(313) The Laptop Debate.
Not to stir the pot, but I've been practicing making tracks with a computer for 12 years. In that time I've come up with 3 tracks I felt confident about putting on vinyl, and I've had 3 or 4 tracks on Internet comps. Terrence Parker took one of my tracks for his 'Maximum Ice' CD, for which I really feel blessed, because I respect him unconditionally as a musician. The point being, if I had more really great tracks, I'd be putting them out. I work all the time on music, and mostly I don't think it's good enough to share beyond my circule of friends. Making good tracks -- no matter how you do it -- is pretty difficult. And bad tracks don't matter. How you make them doesn't matter -- the end result matters. Tom seems to have an animus against people doing tracks on their laptops, but I think it's a specious argument. I'd be willing to bet there are tracks he likes that were all-laptop joints, and it's a certainty that he hates a whole universe of tracks made the old school way. That being a lot of my favorite Detroit and Chicago tracks were made in a certain way that I think made them more exciting. Specifically, it's setting up a bunch of gear and recording it live to two track, with one or more people working the gear. Drexciya did it that way, as did all the early Chicago house heads. A lot of the classic UR tracks were recorded mostly live. In order to work that way, those artists had to be as good at running a drum machine, synths, effects and a mixing board. They had to have a definite idea of the sound they wanted. They had to know how to play, and to embrace and roll with happy accidents. And they had to be willing to roll tape and do it over and over until they got it right. And they were doing it before there was anyone telling them how to do it. They had to master an unwieldy, complicated instrument, and make it sing. And there was always that moments of excitement in the track that would be irretrievable if the DA30 ate the DAT. I honestly think the same thing is possible with Laptops, but maybe we haven't seen the Ron Hardy or Derrick May of the laptop yet. But it's silly to argue that computers, in and of themselves, are the problem.
(313) Transmat-sponsored picnic at Belle Isle, Detroit (Saturday 9/2/06)
Just saw this on detroitluv.com. Looks like it might be fun... http://www.detroitluv.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=d265e7b0537eb980914b24e224d103f5;topic=35714.0 If your browser mangles the long URL, go to http://www.detroitluv.com/ and scroll down to the section 7 Nights in the D. Click on the Aaron Carl and Norm Talley hyperlink for more info.
(313) re: rush
all this machinery making modern music can still be open hearted no so coldly charted its really just a question of your honesty one likes to believe in the freedom of music but glittering prizes and endless comprimises shatter the illusion of integrity rush spirit of radio
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
but maybe we haven't seen the Ron Hardy or Derrick May of the laptop yet. But it's silly to argue that computers, in and of themselves, are the problem. no, true. it's the lifeless,stiff, ear-scratching bright sound that is the problem.. it's like a plastic doll,with or without make-up it's still nothing more than a pathetic substitute.. unlucky imitation of a great thing.. widely accepted as the real thing requires way more skills.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
Record your mixdowns to a reel to reel. Or better yet, cut it to a 78 lacquer. Fetishing old gear is ultimately as irrelevant as fetishing new gear. It sounds like you've been listening to the wrong records. You don't have to convince me that analog recordings sound nice, but anyone who makes tinny annoying records made tinny annoying records on purpose. Either that or they lost the top end of their hearing with their heads in a bass bin. Either way, if you hear crap don't buy it. But don't blame the messenger. Most people make a violin sound really ugly too. On 9/2/06, v12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but maybe we haven't seen the Ron Hardy or Derrick May of the laptop yet. But it's silly to argue that computers, in and of themselves, are the problem. no, true. it's the lifeless,stiff, ear-scratching bright sound that is the problem.. it's like a plastic doll,with or without make-up it's still nothing more than a pathetic substitute.. unlucky imitation of a great thing.. widely accepted as the real thing requires way more skills.
RE: (313) The Laptop Debate.
Is it an analogue or a digital laptop? -Original Message- From: kent williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 2 September 2006 1:30 p.m. To: list 313 Subject: (313) The Laptop Debate. Not to stir the pot, but I've been practicing making tracks with a computer for 12 years. In that time I've come up with 3 tracks I felt This e-mail message and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.
(313) Teknology September session available !
Thanks for the feedback about July/August sessions. This one is more longer and maybe a bit less harder. Peace to all, have a nice weekend. Dimitri Pike 'Techno Digital DJ Mix 03' 01 - Jeff Mills 'Imagine' (Axis) 02 - Jeff Mills 'Systematic' (Axis) 03 - Galaxy 2 Galaxy 'HiTech Jazz' (Underground Resistance) 04 - Shawn Rudiman 'Through The Dark' (Dust Science) 05 - DJ Mary 'Tranquility' (B-Traxx) 06 - Rino Cerrone 'Untitled' (Rilis) 07 - Rino Cerrone 'Untitled' (Rilis) 08 - Steve Bicknell 'Cultural Co-Operation' (Cosmic) 09 - Damon Wild 'Wish Box' (Synewave) 10 - Jeff Mills 'Actual' Edit (Axis) 11 - Ken Ishii 'Extra' (RS) 12 - Mathew Jonson 'Typerope' (Emphasis) 13 - Damon Wild 'Games People Play' Loop Edit (Pseudo) 14 - Carl Taylor 'Ataraxia' (Dust Science) 15 - Unyo 303 'Drumatix PA' (Unreleased) 16 - Damon Wild 'Games Peoples Play' (Pseudo) 17 - Ben Sims 'Outtake' (Tresor) 18 - Richie Hawtin 'The Tunnel' (M-nus) 19 - Dimitri Pike 'UA' (Wildtek Concept Unreleased) 20 - Dimitri Pike 'UB' (Wildtek Concept Unreleased) 21 - Io 'Claire' (Cheap) 22 - Hyeroglyphic Being 'Other Side' (Mathematics Recordings) 23 - Richie Hawtin 'Concept 1' Loop Edit (Concept) 24 - Richie Hawtin 'Concept 1' Loop Edit (Concept) 25 - Richie Hawtin 'We (All) Search' (M-nus) 26 - Plastikman 'Sickness' (Novamute) 27 - Richie Hawtin 'Interview' Edit 28 - Emmanuel Top 'Turkish Bazar' Loop Edit (Attack) 29 - Mr Leonard 'Ass Mover' (Musique Moderne) 30 - Mathew Jonson 'Ultraviolet Dream' (M-nus) http://teknology.free.fr -- Dimitri Pike http://wildtek.blogspot.com http://wildtek.free.fr
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
snip And they were doing it before there was anyone telling them how to do it. They had to master an unwieldy, complicated instrument, and make it sing. And there was always that moments of excitement in the track that would be irretrievable if the DA30 ate the DAT. You can still get the live vibe by hooking up controllers, keyboards and just jamming across the kit you have, it's not all point and click :) People said the same kinda thing about sequencers (i.e. just build in blocks), but it is all possible with a bit of work. m
Re: (313) Teknology September session available !
Grabbing now, thanks for including some of our tracks D... m - Original Message - From: Wildtek Concept / DJ Dimitri Pike [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the feedback about July/August sessions. This one is more longer and maybe a bit less harder. Peace to all, have a nice weekend. Dimitri Pike 'Techno Digital DJ Mix 03' 01 - Jeff Mills 'Imagine' (Axis)
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
I agree with martin this whole laptop or computer music is not as warm sounding as analogue gear is a compleatly irrellivent argument. I have ehard tracks made using all sorts of tools and its not the tools that make some thing warm or cool soundings its the maker ... the person behind the machines not the machines them self. like any thing it takes time and energy to learn your tools of the trade to be able to make them do what you want them to do... Iv been making electronic music since the late 80s and switched from analogue gear to 100 percent computer based music making in 1996 and well like the analogue gear if I want to make a cold sounding track I can make the software Im using do that just like how I can make my music sound warm... here ou be the judge from one of my live sets there are times where it sounds warm and other times where it sounds cold... http://www.vagueterrain.net/content/archives/mp3/01%20naw%20live%20at%20mutek%20may%2030%202006.mp3 so from this example you can see that its all up to the artist making the music...an if you dont like the cold souding material dont listen to it or buy it... its as simple as that If you dont like what the artist if out putting then dont support the work... neil aka naw www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Martin Dust wrote: You can still get the live vibe by hooking up controllers, keyboards and just jamming across the kit you have, it's not all point and click :) People said the same kinda thing about sequencers (i.e. just build in blocks), but it is all possible with a bit of work. m
(313) What's the one track that will make you hit the dancefloor???
Yep, and it can be more than one too. Mine would be Moulzon's Electric Band - Everybody Get Down, for starters. -m.
RE: (313) What's the one track that will make you hit the dancefloor???
Bohannon - Let's Start To Dance - of course! -Original Message- From: marina pure sonik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 September 2006 16:18 To: list 313 Subject: (313) What's the one track that will make you hit the dancefloor??? Yep, and it can be more than one too. Mine would be Moulzon's Electric Band - Everybody Get Down, for starters. -m. # Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You. #
Re: (313) What's the one track that will make you hit the dancefloor???
A, yeah! Another one that'll make me laugh all the way to the dance floor is Modern Romance - Can You Move -m. On Sep 2, 2006, at 12:23 PM, Robert Taylor wrote: Bohannon - Let's Start To Dance - of course! -Original Message- From: marina pure sonik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 September 2006 16:18 To: list 313 Subject: (313) What's the one track that will make you hit the dancefloor??? Yep, and it can be more than one too. Mine would be Moulzon's Electric Band - Everybody Get Down, for starters. -m. ## ### Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You. ## ###
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
show me a 100% pc-made trak that would sound even close to rod modell's deepchord 14 or rhythm n sound's carrier. speaking of rod - any of his traks on ecchocord. or afx's blue calx or laricheard or mike parker's caesura 1 or andres' LP on mahogani/ kdj 29 either you're all joking..or you simply can not hear the elementary difference in sound-detail. i test my hearing once a month in a dedicated lab,and it's bat-good so to speak. the rest is fair - not only i wont support the dull brightness spread around me by thousands of ridiculous labels but i'll take any occcasion to say what i think about it.. i remember autechre's interview in which they said the same as most of you: that it's not the computers' fault, it's the ppl who use it that are responsible for the cold lifeless sound - it would sound much more reasonable if they ever made one vibrant,warm sounding record imo. the stuff i got on warp cassettes [tri repetae/chiastic slide] appeared to sound miserable on cd and so on blablabla /12
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
and i dont say digital is bad - not at all - i.e. look at convextion..much of his stuff sounds really good. i dont know about his whole audio signal circuitry but i remember he was using a digital jd800 as sound source for many of his track.. it aint deepchord,but still much more ear pleasing than the regular software synth driven piles of lego ;) J.T. correct me if im wrong or check snorri arnarson's (octal/thule) timbres getting out of his clavia synth - to get a fuller image of what i mean..
RE: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
This laptop debate is very boring - it's too cold and emotionless - it doesn't have enough warmth and crackle :P -Original Message- From: v12 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 September 2006 17:30 To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices. and i dont say digital is bad - not at all - i.e. look at convextion..much of his stuff sounds really good. i dont know about his whole audio signal circuitry but i remember he was using a digital jd800 as sound source for many of his track.. it aint deepchord,but still much more ear pleasing than the regular software synth driven piles of lego ;) J.T. correct me if im wrong or check snorri arnarson's (octal/thule) timbres getting out of his clavia synth - to get a fuller image of what i mean.. # Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You. #
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
it's the lifeless,stiff, ear-scratching bright sound that is the problem.. It's possible to make a digital track sound convincingly analog in any decent software package. Soft saturation on the EQ, tape compression, add a little hiss ... nobody will know the difference. Record an analog track to a computer at a sufficient bitrate and it still sounds analog. The set of acoustic characteristics responsible for the old-school flavor are degradations (in the technical sense) which can be applied procedurally in a digital production environment. But I think that the over-use of such techniques is, more often than not, a little tacky. It's like printing a digital painting on canvas to try to make it look like an oil painting. It's difficult to make good, forward-facing art if you're constantly ashamed of the tools you were using. Techno's godfathers were *proud* of the synthetic nature of their instruments. They didn't try to make their strings and basslines sound real. Techno, for me, is about putting the soul of the future in the listener's face. It's about bangin' the robo-beat with whatever you can get your hands on. I draw much of my inspriation from the compositions and feelings of the old-school, not the recording gear and cabling thereof. - bp
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
v12 wrote: the stuff i got on warp cassettes [tri repetae/chiastic slide] appeared to sound miserable on cd and so on blablabla That's because you're listenting to two different mastering pipelines, dude. Record the tapes to CD and they'll sound identical. Otherwise, I've got a $6000 power cable and some quantum resonance damping audio rocks to sell you. - bp
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
I'd cite some of Lusine's work, and Jan Jellinek, and Fennesz Endless Summer, but you might not like them, or hear the musicality and warmth I do in them. I love the way cassettes sound too -- but then I end up digitizing that sound. Sad fact is everything goes through a computer at some point. The only truly analog are people who can do it all with their hands, mouths, acoustic instruments and no amplification. But I doubt someone like that could move a thousand sweaty punters in a dark club at half three. Or if they could, they'd be my heros. On 9/2/06, v12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: show me a 100% pc-made trak that would sound even close to rod modell's deepchord 14 or rhythm n sound's carrier. speaking of rod - any of his traks on ecchocord. or afx's blue calx or laricheard or mike parker's caesura 1 or andres' LP on mahogani/ kdj 29 either you're all joking..or you simply can not hear the elementary difference in sound-detail. i test my hearing once a month in a dedicated lab,and it's bat-good so to speak. the rest is fair - not only i wont support the dull brightness spread around me by thousands of ridiculous labels but i'll take any occcasion to say what i think about it.. i remember autechre's interview in which they said the same as most of you: that it's not the computers' fault, it's the ppl who use it that are responsible for the cold lifeless sound - it would sound much more reasonable if they ever made one vibrant,warm sounding record imo. the stuff i got on warp cassettes [tri repetae/chiastic slide] appeared to sound miserable on cd and so on blablabla /12
Re: (313) What's the one track that will make you hit the dancefloor???
On 9/2/06, marina pure sonik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A, yeah! Another one that'll make me laugh all the way to the dance floor is Modern Romance - Can You Move didnt richie hawtin drop that track recently? sike naw. for me its gotta be class action weekend. that joint always does the trick. tom
Re: (313) What's the one track that will make you hit the dancefloor???
Seawolf - World Power Alliance On 9/2/06, marina pure sonik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep, and it can be more than one too. Mine would be Moulzon's Electric Band - Everybody Get Down, for starters. -m. -- Detroit Techno Militia http://www.detroittechnomilitia.com
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
You should print the thread and read it on paper, that will add some warmth to it :) or even transcribe it down to paper and than read it :)) IMHO it's best to use best of both worlds. For pure sound analog sounds better than software, but software can do some things that no analog hardware can do, and it would be silly to totally ignore it. Jernej www.octex.si Robert Taylor wrote: This laptop debate is very boring - it's too cold and emotionless - it doesn't have enough warmth and crackle :P -Original Message- From: v12 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 September 2006 17:30 To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices. and i dont say digital is bad - not at all - i.e. look at convextion..much of his stuff sounds really good. i dont know about his whole audio signal circuitry but i remember he was using a digital jd800 as sound source for many of his track.. it aint deepchord,but still much more ear pleasing than the regular software synth driven piles of lego ;) J.T. correct me if im wrong or check snorri arnarson's (octal/thule) timbres getting out of his clavia synth - to get a fuller image of what i mean.. # Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You. # 29092006 Club K4, Ljubljana [DJ set]
Re: (313) What's the one track that will make you hit the dancefloor???
moodymann - i can't kick this feelin' when it hits kano - it's a war (serge santiago edit)
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
Don't try too hard to fight the tool you are using. Keyboards came out and people did try to use them to make 'real' sounds, and as the technology progressed they were able to achieve that to some degree-- that's when old-school analog came back into fashion People started to celebrate the synthesizer for what it was-- a device... and electronic device... .with it's warm juicy tones, like my two Juno 106's and people that were trying to emulate real instruments went back to actually using real instruments. Champion analog? Play with your analog synths to your hearts content... Software brings about a whole new list of possibilities. They made a whole slew of analog emulation plugins to appease the obligatory naysayers that it was all the same. It's a new tool... and just like synths have had more than their share of mindless candy coated gimmicks, so too will people use their computer no further than what is right in front of them... as people explore further and discover new sounds that are inherent in the computer we can begin to celebrate the software for its own unique properties and personality. Dale At 01:32 PM 9/2/2006, Brian Prince wrote: it's the lifeless,stiff, ear-scratching bright sound that is the problem.. It's possible to make a digital track sound convincingly analog in any decent software package. Soft saturation on the EQ, tape compression, add a little hiss ... nobody will know the difference. Record an analog track to a computer at a sufficient bitrate and it still sounds analog. The set of acoustic characteristics responsible for the old-school flavor are degradations (in the technical sense) which can be applied procedurally in a digital production environment. But I think that the over-use of such techniques is, more often than not, a little tacky. It's like printing a digital painting on canvas to try to make it look like an oil painting. It's difficult to make good, forward-facing art if you're constantly ashamed of the tools you were using. Techno's godfathers were *proud* of the synthetic nature of their instruments. They didn't try to make their strings and basslines sound real. Techno, for me, is about putting the soul of the future in the listener's face. It's about bangin' the robo-beat with whatever you can get your hands on. I draw much of my inspriation from the compositions and feelings of the old-school, not the recording gear and cabling thereof. - bp
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
You should print the thread and read it on paper, that will add some warmth to it :) or even transcribe it down to paper and than read it :)) ^guess what - if a post is longer than say 15-20 lines i do print it. unless it's some pointless nonsense by someone i know he couldnt come up with anything relevant) i do have problems with full understanding of more complex stuff read off a screen. i learn/aquire much better..from paper plus i love its mobility.. and yes, i hate the super-white light-reflecting sheets, i prefere 3rd class yellow vintage paper to be honest.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
Not to stir the pot, stir please, what else are email discussion lists for? That being a lot of my favorite Detroit and Chicago tracks were made in a certain way that I think made them more exciting. Specifically, it's setting up a bunch of gear and recording it live to two track, with one or more people working the gear. Drexciya did it that way, as did all the early Chicago house heads. A lot of the classic UR tracks were recorded mostly live. that's inspiring and exciting. not even to multitrack huh? well i guess they didn't have the money to record twice as it were (recording and then mixing) and they came from a different head (DJ culture, mix it live). kinda reminds me about when old timers talk about benny goodman and his orchestra all standing around one microphone. and you can still make great recordings like that too. In order to work that way, those artists had to be as good at running a drum machine, synths, effects and a mixing board. They had to have a definite idea of the sound they wanted. They had to know how to play, and to embrace and roll with happy accidents. there are a lot of skills one has to have to make *good* laptop-based music as well. people on lists like this forget or never heard all the musical travesties made with the same gear. with the glow of hindsight, 80s gear and its results have been romanticized out of proportion. there were loads of analog synths, drum machines, tube amps, and recorders that just sucked ass. true, there was some excellent gear made, but mostly it was gear that was made famous by someone who took what they had and went with it. their creativity, and subsequent success, is what people *really* want - the gear is just an over-fetishized substitution. having said that i do share some of the same fetish but won't be blinded by it. I honestly think the same thing is possible with Laptops, but maybe we haven't seen the Ron Hardy or Derrick May of the laptop yet. But it's silly to argue that computers, in and of themselves, are the problem. agreed. a big problem when switching over to computer, just like from analog to digital, is that the rules change. the issue is similar to what gareth jones said in an interview about recording with daniel miller and depeche mode: new music goes through a formica stage. some the first analog synths were used to put out things like switched on bach where synths tried to mimic and replace each instrument in a classical orchestra. cute, but why bother? it's not an orchestra so don't try because it will fail misreably and sound cheesy (unless that's what you're going for). a convincing trompe l'oeil (or l'oreille in this case) is hard to do and only works in a controlled environment, which music is not often experienced in. moving from analog to digital we had the same issue, and now again from hardware/sequencer/recorder-based technology to the laptop environment. the tendency is to mimic what's gone before. there is a good deal of laptop music that does not try to be other than what it is, or explores those boundaries rather than trying to make the laptop be a replacement for something else. analog modelers are pretty amazing, but i'm sorry they're not the same. even the ones that are exactly the same except without the unpredicatability and the noise - well, hell, unpredictability and noise are HUGE factors in music. certain plugins go a long way toward warming and fattening up music - but if whatever it's affecting just isn't there in the first place, it's not going to be the same. in recorded sound, the most important element is the source, followed by the initial capturing of that source, and then by whatever you do to it afterward, and finally in the playback. there are some people who turn this on its ear, warping the most incredible things out of something very mundane. but they still started with the original characteristics, which in turn affected the building blocks of their sound. again, having said this, i enjoy some music made on laptops very much, some of it even doing a decent replicating job i sort of spoke against. whatever works. every tool you use has its own characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. do and use whatever makes sense to you. d.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
It's possible to make a digital track sound convincingly analog in any decent software package. Soft saturation on the EQ, tape compression, add a little hiss ... nobody will know the difference. nobody? it's all futile attempt - analog devices lacked stability,that meant milions un-copyable micro-details per minute.. you cant name them ,point at one - but the general image is much much different from the digital emulation imho. ___ Record an analog track to a computer at a sufficient bitrate and it still sounds analog. ^ true, much more analog than the software emulation of tape saturation and all that ... Techno's godfathers were *proud* of the synthetic nature of their instruments. They didn't try to make their strings and basslines sound real. ^ their synthetic was somehow half-organic/half-synthetic when i look at it now.. the word synthetic in 2006 means something completely differnt.. it reached the ridiculous extreme, biting its own tale.. ___ someone mentioned jelinek,ok he can sound really sweet sometimes, but it's samples.. a slightly different story.. show me someone who sounds like that relying of software synthesis ONLY. /12
(313) wtf?
i sent 2 replies to the laptop thread, one with identical subject line and one changed - and neither has shown up yet. what's going on with this listserver? idm-l is on hyperreal and doesn't have this issue. d. (wondering if this will get through)
(313) The Laptop Debate - 2nd try
Not to stir the pot, stir please, what else are email discussion lists for? That being a lot of my favorite Detroit and Chicago tracks were made in a certain way that I think made them more exciting. Specifically, it's setting up a bunch of gear and recording it live to two track, with one or more people working the gear. Drexciya did it that way, as did all the early Chicago house heads. A lot of the classic UR tracks were recorded mostly live. that's inspiring and exciting. not even to multitrack huh? well i guess they didn't have the money to record twice as it were (recording and then mixing) and they came from a different head (DJ culture, mix it live). kinda reminds me about when old timers talk about benny goodman and his orchestra all standing around one microphone. and you can still make great recordings like that too. In order to work that way, those artists had to be as good at running a drum machine, synths, effects and a mixing board. They had to have a definite idea of the sound they wanted. They had to know how to play, and to embrace and roll with happy accidents. there are a lot of skills one has to have to make *good* laptop-based music as well. people on lists like this forget or never heard all the musical travesties made with the same gear. with the glow of hindsight, 80s gear and its results have been romanticized out of proportion. there were loads of analog synths, drum machines, tube amps, and recorders that just sucked ass. true, there was some excellent gear made, but mostly it was gear that was made famous by someone who took what they had and went with it. their creativity, and subsequent success, is what people *really* want - the gear is just an over-fetishized substitution. having said that i do share some of the same fetish but won't be blinded by it. I honestly think the same thing is possible with Laptops, but maybe we haven't seen the Ron Hardy or Derrick May of the laptop yet. But it's silly to argue that computers, in and of themselves, are the problem. agreed. a big problem when switching over to computer, just like from analog to digital, is that the rules change. the issue is similar to what gareth jones said in an interview about recording with daniel miller and depeche mode: new music goes through a formica stage. some the first analog synths were used to put out things like switched on bach where synths tried to mimic and replace each instrument in a classical orchestra. cute, but why bother? it's not an orchestra so don't try because it will fail misreably and sound cheesy (unless that's what you're going for). a convincing trompe l'oeil (or l'oreille in this case) is hard to do and only works in a controlled environment, which music is not often experienced in. moving from analog to digital we had the same issue, and now again from hardware/sequencer/recorder-based technology to the laptop environment. the tendency is to mimic what's gone before. there is a good deal of laptop music that does not try to be other than what it is, or explores those boundaries rather than trying to make the laptop be a replacement for something else. analog modelers are pretty amazing, but i'm sorry they're not the same. even the ones that are exactly the same except without the unpredicatability and the noise - well, hell, unpredictability and noise are HUGE factors in music. certain plugins go a long way toward warming and fattening up music - but if whatever it's affecting just isn't there in the first place, it's not going to be the same. in recorded sound, the most important element is the source, followed by the initial capturing of that source, and then by whatever you do to it afterward, and finally in the playback. there are some people who turn this on its ear, warping the most incredible things out of something very mundane. but they still started with the original characteristics, which in turn affected the building blocks of their sound. again, having said this, i enjoy some music made on laptops very much, some of it even doing a decent replicating job i sort of spoke against. whatever works. every tool you use has its own characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. do and use whatever makes sense to you. d.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
^guess what - if a post is longer than say 15-20 lines i do print it. unless it's some pointless nonsense by someone i know he couldnt come up with anything relevant) I hate that. Just delete that sewage.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
Not to stir the pot, stir please, what else are email discussion lists for? That being a lot of my favorite Detroit and Chicago tracks were made in a certain way that I think made them more exciting. Specifically, it's setting up a bunch of gear and recording it live to two track, with one or more people working the gear. Drexciya did it that way, as did all the early Chicago house heads. A lot of the classic UR tracks were recorded mostly live. that's inspiring and exciting. not even to multitrack huh? well i guess they didn't have the money to record twice as it were (recording and then mixing) and they came from a different head (DJ culture, mix it live). kinda reminds me about when old timers talk about benny goodman and his orchestra all standing around one microphone. and you can still make great recordings like that too. In order to work that way, those artists had to be as good at running a drum machine, synths, effects and a mixing board. They had to have a definite idea of the sound they wanted. They had to know how to play, and to embrace and roll with happy accidents. there are a lot of skills one has to have to make *good* laptop-based music as well. people on lists like this forget or never heard all the musical travesties made with the same gear. with the glow of hindsight, 80s gear and its results have been romanticized out of proportion. there were loads of analog synths, drum machines, tube amps, and recorders that just sucked ass. true, there was some excellent gear made, but mostly it was gear that was made famous by someone who took what they had and went with it. their creativity, and subsequent success, is what people *really* want - the gear is just an over-fetishized substitution. having said that i do share some of the same fetish but won't be blinded by it. I honestly think the same thing is possible with Laptops, but maybe we haven't seen the Ron Hardy or Derrick May of the laptop yet. But it's silly to argue that computers, in and of themselves, are the problem. agreed. a big problem when switching over to computer, just like from analog to digital, is that the rules change. the issue is similar to what gareth jones said in an interview about recording with daniel miller and depeche mode: new music goes through a formica stage. some the first analog synths were used to put out things like switched on bach where synths tried to mimic and replace each instrument in a classical orchestra. cute, but why bother? it's not an orchestra so don't try because it will fail misreably and sound cheesy (unless that's what you're going for). a convincing trompe l'oeil (or l'oreille in this case) is hard to do and only works in a controlled environment, which music is not often experienced in. moving from analog to digital we had the same issue, and now again from hardware/sequencer/recorder-based technology to the laptop environment. the tendency is to mimic what's gone before. there is a good deal of laptop music that does not try to be other than what it is, or explores those boundaries rather than trying to make the laptop be a replacement for something else. analog modelers are pretty amazing, but i'm sorry they're not the same. even the ones that are exactly the same except without the unpredicatability and the noise - well, hell, unpredictability and noise are HUGE factors in music. certain plugins go a long way toward warming and fattening up music - but if whatever it's affecting just isn't there in the first place, it's not going to be the same. in recorded sound, the most important element is the source, followed by the initial capturing of that source, and then by whatever you do to it afterward, and finally in the playback. there are some people who turn this on its ear, warping the most incredible things out of something very mundane. but they still started with the original characteristics, which in turn affected the building blocks of their sound. again, having said this, i enjoy some music made on laptops very much, some of it even doing a decent replicating job i sort of spoke against. whatever works. every tool you use has its own characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. do and use whatever makes sense to you. d.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
On 9/2/06, Dale Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ^guess what - if a post is longer than say 15-20 lines i do print it. unless it's some pointless nonsense by someone i know he couldnt come up with anything relevant) I hate that. Just delete that sewage. i think he might have been referring to your posts. i know i havent been able to make it through them because its just too much going on and on. tom
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
At 05:25 PM 9/2/2006, you wrote: On 9/2/06, Dale Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ^guess what - if a post is longer than say 15-20 lines i do print it. unless it's some pointless nonsense by someone i know he couldnt come up with anything relevant) I hate that. Just delete that sewage. i think he might have been referring to your posts. i know i havent been able to make it through them because its just too much going on and on. tom Are people really that mean? Wow, I knew I was a tool... I can't even tell when people are taking a jab at me. Anyway... I'm sorry, I'll try to simple it down for you next time. If you quit reiterating what I said as if it was your own argument it would've been a lot shorter. I'll sum it up: You live your life based on oversimplified stereotypes. Better?
