ton more crap. and unfortunately, there arent nearly as many design fans as there are music fans. and music fans can only take so much crap music. Yes, I think we agree that there is a lot more junk being put out into the public machine, but that has nothing to do with software based music production being a valid or invalid tool for music making. It's simply opened up a tool that unfortunately more and more people will misuse... just like anything else in life. This one is new and you aren't ready to accept the ones who are misusing it, or simply haven't refined their skills. What if Bob Dylan... say at 12 years old... could barely play his guitar... could barely write or sing anything meaningful yet because he hadn't matured as an artist... what if he recorded himself and somehow got those recordings out in public for consumption-- like we can do now on the internet. Would that somehow be legitimate as compared to the bedroom hacks with their bit torrent software? Are samplers evil because MC Hammer and Puff Daddy blatantly misused them? the difference is that one thing is NOT creative. So the people that used samplers uncreatively have ruined all use of samplers for everyone else? Anyone that has used a sampler creatively is dismissed because people like Puffy needed to cash in? and of course that isnt satisfying to many people. the lack of creativity is what makes most computer music unsatisfying to me. So you're hearing a lot of uncreative music. Blame the artist. I hear a lot of garbage too... and then there a lot of music that I really enjoy. I celebrate those artists for their creativity. The glass is half full... maybe it's 1/3 full... or 1/10... maybe only you can decide that for yourself, but I'm thankful that the good music was able to be made by whatever tool the artist found worked best for him/her. 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? thats a single hypothetical person. how many of those are there really? and how many of them are making good music? The point is there is performance and then there is composition. Beethoven was a brilliant composer, as there are many... they weren't out there playing the songs but they were behind making the music in the first place. Some people have a brilliant vision, but performance isn't actually their priority... they just want to make good music, and good being whatever direction they have chosen. Stephen Hawking doesn't keep it real. He's a hack. uh, okay? Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, but the only way he can communicate with us is through a computer. It is an extreme... but there are many levels between that and someone that just picks up a guitar and shoves noise down your throat *oh my god, sonic orgasm... I can't control myself!*... which some songs remind me of... no control... no restraint... but, that is my personal taste... and not every day either. It changes with my moods. 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. youre missing the whole point though! the SOUND doesnt matter. at all, really. Sound does matter to some, and not others. A lot of times I'm approaching a composition an ear-- or eye-- closer to that of a director of a movie.. I'm thinking about soundtracks... the use of 'space' or an environment. its why old punk sounds so much more captivating than Rush. i dont care how much better Rush's equipment is, their energy and feeling was overwrought and contrived. punk got straight to the point, and thats why people loved it. I like Rush for their lyrics actually... some of the best lyrics of popular music... they don't write love songs, or scream about the government, or rebel for sake of being rebellious... Neil Peart is also an amazing percussionist he actually wrote all of their lyrics. I like punk for why I like punk. If I listen to punk, I don't want to hear Rush. You like the 'sound' of punk
Re: (313) cheesy house
On 9/1/06, Paul Kendrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Outlet Collective, Nick Wilson Lee Bolton TP is aiight, but those 2 cats are what its really all about. i rock lee bolton mixes like theyre going out of style! tom
(313) re: production/minimal xp guide
here is the guide regarding tweaking xp some of you are interested in: http://majorgeeks.com/page.php?id=12 hopefully you guys can minimize your unnecessary services and maximize your performance... sorry... i couldn't help myself. i can't really answer any questions regarding this process but the friend that showed me this process owns this netlabel www.experimedia.net and would probably be willing to answer questions on the site's forum.
(313) testing . . . . . . . .
are we there yet?
(313) really Uno
I ramble... this got too big... I separated for those who like to read: it could be that it was like that in the past. but i bet the number right now of people who own a computer without making music is far more than the number of people who own a guitar that sits around for no reason. I was comparing people who installed actual music software to the number of people who have picked up a guitar over the years and decided they were in a band. Why would we compare people who picked up a guitar to people who own a computer without making music? Of course there are more people that own a computer... but a strong majority have nothing at all to do with music production. If your point focused on people playing guitar and then deciding they sucked and stopped playing, or got a life and had no time for it, then there will be just as many people that installed music software and just noodled around and decided they sucked, got bored, or got busy with the rest of their lives too. with a laptop, you can do everything and have it posted on the web in under 2 hours. Errr... that was my point. Your complaint about the flood of trash is a direct result of the availability of music software and online distribution. People couldn't and still can't download a guitar, and yes they had to go through the effort of starting a band, and they couldn't distribute their work the way they can now over the internet. You are regurgitating what I said. My point, further, is that because of this exponential availability of music software and distribution you are being flooded by any and all bedroom musicians that have no skill, or are still beginners but distributing their music before they really refine their skills but are also looking for opinion. The song distribution model has been flipped upside-down. You are saying music is going downhill.. but in that same point, years ago, all of those aspiring, yet awful, musicians did not have the distribution model available today-- so as a result, you or I never got to hear them unless we stumbled down to the local dive to get our ears sonically pierced. Proportionally, just as many of the musicians that were playing in their garages, basements, bedrooms, sucked just as much as some, or many, of the artists do today. (and I don't mean to sound arrogant) Again. Online today you can find just as much trash from any given genre because they are all uploading mp3's too... maybe a slightly lower proportion because electronic musicians record directly to their hard drive, which makes mp3 conversion easier than microwaving lunch this does not mean software generated music sucks-- it means you end up hearing a larger cross section of the genre, and it can be overwhelming, as it sounds like you are. It's signal to noise ratio, and *that* has gotten worse. Now we get the pleasure of hearing everyone and their pet iguana's sonic experiments and *that* has disillusioned you. This has nothing to do with music created on a PC, it's about the flood of the information age. Because music software is readily available there *is* a proportionate amount of good and even brilliant talent out there putting their hearts and souls in the music, doing there thing, and breaking new ground with quality music. It's just getting harder to find them in this sea of information and noise. the problem with the tool of course is that it requires nothing in addition to work. no techiques, no abilities, nothing. hell, you can even get sample packs on the web of every drum machine ever and use them all. nothing at all is required to get going. What if I went out and bought ever single drum machine ever made and used them all? Would I be breaking the code then? What if I have the money to buy them all, while most people in the world do not. Is that not just an advantage of the rich musician over the poor musician? Is it really so wrong to be able to have access to these sounds? Also, all of those sounds are presets That means another person made those drum sounds when they built that device. Flashback... I can't believe it, electronic music (Detroit Techno even) is nothing but people making records with sounds that other people programmed. In the 80's people said these things about drum machines and synthesizers--then samplers. The gear is doing all of the work. There is no real music anymore... This is the 313: Detroit Techno mailing list, so I assume that since you are here you enjoy electronic music. It has been fronted on in every step of it's technical evolution. I've heard it all in my own experience too. Regardless, personally, I don't use any sounds from drum machines anymore. I synth and tweak all of my own sounds probably with a rare exception here or there when a preset percussive sound is just perfect. The most legitimate artists follow the same 'code'. which i appreciate in theory. in
(313) really Tres
Part 3: It's up to you, me, and them... More complex for no reason? I find music production in the PC much simpler, and satisfying. unless you have a ridiculous home studio, you are limited by the number of channels in your mixer, the number of EFX units and synths you have, etc. in the computer, theyre all just a click away. you can easily have 200 tracks, with ridiculous amounts of EFX on each channel. and the music still wont be AT ALL better than what the chicago house cats made on a 4 track cassette multitrack, much less 12.5 times better. This is an assumption, and I find it insulting. Like grandparents that talk about Things aren't what they used to be and they romanticize their memories of the past into visions of green pastures... when it was nothing like that at all. They reached a point in time where their sense of possibility was shut off and nothing that came about in the world after that was ever good enough so if you count simple as not having to think then you are right. and i dont think that not thinking is a good thing! becoming one with your setup so that you no longer have to think is one thing (and its something i think every musician is aiming It's about being less distracted by extraneous things that I would rather not have to deal with, all with the goal in mind of being able to progress and experiment more rapidly. Do I want to get behind the gear and swap patch cords around forever on a simple idea... I could do they same experiment in a minute or two, decided that its a good idea or if it sucks, and move on from there. I'm doing the exact same thing inside the computer as I would be in meatspace. for). but just clicking away until something sounds different isnt anything. You just summed up my personal musical aims that I tried to express to you as clicking away until something sounds different Again, do you really think that is what I'm trying to do as an artist? Insulting. 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. man, plugging stuff in is SOO tough! It isn't at all, but it is time consuming. Time is precious. 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... you gotta learn to work faster. and learn how to set your stuff up. i set my personal stuff up once, and other than things breaking, its not a problem to swap things in and out. You don't understand. Synths, especially analog, have a way of slowly shifting their sound over time. The parameters don't always come back the same way when you recall a sound. Also, limitless combinations of knob twists and twiddles on the mixer that get set up just perfectly while you're working on a song are lost when you work on another idea... if I decide I want to change something around in a previous song I have to play with that mixer to get it back to where I already had it a long time ago-- Why should I have to do that twice? three times? etc I already did the work. With software, I decide I want to tweak something, or extend a mix, etc... I load up the arrangement and the mixer and synths are exactly the way I left them-- the way I set them up in the original moment of inspiration. That is how I capture my *feeling*... I want to keep as close to the original moment as possible. and if youre truly going to compare, you have to point out the issues with soundcard drivers and plugins not working properly and all the other computer related (not even music related, computer technology related!) problems that pop up in every music production forum on the web. I have 1 PC, 1 USB external soundcard, 1 Midi Interface, and 1 keyboard input controller hooked up right now. I've never needed to use a forum for technical advice. 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 more stable? your hardware synths been crashing on you? I've had a lot of hardware synths crash/break on me knobs pop off all the time, the operators and filters lose their pitch or can't recall my saved sounds properly. I know, tell me how knobs popping off aren't a big deal, tell me how the hardware being completely unusable is 'adding to the authenticity'' of my sound. Please tell me. 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
(313) Chain Reaction remix contest now live
Andrew Duke--Chain Reaction remix contest is now live on http://www.andrew-duke.com/contests.html Deadline for entering is September 30, so don't sleep if interested. Even if you don't enter, there's 30 free samples you can download and use as you wish from my Chain Reaction samplepack http://audiobase.com/product/SACR If you do enter, you have a chance to be released on Germany's FOEM (http://foem.info) and win a copy of Steinberg's Cubase SE3 plus other great prizes from Audiobase (http://audiobase.com) Take care. Andrew -- Andrew Duke scoring/sound design/source http://andrew-duke.com http://myspace.com/andrewduke http://cognitionaudioworks.com http://myspace.com/cognitionaudioworks
Re: (313) re: production
i completely agree on the 16 track comment. etc etc Bit late to this one but I kinda figure that what Tom is taking about is the point of entry, and while it is a lot easier to get into doing electronic music now than it was say 20 years ago, the process of making music hasn't really changed at all. You may luck out a few times hitting the random button but that's about all that will happen. There's a massive difference between the Mona Lisa and a picture done by Paint By Numbers, there's no process for writing good tunes or being creative - there are things that will make it easier for you to work but it won't make you good, much the same as taking acid won't turn your every word/thought in something deep and meaningful, although Syd may argue with me hear :) I know when I work I try to convey the feeling and/or movement from myself into a track, other times I write little stories and try to give a narrative, other times I'm got myself in a state of mind and gone in and made music with Rich and Ken. On the number of tracks, sometimes I'd say you'll need that many simply so you can work in an nondestructive environment but more isn't always better and sometimes having limits is an interesting creative challenge, I often go back to using my W30 with just 8 seconds of sample time for example but having more tracks allows me to go back in and make changes which is of great value... m
