Re: (313) wtf?
Three things shall bar thee from the list of three one and three, from the list of three one and three, three things shall bar thee. 1. Words considered obscene in America, because we're a bunch of wanking gits. 2. Multi-Part Mime, i.e. not 'Plain Text' messages. 3. Posting from an address other than the one with which you're subscribed. A fourth, and rarer situation is if your mail server bounces enough messages from 313, you'll get auto-unsubbed. Your message got through. On 9/2/06, chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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)
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
I don't presume to know how people live their lives; the most one can address is what people actually write to the list. It sure must be a slow month for new releases. On 9/2/06, Dale Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You live your life based on oversimplified stereotypes.
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 were just awful. 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.
I acctually also want to my view that supports what I said as a seasoned producer and that goes along with autecher's view is that not only is it the person whos making the tack A LARGE and let me repeat A LARGE amount of creit for warmth goes to the person who is matering the final product that makes things sound warm or cold... Ive had tracks mastered by twerk that suddenly went from luck warm to boiling hot.. simply because he knows what he is doing ... On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) wtf?
Three things shall bar thee from the list of three one and three, from the list of three one and three, three things shall bar thee. 1. Words considered obscene in America, because we're a bunch of wanking gits. 2. Multi-Part Mime, i.e. not 'Plain Text' messages. 3. Posting from an address other than the one with which you're subscribed. A fourth, and rarer situation is if your mail server bounces enough messages from 313, you'll get auto-unsubbed. none of those are the case. turns out there was some minor swearing but i just removed those words and it still hasn't come through. Your message got through. yes, this one. but not the other two, or the two resends of the first one. i've been hearing other such grumblings about initial posts not making it but replies are? and yet the default reply-to for the list is the individual not the group so this isn't possible automatically. i have to double-click on one of the mailto commands in the message header or copy/paste it or use the version in my address book. al of these have failed today and yet this one just trying to narrow down the possible reasons. d.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - sound
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. i think the limitations of certain aspects of digital technology available to most people (meaning, people who record in 16/44.1 and process the life out of everything using free plugins) is partially at fault. however it's also how people's ears are changing and that has to do with the interface between the computer and the ear. you can't hear what it really sounds like in there if you're using the headphone jack, some sub-par powered speakers, or even a converter box and amp that's not up to snuff. people also listen to music in their earbuds too loud, and the way most mp3s are encoded (the old mp3.com, itunes and myspace being the worst and most widespread offenders) remove many subtleties of warmth and depth. as more and more people get used to this sound, and want everything super-compressed, bright and in your face. sadly this includes some people making music, and they worsen the trend by recording things with no warmth or depth to begin with, or processing until it sounds like what they're used to. there are ways around this, but most don't bother to find them. d.
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. 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 were just awful. 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.
bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
acctually let me explain a little better about what I emant below... reuses live instrumentation that he plays as sound source material for his music... its not just him sampleing from records... how how he samples this stuff and gets it on to his machines are all up to him from my discussions with him he uses all sorts of different recording and micing methods... any how I think regardless of what he does he still a fine example of digital music made with a laptop that sounds super warm... I can find out more about his techniques when I play with him later this month in toronto (sept 23rd) and give you direct examples of what hes doing but ultimatly its warm music made digitally not by the fetishized analogue gear... oh and by the way rob model from what I understand uses actual intruments like a electric guitars to get his sounds...its later processed like crap to end up as they sound... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Neil Wiernik wrote: bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
Ive had tracks mastered by twerk that suddenly went from luck warm to boiling hot.. simply because he knows what he is doing ... ^honestly, i gave you examples/titles as i know what i am saying. if you say the opposite -pls stop the general statements about some ghost recordings and give me examples/titles in return. that really saves time. btw twerk/sutekh and related producers are repsonsible for the most absurd audio ive heard so let me hear the boiling hot you talk about..
(313) Laptop Debate
OK then, which one of these is purely made on analog kit? http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-06-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-10-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-16-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u m
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
At 10:25 PM 9/2/2006, you wrote: I don't presume to know how people live their lives; the most one can address is what people actually write to the list. It sure must be a slow month for new releases. On 9/2/06, Dale Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You live your life based on oversimplified stereotypes. That was the irony... that because I had to simplify what I was saying, it made the message so vague that it became a stereotype of its own. ...but its really just irrelevant nonsense.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
Analog vs. Digital, PC vs. Mac, Richie vs. Jeff Please stop discussing this, there is no point, there will be no winner. It is all about whether you like digital sounding productions or not. It is not about good or bad it is about like it or not. On 3-sep-2006, at 8:15, v12 wrote: Ive had tracks mastered by twerk that suddenly went from luck warm to boiling hot.. simply because he knows what he is doing ... ^honestly, i gave you examples/titles as i know what i am saying. if you say the opposite -pls stop the general statements about some ghost recordings and give me examples/titles in return. that really saves time. btw twerk/sutekh and related producers are repsonsible for the most absurd audio ive heard so let me hear the boiling hot you talk about..
Re: (313) Laptop Debate
silenced: trak 6,10 and 16 - to my ear: NONE they've just got their hi-end cut off which adds greyness to the overall impression.. i've listened to 320 kbps mp3s and it all sounds like arturia vsti's or something like that. reminds me of the numerous degiorgio releases (new religion) i tried to listen to not long ago.. option b - if any of thse was actually made with analog gear, then mr downey could feel free to sell the boxes as the same sound might be generated with the digital emulation. on the fly, at the click of the mouse.. /12 - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:18 AM Subject: (313) Laptop Debate OK then, which one of these is purely made on analog kit? http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-06-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-10-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-16-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u m
Re: (313) Laptop Debate
example of what i am talking about: http://www.discogs.com/release/17578 - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:18 AM Subject: (313) Laptop Debate OK then, which one of these is purely made on analog kit? http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-06-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-10-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u http://www.dustscience.com/Audio/hi/dustsnd003-16-TheBlackDog-Silenced.m3u m
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
since neil mentioned it, i'll take a second to promote my friends mastering business. www.audibleoddities.com heres his client list: http://www.audibleoddities.com/index.php?p=mast - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:46 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. I acctually also want to my view that supports what I said as a seasoned producer and that goes along with autecher's view is that not only is it the person whos making the tack A LARGE and let me repeat A LARGE amount of creit for warmth goes to the person who is matering the final product that makes things sound warm or cold... Ive had tracks mastered by twerk that suddenly went from luck warm to boiling hot.. simply because he knows what he is doing ... On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
actually jan uses plugs and logic. I've got a friend thats done work with him and yet other friends that have played live with him most of his samples are from old jazz records (ie loop finding jazz records) - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:57 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
loop finding jazz records sounded nice as far as i remember but the traks were too long (a matter of taste though) i liked it much more than most of the farben stuff that ive heard... /12 actually jan uses plugs and logic. I've got a friend thats done work with him and yet other friends that have played live with him most of his samples are from old jazz records (ie loop finding jazz records) - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:57 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
To me, James Holden is a good example of good (and deep) music made with computers... One of the funny thing is that he uses a free software taht i also use at home, and that everybody who has seen that working say hey with that kindof soft, nobody will ever produce any good track. -- Benoît.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate./loop fin ding jazz recs
...but having it played right now i must say it's the looped samples / sustained piano tails, chimes etc that sound sweet all the electronic snippets spoil the impression. it would sound better to me without all the clicky rubbish flying around /12 - Original Message - From: v12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: /0 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 2:56 PM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. loop finding jazz records sounded nice as far as i remember but the traks were too long (a matter of taste though) i liked it much more than most of the farben stuff that ive heard... /12 actually jan uses plugs and logic. I've got a friend thats done work with him and yet other friends that have played live with him most of his samples are from old jazz records (ie loop finding jazz records) - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:57 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) Teknology September session available !
Selon Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Grabbing now, thanks for including some of our tracks D... m Thanks to you Martin, you provides great music so as a dj .. I'm def happy to play this sound. The track 'Ataraxia' from Carl Taylor is a pure treasure of deep techno. Many thanks for the time taken to listen, hope you'll appreciate the mix. Peace Dimitri -- Dimitri Pike http://wildtek.blogspot.com http://wildtek.free.fr
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
still trying to get this one through...did some edits so we'll see. 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. 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 place (DJ culture, mix it live). kinda reminds me of when old timers talk about benny goodman and his orchestra all standing around one microphone. 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 were just awful. 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 attitude 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.
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. d. (seeing if one section of my long reply at a time gets through)
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
fair enough go here http://www.myspace.com/nawmusic the tracks from the green nights orange days record are prime examples of my music mastered BY twerk sounding warm so first listen to mid winter sailboat ride, and penny fishing north of main the 2 tracks there as part of the unrelease titled birch bark ceiling wax and 4 by 6 are made using the same technology, tools and recorded only a month after the green nights orange days record was but was NOT mastered by twerk but rather mastered by someone else using a similar studio set up to what twerk uses. you can directly hear the difference right away... neil... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: ^honestly, i gave you examples/titles as i know what i am saying. if you say the opposite -pls stop the general statements about some ghost recordings and give me examples/titles in return. that really saves time. btw twerk/sutekh and related producers are repsonsible for the most absurd audio ive heard so let me hear the boiling hot you talk about.. www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
and why does he not fit??? becasue you say so? his a digital artist samples or not he fits... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: did i say samples from records? and what did i ask for? he doesnt fit if you read carefully... - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. acctually let me explain a little better about what I emant below... reuses live instrumentation that he plays as sound source material for his music... its not just him sampleing from records... how how he samples this stuff and gets it on to his machines are all up to him from my discussions with him he uses all sorts of different recording and micing methods... any how I think regardless of what he does he still a fine example of digital music made with a laptop that sounds super warm... I can find out more about his techniques when I play with him later this month in toronto (sept 23rd) and give you direct examples of what hes doing but ultimatly its warm music made digitally not by the fetishized analogue gear... oh and by the way rob model from what I understand uses actual intruments like a electric guitars to get his sounds...its later processed like crap to end up as they sound... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Neil Wiernik wrote: bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
I know loop finding was samples from old jazz records but his other material is all live instrumentation sampled and manipulated... from what hes told me maybe hes changed his process any how Ill find out on the 23rd... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, /0 wrote: actually jan uses plugs and logic. I've got a friend thats done work with him and yet other friends that have played live with him most of his samples are from old jazz records (ie loop finding jazz records) - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:57 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
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. d.
(313) Laptop debate - gear f3tishizm
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 were just awful. 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-f3tishized substitution. having said that i do share some of the same attitude but won't be blinded by it. d. (still chopping up his long reply to find out what art is making the list reject it)
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
show me someone who sounds like that relying of software synthesis ONLY ^thats why i say he doesnt fit. if it wasnt for his analog sources he wouldnt get anywhere. - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:19 PM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. and why does he not fit??? becasue you say so? his a digital artist samples or not he fits... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: did i say samples from records? and what did i ask for? he doesnt fit if you read carefully... - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. acctually let me explain a little better about what I emant below... reuses live instrumentation that he plays as sound source material for his music... its not just him sampleing from records... how how he samples this stuff and gets it on to his machines are all up to him from my discussions with him he uses all sorts of different recording and micing methods... any how I think regardless of what he does he still a fine example of digital music made with a laptop that sounds super warm... I can find out more about his techniques when I play with him later this month in toronto (sept 23rd) and give you direct examples of what hes doing but ultimatly its warm music made digitally not by the fetishized analogue gear... oh and by the way rob model from what I understand uses actual intruments like a electric guitars to get his sounds...its later processed like crap to end up as they sound... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Neil Wiernik wrote: bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
(313) Laptop Debate - imitation
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 of 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, unpredictability and noise are HUGE factors in music. d. (this was the last piece, let's see if it works)
(313) Re: *****SPAM***** Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
so what you are saying basically is that laptop and computer music are still in relative infancy so the majority (or at least a large number) of the users/musicians still haven't progressed much beyond the discovery stage. philosophically speaking therefore, this music is not inherently crap, just unripe. time will tell. f. - Original Message - From: chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:40 PM Subject: *SPAM* Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound Spam detection software, running on the system mxavas7.fe.aruba.it, has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see http://vademecum.aruba.it/start/mail/antispam/ for details. Content preview: 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. [...] Content analysis details: (5.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 5.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 0.9963] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 01/09/2006
(313) list issues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i got the full message..about 7 or 8 times so far... and yet i didn't get it back, except in pieces just today. the only times those pieces worked were when a swear word was removed or misspelled. this is not my provider or host's issue and i don't have a filter that takes out those words. so i don't get why it wasn't coming back. also no one responded to even one part of mine, or said they had gotten it when i hadn't, so i didn't think it was being received by the list. what is with the swear word filter? is it on the list or what? and if so why? i don't think there's one on idm-l, also at hyperreal. can this be changed? d.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
so what you are saying basically is that laptop and computer music are still in relative infancy so the majority (or at least a large number) of the users/musicians still haven't progressed much beyond the discovery stage. philosophically speaking therefore, this music is not inherently crap, just unripe. or more appropriately, the people are. it is much easier to get a track up and going and sounding like something close to what they expect to hear (based on the sound coming out of computers and mp3 players) with software like acid. and so tracks can be completed in a short amount of time without learning much about how to make them sound good (and let's not even get started on the actual composition of the pieces). i don't think making music needs to be hard in order to produce good results (oh, how i suffer for my art!). however, i believe that in general, rather than easiness being a boon to creativity it has chiefly been a boon to productivity. d.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
Real world synthesizers always come with presets, and those presets are usually the most awful sounds you'll ever hear coming out of a keyboard. They're overdone and geared toward a mainstream audience of bells and whistles. Good artists don't use these presets but harness their gear back down to something real and pure-- and most importantly, their own. A lot of these are those deep sounds everyone here knows and loves. In a computer it is the same thing, there are a lot of elements that are geared to that same mainstream audience, as well as all of those garbage loop and prefab rhythm programs/plug-ins, and you have to get past that just like with real world synths and make your own sounds. You have to make them your own. A good artist will synth and tweak every sound in their production themselves and have total control from the synth pads, to the bass, to the percussion. Classic 808 and 909 sounds are nice, but if everyone still only used those sounds in their songs the music would be dead in its tracks (Are guitar bands still making Hair Metal?) The music had to mature and evolve... A good artist can make their computer sound deep, rich, and 'loose' if they want to, but they have to know their tool well enough to make it a reality. Forget your 808 and 909... make your *own* sounds, the way *you* envision them. I use a mastering filter on almost every individual sound or part that I have running in the mix. The beauty of the computer is that the synth itself isn't the only part of sound production... like in Live, you can drag whatever filter you want and apply it to a part-- in essence you are building your own extension of the synthesizer to your own specification in each separate part. Some parts I could have 8-10 filters going at once, and others none at all. They are simply extensions of the filters we have always had *inside* of the synthesizer but tailored to the synthesizer *we* want to build-- and the beauty is the ability to make it unique to every sound---*for* that sound. Almost every sound or part I have in the music I create is absolutely nothing like the original sound coming out of the base synth itself--sometimes completely unrecognizable... it is the filters I apply after it that truly lets me mold and shape them. This was not 'gear-head' nonsense that I planned and researched ahead to figure out. It was all in moments of inspiration while learning a new tool and it felt completely natural. It was fresh and exciting for me-- oh, I can do *this* now!... and everything came together. There were no presets. No loops. Nothing created by anyone else but me. I just had even more control. Someone will chime in and say, See, you overproduce in the computer, but every real world analog synthesizer (subtractive synthesis) has its own filters inside that you have to utilize to control and build the sound from the base operator square, triangle, sine waves. To not use those filters in the real world synths you would be forced to make music with nothing but pure blips and tones. To say using post-synth filters in the computer is over-production is to say you would have to strip all of the internal filters out of your real world synths as well and make music with nothing but those pure basic tones to 'keep it real'. The artist has full control over a warm or crispy mix if they choose. Personally, I like the clarity you can mold in the computer but still like a thick low-end... on the same token I want to be able to put my cd in my car stereo without having to turn down the bass. Some of that BC/CR stuff I have to jack the bass way down just to be able to jack the rest of the volume up. All of this, of course, is my personal preference. At 11:12 AM 9/3/2006, you wrote: 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. d. (seeing if one section of my long reply at a time gets through)
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
gee that is a really huge sweeping and closed minded statement to make... your sound more and more like an old closed minded fart when you say stuff like this... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: show me someone who sounds like that relying of software synthesis ONLY ^thats why i say he doesnt fit. if it wasnt for his analog sources he wouldnt get anywhere. - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:19 PM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. and why does he not fit??? becasue you say so? his a digital artist samples or not he fits... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: did i say samples from records? and what did i ask for? he doesnt fit if you read carefully... - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. acctually let me explain a little better about what I emant below... reuses live instrumentation that he plays as sound source material for his music... its not just him sampleing from records... how how he samples this stuff and gets it on to his machines are all up to him from my discussions with him he uses all sorts of different recording and micing methods... any how I think regardless of what he does he still a fine example of digital music made with a laptop that sounds super warm... I can find out more about his techniques when I play with him later this month in toronto (sept 23rd) and give you direct examples of what hes doing but ultimatly its warm music made digitally not by the fetishized analogue gear... oh and by the way rob model from what I understand uses actual intruments like a electric guitars to get his sounds...its later processed like crap to end up as they sound... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Neil Wiernik wrote: bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
yeah maybe after you're done signing autographs you could grill him about his technique ;p - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:24 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. I know loop finding was samples from old jazz records but his other material is all live instrumentation sampled and manipulated... from what hes told me maybe hes changed his process any how Ill find out on the 23rd... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, /0 wrote: actually jan uses plugs and logic. I've got a friend thats done work with him and yet other friends that have played live with him most of his samples are from old jazz records (ie loop finding jazz records) - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:57 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
what are you talking about I dont do autographs but I will be talking to him over dinner...so I could ask him stuff like that... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, /0 wrote: yeah maybe after you're done signing autographs you could grill him about his technique ;p - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:24 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. I know loop finding was samples from old jazz records but his other material is all live instrumentation sampled and manipulated... from what hes told me maybe hes changed his process any how Ill find out on the 23rd... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, /0 wrote: actually jan uses plugs and logic. I've got a friend thats done work with him and yet other friends that have played live with him most of his samples are from old jazz records (ie loop finding jazz records) - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:57 AM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. bizz WRONG jelinek uses live instrumentation for the most part hes only used samples for a small amount of recordings and acctually they are samples of his own music playing On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: 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 www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
Honestly, what matters besides the actual compositions? I'm enough of a studio rat to care about things are produced, but the actual method that someone uses is irrelevant, except as it facilitates the result. It's not like you can't make sh*t tracks with analog gear. I program computers for a living, and do the people who use my software to outline the anatomical features of the brain and measure their volume care whether I used a stack, a queue, or a linked list? It's easy to play a piano. You just sit down and bang away at the keys. Doesn't make you Glenn Gould innit? On 9/3/06, chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it is much easier to get a track up and going and sounding like something close to what they expect to hear (based on the sound coming out of computers and mp3 players) with software like acid. and so tracks can be completed in a short amount of time without learning much about how to make them sound good (and let's not even get started on the actual composition of the pieces).
Re: (313) list issues
Yes, as I've said over and over, if it's a word you can't use on American television, you can't use it here. It's not like I or anyone else cares how you express yourself. It's done so that people who use work e-mail accounts can subscribe to 313 without getting their incoming e-mail flagged for obscenity. Those of you in other parts of the world may be suprised what a hypocritical, prudish, repressive place the US is. Oh wait, probably you won't. On 9/3/06, chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and yet i didn't get it back, except in pieces just today. the only times those pieces worked were when a swear word was removed or misspelled. what is with the swear word filter? is it on the list or what? and if so why? i don't think there's one on idm-l, also at hyperreal. can this be changed?
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
At 01:31 PM 9/3/2006, you wrote: On 9/3/06, Dale Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...but its really just irrelevant nonsense. when did we start talking about your music? tmo I speak from my own experience. Should I pretend I don't make music? Would that make my opinions more valid? Do I intimidate you? Are you scared? Tell me your fears... Neil is having dinner with Jan Jelinek... and he can ask a question pertinent to a discussion about him personally. Should he pretend he'll never meet the guy and that he himself works at McDonalds?... Staying true to the underground? It's hard to juggle experience, or even your own successes (even if only moderate), when talking to other people... it's a difficult line between simply being yourself and discussing your experience-- which is after all who you are-- or just bragging.
(313) computer traxx (aka what i was really getting at)
apparently, the discussion has headed into a place that wasnt what i was getting at. while the sound of a totally digital track done in a computer is often times not what i want to hear, if done right it can be just fine. the real problem i have isnt with the quality of the sound, but with the ability to edit the life out of the track. kent said it best here: 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. what begins to happen with computers is that all the mistakes and slipups and whatever else start to go away. you have noiseless analogue synth models, 24 bit 192k drum samples from a pro sample CD, the ability to compress the dynamics out of each individual sound and then compress any dynamics out of each frequency band on the master two track, the ability to go back and fix anything in the track at a later date with all samples and sequences and synth patches saved on the computer, etc. pretty much all the things that give a recording of electronic music LIFE are taken away. songs start to all sound like theyre clinical trials of sounds, like you should have to wear masks so as not to contaminate the ultra perfect ultra arranged track that the artist spent so much time decontaminating. and to me, that doesnt reflect on the experience of being in a club going to bananas. in fact, its the complete opposite! a club or a warehouse or pretty much any venue for dance music is a sweatbox with people rubbing up against each other, getting intoxicated (by chemicals or by the music) and acting in a very uncontrolled manner. like herbert said let's all make mistakes! but i do disagree with kent here: 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. some of the things that made hardy's edits sound so insane were their inaccuracies. theo parrish understood this and thats what he shoots for in his edits. and you can see from many peoples' reactions that in today's precise digital world, many people hate that. same with those early metroplex and transmat and KMS jams. those tape edits are never precise! it means you cant just throw those records on like a robot and line them up and have them play together forever (unless of course you want to add your warp markers in your laptop and do an ableton live deejay set which is as precise as the new tracks!) in unerring symphony. im just not interested in that kind of clinical perfection. i like to hear the mistakes, the screwups, the stuff that reminds you that this music is indeed made by PEOPLE who are trying to harness machines and not machines trying to sound human which is what all those silly plugins and whatnot are all about. its amusing to me that people make this computer music and then go back through it trying to make it not sound so flawless. its ridiculous. in honesty i do think that the use of computer is the problem way moreso than the people using it because i dont think that the people who want their music to sound alive would ever choose to use a computer in the first place. i know when im listening to a record, i dont care what it is made with. not only do i not care, but most likely i have absolutely no idea! i only look for that human part, the evidence that a soul poured its problems and elation and whatever else into that song. and i dont think its a coincidence that 99 times out of 100 those tracks just happen to not be made entirely on a computer. tom
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
On 9/3/06, Dale Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I intimidate you? not a chance. Neil is having dinner with Jan Jelinek... and he can ask a question pertinent to a discussion about him personally. Should he pretend he'll never meet the guy and that he himself works at McDonalds?... Staying true to the underground? neil has a habit of posting only when it helps him look good, like for his upcoming gigs, or to mention having dinner with jan jenelik. i tend not to namedrop (though the late night dinner at the world famous O in pittsburgh with Louis Haiman and Titonton Duvante the other night was in fact quite scrumptous! :) because i'm not a tool who cares what other people think of me, and i dont think people will think more highly of me or my opinion because of whom i call my friends. It's hard to juggle experience, or even your own successes (even if only moderate), when talking to other people... it's a difficult line between simply being yourself and discussing your experience-- which is after all who you are-- or just bragging. its really not that hard. i know plenty of people who say what they think, and my knowledge of their experiences is the only way in which said experiences enter the discussion. i know you have made many records, its completely irrelevent to me. you could be joker X from some mailing list (wait a second, you are!) and i would treat you exactly the same. tom
Re: (313) computer traxx (aka what i was really getting at)
and i want to add: this is of course why in the richie vs mills arguments, im always on the side of mills. his tracks and deejaying are exactly what i want them to be: human. same with theo parrish. and this is why i find playing disco and house together so much fun. there's so much room for error, you really have to work those kinds of records to get them to sound at all good, and even then sometimes its just all going to go horribly wrong, no matter how talented and good you are. it automatically removes the possibility of perfection, which is not a goal im interested in! tom On 9/3/06, Thomas D. Cox, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: apparently, the discussion has headed into a place that wasnt what i was getting at. while the sound of a totally digital track done in a computer is often times not what i want to hear, if done right it can be just fine. the real problem i have isnt with the quality of the sound, but with the ability to edit the life out of the track. kent said it best here: 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. what begins to happen with computers is that all the mistakes and slipups and whatever else start to go away. you have noiseless analogue synth models, 24 bit 192k drum samples from a pro sample CD, the ability to compress the dynamics out of each individual sound and then compress any dynamics out of each frequency band on the master two track, the ability to go back and fix anything in the track at a later date with all samples and sequences and synth patches saved on the computer, etc. pretty much all the things that give a recording of electronic music LIFE are taken away. songs start to all sound like theyre clinical trials of sounds, like you should have to wear masks so as not to contaminate the ultra perfect ultra arranged track that the artist spent so much time decontaminating. and to me, that doesnt reflect on the experience of being in a club going to bananas. in fact, its the complete opposite! a club or a warehouse or pretty much any venue for dance music is a sweatbox with people rubbing up against each other, getting intoxicated (by chemicals or by the music) and acting in a very uncontrolled manner. like herbert said let's all make mistakes! but i do disagree with kent here: 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. some of the things that made hardy's edits sound so insane were their inaccuracies. theo parrish understood this and thats what he shoots for in his edits. and you can see from many peoples' reactions that in today's precise digital world, many people hate that. same with those early metroplex and transmat and KMS jams. those tape edits are never precise! it means you cant just throw those records on like a robot and line them up and have them play together forever (unless of course you want to add your warp markers in your laptop and do an ableton live deejay set which is as precise as the new tracks!) in unerring symphony. im just not interested in that kind of clinical perfection. i like to hear the mistakes, the screwups, the stuff that reminds you that this music is indeed made by PEOPLE who are trying to harness machines and not machines trying to sound human which is what all those silly plugins and whatnot are all about. its amusing to me that people make this computer music and then go back through it trying to make it not sound so flawless. its ridiculous. in honesty i do think that the use of computer is the problem way moreso than the people using it because i dont think that the people who want their music to sound alive would ever choose to use a computer in the first place. i know when im listening to a record, i dont care what it is made with. not only do i not care, but most likely i have absolutely no idea! i only look for that human part, the evidence that a soul poured its problems and elation and whatever else into that
(313) UR question
Wikipedia says that The prominent German Techno label Tresor reissued 12-inches from the early UR catalog and a React label compilation featured exclusive tracks from Banks and other UR artists. has React ever released UR compilation? --
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
kent williams wrote: Honestly, what matters besides the actual compositions? I'm enough of a studio rat to care about things are produced, but the actual method that someone uses is irrelevant, except as it facilitates the result. It's not like you can't make sh*t tracks with analog gear. Self-appointed golden ears dismiss feeling and creativity, because anyone can appreciate those qualities in music (though not always at first blush, since some tastes are acquired), whereas it takes a genuine superior class of lonely douche to prioritize the production pipeline in their evaluation of a record. see also: missing the point of art - bp
RE: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
I'm confused now. Can someone summarise or conclude this thread for me. Is analogue better than digital or vice versa??? -Original Message- From: Brian Prince [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 4 September 2006 6:35 a.m. To: kent williams Cc: list 313 Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound kent williams wrote: Honestly, what matters besides the actual compositions? I'm enough of a studio rat to care about things are produced, but the actual method that someone uses is irrelevant, except as it facilitates the result. It's not like you can't make sh*t tracks with analog gear. Self-appointed golden ears dismiss feeling and creativity, because anyone can appreciate those qualities in music (though not always at first blush, since some tastes are acquired), whereas it takes a genuine superior class of lonely douche to prioritize the production pipeline in their evaluation of a record. see also: missing the point of art - bp 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.
RE: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
Ralf Gill \(healthAlliance\) wrote: I'm confused now. Can someone summarise or conclude this thread for me. Is analogue better than digital or vice versa??? Good music is better than bad music. - bp
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate/other digital devices.
thanks dale you took the words right out of my mouth!!! :) On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Dale Lawrence wrote: At 01:31 PM 9/3/2006, you wrote: On 9/3/06, Dale Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...but its really just irrelevant nonsense. when did we start talking about your music? tmo I speak from my own experience. Should I pretend I don't make music? Would that make my opinions more valid? Do I intimidate you? Are you scared? Tell me your fears... Neil is having dinner with Jan Jelinek... and he can ask a question pertinent to a discussion about him personally. Should he pretend he'll never meet the guy and that he himself works at McDonalds?... Staying true to the underground? It's hard to juggle experience, or even your own successes (even if only moderate), when talking to other people... it's a difficult line between simply being yourself and discussing your experience-- which is after all who you are-- or just bragging. www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) UR question
afaik, the only atrist from UR camp on that compilation is Drexciya, right? On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, vecto000 wrote: True People? - Original Message - From: Ivan Tomasevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:19 PM Subject: (313) UR question Wikipedia says that The prominent German Techno label Tresor reissued 12-inches from the early UR catalog and a React label compilation featured exclusive tracks from Banks and other UR artists. has React ever released UR compilation? -- __ NOD32 1.1737 (20060903) Informatie __ Dit bericht is gecontroleerd door het NOD32 Antivirus Systeem. http://www.nod32.nl --
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
sweet fng jesus ;/ In a computer it is the same thing, there are a lot of elements that are geared to that same mainstream audience, as well as all of those garbage loop and prefab rhythm programs/plug-ins, and you have to get past that just like with real world synths and make your own sounds. You have to make them your own. A good artist will synth and tweak every sound in their production themselves and have total control ^that's ok when you start the topic with a bunch of 5 year-olders who never touched a keyboard.. who are not aware of what sort of waveforms surround them ;/ etc. as you probably noticed - this is not the case.. cliche aside.. or let's end the discussion before it reaches new levels of pointlessness* /12
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
listened to the first one (which was a pain in the *ss as im on a dial up till 25th) , i dont know what to say.. you surely are familiar with any of the examples of warm sound i mentioned earlier? i'll pretend i havent heard anyone saying boiling hot today .. /12 - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:18 PM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. fair enough go here http://www.myspace.com/nawmusic the tracks from the green nights orange days record are prime examples of my music mastered BY twerk sounding warm so first listen to mid winter sailboat ride, and penny fishing north of main the 2 tracks there as part of the unrelease titled birch bark ceiling wax and 4 by 6 are made using the same technology, tools and recorded only a month after the green nights orange days record was but was NOT mastered by twerk but rather mastered by someone else using a similar studio set up to what twerk uses. you can directly hear the difference right away... neil... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: ^honestly, i gave you examples/titles as i know what i am saying. if you say the opposite -pls stop the general statements about some ghost recordings and give me examples/titles in return. that really saves time. btw twerk/sutekh and related producers are repsonsible for the most absurd audio ive heard so let me hear the boiling hot you talk about.. www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) list issues
for a while i thought i was banned from the list (after a handful of bounces),which happens occasionally...but it seems it's the vocab filter well, sort of funny thank god we can say terrorist, oil, regime ... the american brother is watching... - Original Message - From: kent williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 7:40 PM Subject: Re: (313) list issues Yes, as I've said over and over, if it's a word you can't use on American television, you can't use it here. It's not like I or anyone else cares how you express yourself. It's done so that people who use work e-mail accounts can subscribe to 313 without getting their incoming e-mail flagged for obscenity. Those of you in other parts of the world may be suprised what a hypocritical, prudish, repressive place the US is. Oh wait, probably you won't. On 9/3/06, chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and yet i didn't get it back, except in pieces just today. the only times those pieces worked were when a swear word was removed or misspelled. what is with the swear word filter? is it on the list or what? and if so why? i don't think there's one on idm-l, also at hyperreal. can this be changed?
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
you under estimate my knowlege sir get off dial up and listen to what Im talking about once your out of the internet dark ages we can continue this conversation ... as streaming bandwitdh does change the sound of things... neil.. On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: listened to the first one (which was a pain in the *ss as im on a dial up till 25th) , i dont know what to say.. you surely are familiar with any of the examples of warm sound i mentioned earlier? i'll pretend i havent heard anyone saying boiling hot today .. /12 - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:18 PM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. fair enough go here http://www.myspace.com/nawmusic the tracks from the green nights orange days record are prime examples of my music mastered BY twerk sounding warm so first listen to mid winter sailboat ride, and penny fishing north of main the 2 tracks there as part of the unrelease titled birch bark ceiling wax and 4 by 6 are made using the same technology, tools and recorded only a month after the green nights orange days record was but was NOT mastered by twerk but rather mastered by someone else using a similar studio set up to what twerk uses. you can directly hear the difference right away... neil... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: ^honestly, i gave you examples/titles as i know what i am saying. if you say the opposite -pls stop the general statements about some ghost recordings and give me examples/titles in return. that really saves time. btw twerk/sutekh and related producers are repsonsible for the most absurd audio ive heard so let me hear the boiling hot you talk about.. www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate.
He's in Poland, give him a break. The whole world isn't like Canada or the US. On 9/3/06, Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you under estimate my knowlege sir get off dial up and listen to what Im talking about once your out of the internet dark ages we can continue this conversation ... as streaming bandwitdh does change the sound of things... neil.. On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: listened to the first one (which was a pain in the *ss as im on a dial up till 25th) , i dont know what to say.. you surely are familiar with any of the examples of warm sound i mentioned earlier? i'll pretend i havent heard anyone saying boiling hot today .. /12 - Original Message - From: Neil Wiernik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:18 PM Subject: Re: (313) The Laptop Debate. fair enough go here http://www.myspace.com/nawmusic the tracks from the green nights orange days record are prime examples of my music mastered BY twerk sounding warm so first listen to mid winter sailboat ride, and penny fishing north of main the 2 tracks there as part of the unrelease titled birch bark ceiling wax and 4 by 6 are made using the same technology, tools and recorded only a month after the green nights orange days record was but was NOT mastered by twerk but rather mastered by someone else using a similar studio set up to what twerk uses. you can directly hear the difference right away... neil... On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, v12 wrote: ^honestly, i gave you examples/titles as i know what i am saying. if you say the opposite -pls stop the general statements about some ghost recordings and give me examples/titles in return. that really saves time. btw twerk/sutekh and related producers are repsonsible for the most absurd audio ive heard so let me hear the boiling hot you talk about.. www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net www.phoniq.net releases available on: www.noisefactoryrecords.com publication: www.vagueterrain.net
