Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
Jamil Ali wrote on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 about following: My own 2 cents: I think you see the same thing in all types of music. A style is developed at some time, and it's innovative at the time, and it sounds great. After the style is pioneered, it remains popular with people who love it, and they start making tracks in that style, using the same ideas. And since it's been done before they have templates to work from and they can elaborate on and 'perfect' the ideas that were already there, to the point where they're doing them 'better' and more sophisticated than the originals. It's all about aesthetics instead of content for them. And that makes music dull; there's no innovation, or feeling. sakke
(313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
Also, any one want to cite some examples of this recent wave of boring polished melodic techno that people are saying is not gritty enough? Are you all still talking about Vince Watson or just general trends in production? Can't speak for the others, but I'm talking about a general trend rather than any specific artists. If you compare current releases with those of say 10 years ago, they have in general become far smoother, cleaner and, in a way, colder. I rarely hear new material with the depth and warmth of B12, Stasis, GPR etc, or the raw grit of older UR and Planet E tracks. I think this comes down to the increasing use of software that allows a 'perfect' sound to be created, and also a stylistic trend (mirroring the development of other sounds such as minimal house and techno where this clean feel has been an integral part of the style). It's a very subjective thing, a lot of people seem to feel that striving for the so-called perfect production is an essential development, but personally I'm far more into a sound that gives more rawness, warmth and depth than one which is ultra crisp and clean.
Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
On 8/23/06, Matt Chester (313) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a very subjective thing, a lot of people seem to feel that striving for the so-called perfect production is an essential development, but personally I'm far more into a sound that gives more rawness, warmth and depth than one which is ultra crisp and clean. an easy comparison is to look at aril brikha's older material and compare it to his recent music man thing. ick. tom
Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
Can't speak for the others, but I'm talking about a general trend rather than any specific artists. If you compare current releases with those of say 10 years ago, they have in general become far smoother, cleaner and, in a way, colder. I rarely hear new material with the depth and warmth of B12, Stasis, GPR etc, or the raw grit of older UR and Planet E tracks. you could lodge this complaint against some of the ghostly/spectral stuff, but for the most part it sounds great to me. I think this comes down to the increasing use of software that allows a 'perfect' sound to be created, and also a stylistic trend (mirroring the development of other sounds such as minimal house and techno where this clean feel has been an integral part of the style). absolutely. i know someone who's happy to get his hands on software versions of classic analog synths ands says they sound exactly the same, except without the noise! well then they don't sound the same. noise is part of the sound. even if you then try to remove the noise through gates and filter, that's going to be different than a totally clean vitual synth. the problem is often VST instruments and plugins don't create noise, they don't have a lot of character. they do different things, but the overall sound is the same or very similar because it's all generated inside a box - and the end result usually sounds like it. i'm sure there are artists creating things on laptops with no raw material from outside it that is kicking stuff. maybe they've discovered some secret combination of plugins and frequency boosters, or maybe it gets masterd through an analog compressor. It's a very subjective thing, a lot of people seem to feel that striving for the so-called perfect production is an essential development, but personally I'm far more into a sound that gives more rawness, warmth and depth than one which is ultra crisp and clean. i agree, although again it depends on what you like or what the artist wants to express. i've been getting into very gritty analog synth bleeps and farts which is why i joined this list. d.
Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
My own 2 cents: I think you see the same thing in all types of music. A style is developed at some time, and it's innovative at the time, and it sounds great. After the style is pioneered, it remains popular with people who love it, and they start making tracks in that style, using the same ideas. And since it's been done before they have templates to work from and they can elaborate on and 'perfect' the ideas that were already there, to the point where they're doing them 'better' and more sophisticated than the originals. But, it just doesn't move you like the stuff done when it was breaking new ground. So you'll hear some melodic techno nowadays that sounds great, and it's all done perfect, you can't fix a note or a timbre or anything. You hear it and you think this couldn't be done any better, this is a perfect example of that kind of (for example) melodic techno - but it kind of bores you. For me, this applies to all types of music, not just some kinds of techno. In my experience, if the track wasn't breaking a little new ground at the time it was made, it just doesn't have the same amount of life in it, and I think over the long run it will do even less for you, whereas the stuff that was breaking ground at the time sounds good forever. Jamil Matt Chester (313) wrote: Also, any one want to cite some examples of this recent wave of boring polished melodic techno that people are saying is not gritty enough? Are you all still talking about Vince Watson or just general trends in production? Can't speak for the others, but I'm talking about a general trend rather than any specific artists. If you compare current releases with those of say 10 years ago, they have in general become far smoother, cleaner and, in a way, colder. I rarely hear new material with the depth and warmth of B12, Stasis, GPR etc, or the raw grit of older UR and Planet E tracks. I think this comes down to the increasing use of software that allows a 'perfect' sound to be created, and also a stylistic trend (mirroring the development of other sounds such as minimal house and techno where this clean feel has been an integral part of the style). It's a very subjective thing, a lot of people seem to feel that striving for the so-called perfect production is an essential development, but personally I'm far more into a sound that gives more rawness, warmth and depth than one which is ultra crisp and clean.
Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
On 8/23/06, chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could lodge this complaint against some of the ghostly/spectral stuff, but for the most part it sounds great to me. i like a decent bit of the ghostly/spectral stuff. i wouldnt buy most of it, but its at least some dirty nasty business at times. like that afrika 12 for example, i did buy that one and its dirty and grimey and all that. they definitely do some other stuff that isnt to my taste, but theyre willing to get ugly. speaking of which, i think those TNT records are definitely TOO over the top with the distortion and whatnot. i get a similar feeling listening to them as i do with jamal moss' stuff. tom
Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
-- Original Message -- From: Thomas D. Cox, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:27:04 -0400 On 8/23/06, chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could lodge this complaint against some of the ghostly/spectral stuff, but for the most part it sounds great to me. i like a decent bit of the ghostly/spectral stuff. i wouldnt buy most of it, but its at least some dirty nasty business at times. like that afrika 12 for example, i did buy that one and its dirty and grimey and all that. they definitely do some other stuff that isnt to my taste, but theyre willing to get ugly. heh, that's one of the few records that didn't interest me at all. you want ghostly/spectral to get dirty and nasty, try the james t. cotton and audion stuff. d. Sent via the WebMail system at chthonicstreams.com
Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
On 8/23/06, chthonic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you want ghostly/spectral to get dirty and nasty, try the james t. cotton and audion stuff. eh, ive listened to all of them, none of them really moved me. there wasnt enough insane sounding stuff going on in them. the afrika record is probably one of the more straightforward records ive bought recently, but it does the trick quite nicely... tom
Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
That pretty much hits the nail on the head for me- during the weekend James Pennington and I were discussing how he often leaves tracks for years without releasing them - the ultimate test- the test of time- if you set out to make music that is of the now or futuristic then generally your stuff wont hold up as well stuff that's just good. The idea that new producers have a template or at least a well known framework is, in my eyes. very true indeed. Jason On 23 Aug 2006, at 15:32, Jamil Ali wrote: My own 2 cents: I think you see the same thing in all types of music. A style is developed at some time, and it's innovative at the time, and it sounds great. After the style is pioneered, it remains popular with people who love it, and they start making tracks in that style, using the same ideas. And since it's been done before they have templates to work from and they can elaborate on and 'perfect' the ideas that were already there, to the point where they're doing them 'better' and more sophisticated than the originals. But, it just doesn't move you like the stuff done when it was breaking new ground. So you'll hear some melodic techno nowadays that sounds great, and it's all done perfect, you can't fix a note or a timbre or anything. You hear it and you think this couldn't be done any better, this is a perfect example of that kind of (for example) melodic techno - but it kind of bores you. For me, this applies to all types of music, not just some kinds of techno. In my experience, if the track wasn't breaking a little new ground at the time it was made, it just doesn't have the same amount of life in it, and I think over the long run it will do even less for you, whereas the stuff that was breaking ground at the time sounds good forever. Jamil
Re: (313) Melodic techno (was new planet e)
I can handle the TNT stuff (mostly) but the Jamal stuff I'm a bit more choosy about (some good stuff though) On 23 Aug 2006, at 16:27, Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote: On 8/23/06, chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you could lodge this complaint against some of the ghostly/spectral stuff, but for the most part it sounds great to me. i like a decent bit of the ghostly/spectral stuff. i wouldnt buy most of it, but its at least some dirty nasty business at times. like that afrika 12 for example, i did buy that one and its dirty and grimey and all that. they definitely do some other stuff that isnt to my taste, but theyre willing to get ugly. speaking of which, i think those TNT records are definitely TOO over the top with the distortion and whatnot. i get a similar feeling listening to them as i do with jamal moss' stuff. tom
