RE: (313) techno vs technique
Synchronicity ;-) From: kent williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 April 2008 20:43 We tend to forget the crap, and eventually it's all ground up and Archer uses it again.
(313) techno vs technique
This seems to come up a lot -- people complaining about laptop performers, software-based production, etc. This is where the dub vs mnml thread seemed to be going. I don't want to start another debate, or another repetition of the same people launching the same mortars over the wall at each other, but I want to say this (perhaps again): 1. Judge the results, not the technique. 2. The theoretical 'futurism' of techno would almost demand embracing of new technology. 3. You can make crappy dance music with a 909, 808, 303, SH101 and a MPC60 too. You're just out $10k more on hardware than you would be with your laptop and cracked copy of fruity loops. 4. Why give people points for making virtue of a necessity, if the results don't measure up?
Re: (313) techno vs technique
Well said Kent! Last couple of years i saw so many of there debates, debates whether or not techno with only a laptop is bad techno, analogue synthesis is the way. The thing is that when this whole thing started i had to do exactly the same discussion but then the thing we had to fight about was when 'traditional musicians' claimed electronic was not real. I recently had a similar debate with a DJ who claimed that people dj- ing with Live or with that M-Audio Torq system ain't real DJ's. In the end it turns out that most of these discussions are all based on fear or a form of jealousy. I have a studio with a bunch of old analogue synths and i see people playing out with only a laptop, and that laptop is there whole studio to. When is started making electronic music i had to save up a lot of money to get something simple started, these young kids can do the same with a lot less money. All these discussions are based on feelings described above, in most cases they have no musical content and if there is one it is mainly that for example the old rock people simply did not like the sound of a TB-303. On 7 apr 2008, at 15:36, kent williams wrote: This seems to come up a lot -- people complaining about laptop performers, software-based production, etc. This is where the dub vs mnml thread seemed to be going. I don't want to start another debate, or another repetition of the same people launching the same mortars over the wall at each other, but I want to say this (perhaps again): 1. Judge the results, not the technique. 2. The theoretical 'futurism' of techno would almost demand embracing of new technology. 3. You can make crappy dance music with a 909, 808, 303, SH101 and a MPC60 too. You're just out $10k more on hardware than you would be with your laptop and cracked copy of fruity loops. 4. Why give people points for making virtue of a necessity, if the results don't measure up?
Re: (313) techno vs technique
Totally agree. But there will always be people feeling hurted by the ones who disturb their own status quo. The thing repeats on and on and on. A 70 year old rich guy claims that popular music is not music, an 50 year old claims that music played by guitar bands is real music, and music played by pushing buttons and running machines is not music, a young fresh guy, who already heard all this sh*t, claims that music made by pushing buttons and running machines is real music and the onde made in a computer is not. It's like a generations disease! That reminds me of that classic situation at work – new guy arrives doing things, shifting things up, but the olds guys wanna put him down cause they don't wanna work hard, they don't wanna keep up or run the risk of loosing whatever they already have. Kw On 07/04/2008, at 10:36, kent williams wrote: This seems to come up a lot -- people complaining about laptop performers, software-based production, etc. This is where the dub vs mnml thread seemed to be going. I don't want to start another debate, or another repetition of the same people launching the same mortars over the wall at each other, but I want to say this (perhaps again): 1. Judge the results, not the technique. 2. The theoretical 'futurism' of techno would almost demand embracing of new technology. 3. You can make crappy dance music with a 909, 808, 303, SH101 and a MPC60 too. You're just out $10k more on hardware than you would be with your laptop and cracked copy of fruity loops. 4. Why give people points for making virtue of a necessity, if the results don't measure up?
Re: (313) techno vs technique
What do you base this comment on, just your own experience or a wider view? As a primarily (but not solely) hardware producer I certainly don't agree with that statement - I neither fear nor am jealous or even smug about laptop producers, I simply prefer making music with hardware. Yes, it took money and time to build up a decent studio, but that's half the fun of it. It's just a different way of working... Whilst I fundamentally agree also that the end product is the most important thing, there cannot be any question that the methods used dramatically alter the outcome. It's a matter of taste which you prefer, but there is no doubt that differing production techniques and equipment result in a different sound... Not only from the point of sound generation (which is becoming less obvious as soft synths etc become ever more elegant) but also the interface and approach that the differing techniques force upon the musician. There are things that you can do with a computer that would be very difficult to do with hardware and vice versa... i don't think you can do exactly the same thing with each at all.. Klaas-Jan Jongsma wrote: In the end it turns out that most of these discussions are all based on fear or a form of jealousy. I have a studio with a bunch of old analogue synths and i see people playing out with only a laptop, and that laptop is there whole studio to. When is started making electronic music i had to save up a lot of money to get something simple started, these young kids can do the same with a lot less money. -- *matt chester 11th hour recordings* www.myspace.com/mattchester1 www.myspace.com/11thhourrecordings www.virb.com/mattchester www.11-hour.com
Re: (313) techno vs technique
I think it often boils down to the coolness factor amongst haters on forums, clapping each ones shoulder plus the notorious my dick is longer than yours boogie. From my experience, above are valid in ~90% of such discussions. Why give people points for making virtue of a necessity, if the results don't measure up?
Re: (313) techno vs technique
Oh don't get me wrong, i don think there is anything wrong with having a preference on making music with hardware or software or a mix. My point was simply that most of the discussion i had with people about if music made equipment Z or by workflow Y is based on some form of jealousy or fear. I personally have a mix of both worlds in my studio. My statement is based on personal experiences, something i noticed when i had these rather pointless discussions on what was real music. It wasn't based on some form of science/facts. The discussions on itself is pointless because it can only be held if we could exactly tell scientifically what would be music and what not. These discussions are based on personal feelings about what would be the right way to make music. It is a personal preference yet most people try to reason about it with other people on scientific level. So we personal/emotional choice about music and we defend it scientific facts. KJ On 7 apr 2008, at 18:19, Matt Chester wrote: What do you base this comment on, just your own experience or a wider view? As a primarily (but not solely) hardware producer I certainly don't agree with that statement - I neither fear nor am jealous or even smug about laptop producers, I simply prefer making music with hardware. Yes, it took money and time to build up a decent studio, but that's half the fun of it. It's just a different way of working... Whilst I fundamentally agree also that the end product is the most important thing, there cannot be any question that the methods used dramatically alter the outcome. It's a matter of taste which you prefer, but there is no doubt that differing production techniques and equipment result in a different sound... Not only from the point of sound generation (which is becoming less obvious as soft synths etc become ever more elegant) but also the interface and approach that the differing techniques force upon the musician. There are things that you can do with a computer that would be very difficult to do with hardware and vice versa... i don't think you can do exactly the same thing with each at all.. Klaas-Jan Jongsma wrote: In the end it turns out that most of these discussions are all based on fear or a form of jealousy. I have a studio with a bunch of old analogue synths and i see people playing out with only a laptop, and that laptop is there whole studio to. When is started making electronic music i had to save up a lot of money to get something simple started, these young kids can do the same with a lot less money. -- *matt chester 11th hour recordings* www.myspace.com/mattchester1 www.myspace.com/11thhourrecordings www.virb.com/mattchester www.11-hour.com
Re: (313) techno vs technique
kent williams a écrit : This seems to come up a lot -- people complaining about laptop performers, software-based production, etc. This is where the dub vs mnml thread seemed to be going. I don't want to start another debate, or another repetition of the same people launching the same mortars over the wall at each other, but I want to say this (perhaps again): 1. Judge the results, not the technique. 2. The theoretical 'futurism' of techno would almost demand embracing of new technology. 3. You can make crappy dance music with a 909, 808, 303, SH101 and a MPC60 too. You're just out $10k more on hardware than you would be with your laptop and cracked copy of fruity loops. 4. Why give people points for making virtue of a necessity, if the results don't measure up? The so called futurism of techno is debatable. I just wish for good and ambitious music whether it is futuristic or not. My main problem right now is the flood of crappy music generated by the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the hardware era. Random Joe makes a loop, add random sounds, and voila: instant track that goes knowhere that might find a label since it's so easy to release digitally. Listening sequentially to listings of beatport or juno is a painful experience My other concern is that a lot of those new producers follow a formula, wheter it's mnml, house, etc where the composition of their track is s predictable. It's boring too tears. Even some tracks considered super good by most of the people of this list can enter the predictable, and does not bring anything new to the table even if a little category. These days I prefer music that push things forward a bit, whether it's from Digitonal, Jacen Solo or Matt Chester (hi Matt!) for example. After all those years, I have less and less patience for music that just replicates a formula, as well produced as it is.
Re: (313) techno vs technique
1. Judge the results, not the technique. Totally true, why it's so important what is used if the result is good/right and deserves the title of 'art' or offers the music to go further. If an artist records good music using a pure hardware analog modular and another one NI Reaktor (for example). Does the one using Reaktor is less interesting ? 2. The theoretical 'futurism' of techno would almost demand embracing of new technology. Definitely agree, it's the way this music was created at first and now, some would ask to stay close to the old and almost dead 'way to do' ? Artists have today so much tools in hands and half of them just try to copy what was done near (more?...) 20 years ago. 3. You can make crappy dance music with a 909, 808, 303, SH101 and a MPC60 too. You're just out $10k more on hardware than you would be with your laptop and cracked copy of fruity loops. On a personal opinion, it's why there is so much bad copies of the D sound actually. Guys buying gear because 'names' use it and do all and nothing with it claiming they do 'the sound inspired' by Detroit. And it's not limited to Detroit, Chicago sound ... New York sound ... 4. Why give people points for making virtue of a necessity, if the results don't measure up? Again, In My Opinion, because too much hypocrisy. Some peoples say an artist is f*g good just because he use gear they can't afford. Look at Buchla synths owners, except a few, lot of those who own it records boring noises that can be done on a old Atari or with any VST freeware. Just a few know how to use it and program it really since it is a very complex synthesizer. But, do some 'google' search and you'll find lot of peoples loving these noises just because the man behind own one of these rare synths. Ok, ok, I take the door and go out with my dog :-) PEACE -- Dimitri Pike http://wildtek.free.fr http://www.myspace.com/wildtek
Re: (313) techno vs technique
Frank Glazer a écrit : My main problem right now is the flood of crappy music generated by the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the hardware era. Random Joe makes a loop, add random sounds, and voila: instant track that goes knowhere that might find a label since it's so easy to release digitally. Listening sequentially to listings of beatport or juno is a painful experience i hear this argument a lot and i think it's rubbish. i'm sure industry people were saying the same thing when chicagoans started belting out drum tracks on (then) cheap roland boxes in the early 80s, but that turned out pretty good, i'd say. think of it this way, you could just as easily go back in time and imagine similar things being said, like this: the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the symphonic era/big band era/rock n roll quartet era/arena rock era. technology always changes and expands the possibilities for music, both good and bad. if you don't like the bad, don't support it. pretty simple equation. The good news with the easy access to making music is that in all those new producers a few outstanding ones will emerge. So there's still hope for great music and advancing technolgy heh :)
Re: (313) techno vs technique
Lest we forget, how many absolutely sh1t records were put out in Chicago and Detroit in the late 80s/early 90s 'golden age' of techno and house? We tend to forget the crap, and eventually it's all ground up and Archer uses it again. On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Pujos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Glazer a écrit : My main problem right now is the flood of crappy music generated by the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the hardware era. Random Joe makes a loop, add random sounds, and voila: instant track that goes knowhere that might find a label since it's so easy to release digitally. Listening sequentially to listings of beatport or juno is a painful experience i hear this argument a lot and i think it's rubbish. i'm sure industry people were saying the same thing when chicagoans started belting out drum tracks on (then) cheap roland boxes in the early 80s, but that turned out pretty good, i'd say. think of it this way, you could just as easily go back in time and imagine similar things being said, like this: the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the symphonic era/big band era/rock n roll quartet era/arena rock era. technology always changes and expands the possibilities for music, both good and bad. if you don't like the bad, don't support it. pretty simple equation. The good news with the easy access to making music is that in all those new producers a few outstanding ones will emerge. So there's still hope for great music and advancing technolgy heh :)
Re: (313) techno vs technique
AND/OR the crap gets dug up and sold for DOLLAZ as SUPER RARE CHICAGO ACID HOUSE TEST PRE on Discogs/Ebay/Gemm On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM, kent williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lest we forget, how many absolutely sh1t records were put out in Chicago and Detroit in the late 80s/early 90s 'golden age' of techno and house? We tend to forget the crap, and eventually it's all ground up and Archer uses it again. On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Pujos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Glazer a écrit : My main problem right now is the flood of crappy music generated by the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the hardware era. Random Joe makes a loop, add random sounds, and voila: instant track that goes knowhere that might find a label since it's so easy to release digitally. Listening sequentially to listings of beatport or juno is a painful experience i hear this argument a lot and i think it's rubbish. i'm sure industry people were saying the same thing when chicagoans started belting out drum tracks on (then) cheap roland boxes in the early 80s, but that turned out pretty good, i'd say. think of it this way, you could just as easily go back in time and imagine similar things being said, like this: the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the symphonic era/big band era/rock n roll quartet era/arena rock era. technology always changes and expands the possibilities for music, both good and bad. if you don't like the bad, don't support it. pretty simple equation. The good news with the easy access to making music is that in all those new producers a few outstanding ones will emerge. So there's still hope for great music and advancing technolgy heh :) -- peace, frank dj mix archive: http://www.deejaycountzero.com
Re: (313) techno vs technique
Well, it _is_ SUPER RARE, you gotta give 'em that... :) On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Frank Glazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AND/OR the crap gets dug up and sold for DOLLAZ as SUPER RARE CHICAGO ACID HOUSE TEST PRE on Discogs/Ebay/Gemm
Re: (313) techno vs technique
Michael, when small bass/drums/guitar combos came out, people said the same thing: now anyone can do music and it's gonna be crappy. When producers didn't have to learn musical theory or music notation to make music, people said the same thing. Probably, people said the same thing when Guttenberg came out with mobile typography in the XV century: now everyone will be able to read and write and print any crap they like. Can't you see that the loop is the fact that people tend to be conservative when facing changes? Changes for me are exciting. And we're privileged to live years of such revolutionary changes. Y'all know what i mean. The formulaic thing... We work in two ways here. In one way, formulas built the styles, the genres. It comes the expression of many, of a society or a community. It's important. Like american soul music and the fight for the civil rights. It has its beauty integrated to a social factor - its indivisible. In other way, a composer will turn out to be crappy when you can see no punch in what he does, and the only thing that remains is an ordinary formula reaching nowhere. We can hear unexpected wonderful tunes made upon very simple and ordinary, formulaic structures, like the 12 bar blues or whatever. After all, what will count has no name. Gear doesn't matter, styles doesn't matter. It lies only in the artist himself. On 07/04/2008, at 15:57, Michael Pujos wrote: kent williams a écrit : This seems to come up a lot -- people complaining about laptop performers, software-based production, etc. This is where the dub vs mnml thread seemed to be going. I don't want to start another debate, or another repetition of the same people launching the same mortars over the wall at each other, but I want to say this (perhaps again): 1. Judge the results, not the technique. 2. The theoretical 'futurism' of techno would almost demand embracing of new technology. 3. You can make crappy dance music with a 909, 808, 303, SH101 and a MPC60 too. You're just out $10k more on hardware than you would be with your laptop and cracked copy of fruity loops. 4. Why give people points for making virtue of a necessity, if the results don't measure up? The so called futurism of techno is debatable. I just wish for good and ambitious music whether it is futuristic or not. My main problem right now is the flood of crappy music generated by the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the hardware era. Random Joe makes a loop, add random sounds, and voila: instant track that goes knowhere that might find a label since it's so easy to release digitally. Listening sequentially to listings of beatport or juno is a painful experience My other concern is that a lot of those new producers follow a formula, wheter it's mnml, house, etc where the composition of their track is s predictable. It's boring too tears. Even some tracks considered super good by most of the people of this list can enter the predictable, and does not bring anything new to the table even if a little category. These days I prefer music that push things forward a bit, whether it's from Digitonal, Jacen Solo or Matt Chester (hi Matt!) for example. After all those years, I have less and less patience for music that just replicates a formula, as well produced as it is.
Re: (313) techno vs technique
Kowalsky a écrit : Michael, when small bass/drums/guitar combos came out, people said the same thing: now anyone can do music and it's gonna be crappy. When producers didn't have to learn musical theory or music notation to make music, people said the same thing. Probably, people said the same thing when Guttenberg came out with mobile typography in the XV century: now everyone will be able to read and write and print any crap they like. Can't you see that the loop is the fact that people tend to be conservative when facing changes? Changes for me are exciting. And we're privileged to live years of such revolutionary changes. Y'all know what i mean. The formulaic thing... We work in two ways here. In one way, formulas built the styles, the genres. It comes the expression of many, of a society or a community. It's important. Like american soul music and the fight for the civil rights. It has its beauty integrated to a social factor - its indivisible. In other way, a composer will turn out to be crappy when you can see no punch in what he does, and the only thing that remains is an ordinary formula reaching nowhere. We can hear unexpected wonderful tunes made upon very simple and ordinary, formulaic structures, like the 12 bar blues or whatever. After all, what will count has no name. Gear doesn't matter, styles doesn't matter. It lies only in the artist himself. Sure but artists do music for a variety of reasons: getting better known to get gigs, a crappy remix to get a few $ because everybody and his mother needs to remix each other these days, and sometimes finally for the love of music. So it lies in the artist yes, but talented artists that do music for the good reasons, have a real artistic vision and the mean to realize it, are not so common. As for the formula, a point that annoys me is that much music is formatted to be DJ friendly, ie an unterminable 2-3min intro with next to nothing in it. And I'm talking of house here. I was relieved the other day when I got this great new Delano Smith EP and most tracks were starting straight away on point and about 5:30 [to those who'd say its formulaic, sometimes its so well done than it does not matter]. As a counter example of being formulaic, take most of the incredible Iridite back catalog: most tracks are not that much linear and offers suprises to the listener. Something not much people take the risk to do these days. Dan Curtin also excels as making non linear and intricate techno. It's not so much a surprise that non DJ friendly stuff allow a bit more of creativity composition wise. Anyway don't take all of the above to the letter: things are more sublte than I can express them, as English is not my native language.
Re: (313) techno vs technique
It seems that we agree in many points. So, no reason to take this further as a debate. I usually don't like the functional music, made for the (lousy) DJ. I've seen a lot of djs being fooled buy some dj unfriendly UR tunes, wich the first kick is not the 1 in the tempo count. Funny. :-D On 07/04/2008, at 17:48, Michael Pujos wrote: Kowalsky a écrit : Michael, when small bass/drums/guitar combos came out, people said the same thing: now anyone can do music and it's gonna be crappy. When producers didn't have to learn musical theory or music notation to make music, people said the same thing. Probably, people said the same thing when Guttenberg came out with mobile typography in the XV century: now everyone will be able to read and write and print any crap they like. Can't you see that the loop is the fact that people tend to be conservative when facing changes? Changes for me are exciting. And we're privileged to live years of such revolutionary changes. Y'all know what i mean. The formulaic thing... We work in two ways here. In one way, formulas built the styles, the genres. It comes the expression of many, of a society or a community. It's important. Like american soul music and the fight for the civil rights. It has its beauty integrated to a social factor - its indivisible. In other way, a composer will turn out to be crappy when you can see no punch in what he does, and the only thing that remains is an ordinary formula reaching nowhere. We can hear unexpected wonderful tunes made upon very simple and ordinary, formulaic structures, like the 12 bar blues or whatever. After all, what will count has no name. Gear doesn't matter, styles doesn't matter. It lies only in the artist himself. Sure but artists do music for a variety of reasons: getting better known to get gigs, a crappy remix to get a few $ because everybody and his mother needs to remix each other these days, and sometimes finally for the love of music. So it lies in the artist yes, but talented artists that do music for the good reasons, have a real artistic vision and the mean to realize it, are not so common. As for the formula, a point that annoys me is that much music is formatted to be DJ friendly, ie an unterminable 2-3min intro with next to nothing in it. And I'm talking of house here. I was relieved the other day when I got this great new Delano Smith EP and most tracks were starting straight away on point and about 5:30 [to those who'd say its formulaic, sometimes its so well done than it does not matter]. As a counter example of being formulaic, take most of the incredible Iridite back catalog: most tracks are not that much linear and offers suprises to the listener. Something not much people take the risk to do these days. Dan Curtin also excels as making non linear and intricate techno. It's not so much a surprise that non DJ friendly stuff allow a bit more of creativity composition wise. Anyway don't take all of the above to the letter: things are more sublte than I can express them, as English is not my native language.
RE: (313) techno vs technique
But it's a lot easier to put ones random software noodlings up as a download, ostensibly as releasable quality, than it is, or was, to get it pressed on vinyl and then sold from a location. -Original Message- From: kent williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:43 PM To: Michael Pujos Cc: Frank Glazer; 313 Subject: Re: (313) techno vs technique Lest we forget, how many absolutely sh1t records were put out in Chicago and Detroit in the late 80s/early 90s 'golden age' of techno and house? We tend to forget the crap, and eventually it's all ground up and Archer uses it again. On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Pujos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Glazer a écrit : My main problem right now is the flood of crappy music generated by the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the hardware era. Random Joe makes a loop, add random sounds, and voila: instant track that goes knowhere that might find a label since it's so easy to release digitally. Listening sequentially to listings of beatport or juno is a painful experience i hear this argument a lot and i think it's rubbish. i'm sure industry people were saying the same thing when chicagoans started belting out drum tracks on (then) cheap roland boxes in the early 80s, but that turned out pretty good, i'd say. think of it this way, you could just as easily go back in time and imagine similar things being said, like this: the fact the barrier of entry to make music is lower than in the symphonic era/big band era/rock n roll quartet era/arena rock era. technology always changes and expands the possibilities for music, both good and bad. if you don't like the bad, don't support it. pretty simple equation. The good news with the easy access to making music is that in all those new producers a few outstanding ones will emerge. So there's still hope for great music and advancing technolgy heh :) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 4/6/2008 11:12 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 4/6/2008 11:12 AM
Re: (313) techno vs technique
But the previous iteration to which you refer was in turn much easier than the wave before it, when you actually had to get 3-6 (or more) people to agree on a tune and play in relatively perfectly synchronization, get into a studio, record it and mix it analogously, and promote and distribute it. And play shows, virtually living together for years on end--assuming they hit. And that in turn was much easier than symphony music... and so on down the line... in short, have a point. On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM, rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it's a lot easier to put ones random software noodlings up as a download, ostensibly as releasable quality, than it is, or was, to get it pressed on vinyl and then sold from a location.
Re: (313) techno vs technique
As far as this original topic goes...I've created music on hardware and software, and find advantages to both. It is the user's knowledge and input rather than the machines. The problem I see is usually between the interface and the chair...not the equipment. I have known tons of people who have had the 'right' equipment for doing this music we love, yet have no earthly idea how to make what they want to make. FWIW, I'll take Claude Young with a laptop over some hack with a 909 and every toy imaginable. -- fbk sleepengineering/absoloop US
