Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
kent williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, what matters besides the actual compositions? maybe i'm taking this one line too much out of context, but that sounds like a frighteningly traditionalist rhetorical question. in one sense i do agree, hence my bringing up that there's something lacking in the actual compositions. it should be about the song. it's true, there are too many bad songs out there with no compositional ability or it's all basically cribbed from radio formula...badly. but there are plenty of forms of music, such as ambient and experimental, where the composition is very, even entirely, dependent on the sound. things that involve subtleties of tone and texture. if those aren't accurately captured and reproduced, the piece just sounds like a drone. even more traditional recorded music in which i believe that special something is partially contained in the way it was captured. does everybody care about this? probably not. does this always mean analog is better? no. i've heard some mp3s on myspace, that were recorded with a simple little mic straight into the computer, and that type of lo-fi fits the songs. it's not the same as if it were done to cassette, but it's the digital equivalent in a sense, noisy but clear. in other cases, i've heard realaudio samples of music and then been disappointed with the official release because the awful bitrate actually make the tracks sound raw in a good way. a good example of this was massive attack's 100th window. 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. yeah agreed, i said this in a different part of what was originally a longer post. so the bit below is out of context where i talked about how bad some 80s analog stuff was (both gear and music). 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? i think what you're saying is they basically want the result they asked for, which you give them, and the means don't matter. in your example it sounds like you're saying the resulting software is the same no matter what, but what i'm saying is in the case of audio, it isn't. it may seem pretty much the same to most listeners though. this goes back into my other rant about people can't hear anymore because they're used to everything sounding not so good. maybe it's only musicians and an_l retentive audiophiles who care about this? It's easy to play a piano. You just sit down and bang away at the keys. Doesn't make you Glenn Gould innit? too right. 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) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. i think feeling and creativity are paramount, but if poorly captured sonically, sometimes those things do not come across. without the right mic or compressor we might not hear a certain emotive quality in the singer's voice. without the right balance, all the little things thrown into the background of the music can get lost. without the proper EQ or mastering, the kick drum might not be banging to the level that makes people go insane. it doesn't take golden ears to hear or miss those things. recorded music is not simply music that's been recorded; it's a medium in and of itself, and every step in the chain matters to an extent. but yes, great tracks are made without everything being perfect, and without the initial greatness all the rest is just frosting with no cake. d.
Re: (313) The Laptop Debate - the imitation of sound
Well, don't be too frightened. All I'm saying is ... well it's right there in the Bible Matthew 7:16: By their fruits ye shall know them. It's been a long way around through a sometimes interesting debate, but the bottom line for me is that it's an argument that pretty silly. I make tracks, so I'm interested in production techniques. For anyone else it's just inside baseball, and it shouldn't matter -- either the results speak to your condition or they don't. On 9/3/06, chthonic streams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: kent williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, what matters besides the actual compositions? maybe i'm taking this one line too much out of context, but that sounds like a frighteningly traditionalist rhetorical question.
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) 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
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 - 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) 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
