Re: (313) In defense of new techno
i think what you mean to say kent is that when it's good it's good, and when it sucks it sucks.regardless of production techniques or istruments. ;) it's the ideas that count, nothing else IMHO fab. - Original Message - From: Kent Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7:09 PM Subject: Re: (313) In defense of new techno On 7/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Thomas, but I have to totally disagree on this one! I know Kent might have some opinion on this... I'm kind of all opinioned out at the moment. I will say that the records that work, work because they somehow partake of the mystical sea of un-suckiness, in ways that transcend production techniques, sound design, hair styles, whoring publicists and the rest. Rob Hood has made a lot of tracks using sounds from his Yamaha QY70, which is a book sized thinger with a sequencer and minimal builtin sounds. In the hands of anyone else, it would sound like cheap crap. Some of the best techno tracks are incredibly simple, but most people either overcomplicate their music, or make simple tracks that sound dumb. The best tracks always have something great about them that can't be decomposed into production technique or melodies or basslines.
Re: (313) In defense of new techno
i think what you mean to say kent is that when it's good it's good, and when it sucks it sucks.regardless of production techniques or istruments. ;) I think fab has summed it up nicely. But, I have to add, that for different types of tracks, different types of production work better, so it does make a difference if one type or another is chosen That's my two cents. Jamil it's the ideas that count, nothing else IMHO fab. - Original Message - From: Kent Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7:09 PM Subject: Re: (313) In defense of new techno On 7/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Thomas, but I have to totally disagree on this one! I know Kent might have some opinion on this... I'm kind of all opinioned out at the moment. I will say that the records that work, work because they somehow partake of the mystical sea of un-suckiness, in ways that transcend production techniques, sound design, hair styles, whoring publicists and the rest. Rob Hood has made a lot of tracks using sounds from his Yamaha QY70, which is a book sized thinger with a sequencer and minimal builtin sounds. In the hands of anyone else, it would sound like cheap crap. Some of the best techno tracks are incredibly simple, but most people either overcomplicate their music, or make simple tracks that sound dumb. The best tracks always have something great about them that can't be decomposed into production technique or melodies or basslines.
Re: (313) In defense of new techno
Sorry Thomas, but I have to totally disagree on this one! No disrespect - it just seems to me that your tastes seem more on the house side of things then on the techno side. Generally, there are a lot of old records (funk/soul/disco) that you and other 313 list members really like that I can't for the life of me get into AT ALL (unless there's a really hot synth part)! On the other hand, I'm hearing new stuff constantly that is right up my alley, though admittedly I haven't been able to afford new records in three months. What has made me happy in the last few years is that a lot of IDM/glitch/experimental production values have seemed to come into their own in the techno world, and have been interpreted in ways that are a little more dance friendly. I don't mind digital production values, especially if they are used to create a high level of detail. However, it seems that there are two camps in the 313 world, and one camp is rather opposed to these IDM-style sounds infiltrating techno, and sees the new stuff as being a cold imitation of the old soulful stuff. From my point of view, I really don't think there is any kind of attempt to be purposely hip, and I love the newer sounds. It is a natural integration of ideas (IDM/experimental v. techno) that should not really be seperated anyway. However, all the glitchiness does sometimes seem to leave the some of the disco sensibilities behind for something a little more stark and digital sounding. I don't mind - I'm a Cyborg. As long as the funk is there - and I don't define funk by analog warmth and production value, or old school type soul, but rather by rhythms that have some character and are off-kilter or polyrhythmic. Which is really just a natural extension of minimal techno, except that tracks seem to be a little more intricate now thanks to software. And I don't think ANYTHING on vinyl sounds that clean when it is played on a turntable and sound system (maybe on CD though). I actually think that sometimes having clean production and not overdriving everything to sound like #$%! is a GOOD thing, though some dirty tracks do work for me too of course. I know Kent might have some opinion on this... currency=cents 2 /currency ~David From: Thomas D. Cox, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org i almost never hear new records that i like. and if i do, i rarely like them enough to actually buy them. theres too much clean production and hip sounds out there for me right now tom andythepooh.com
Re: (313) In defense of new techno
On 7/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Thomas, but I have to totally disagree on this one! I know Kent might have some opinion on this... I'm kind of all opinioned out at the moment. I will say that the records that work, work because they somehow partake of the mystical sea of un-suckiness, in ways that transcend production techniques, sound design, hair styles, whoring publicists and the rest. Rob Hood has made a lot of tracks using sounds from his Yamaha QY70, which is a book sized thinger with a sequencer and minimal builtin sounds. In the hands of anyone else, it would sound like cheap crap. Some of the best techno tracks are incredibly simple, but most people either overcomplicate their music, or make simple tracks that sound dumb. The best tracks always have something great about them that can't be decomposed into production technique or melodies or basslines.
Re: (313) In defense of new techno
-- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:37:22 - Sorry Thomas, but I have to totally disagree on this one! you dont have to apologize to me ;P No disrespect - it just seems to me that your tastes seem more on the house side of things then on the techno side. thats only because thats where the good stuff is coming from right now, IMO. i still buy techno records but its very infrequently because of the infractions i mentioned. i feel like theres too much overproduced (and thus it has its life sucked out) stuff, and way too much that falls too easily into the clicky category or the minimal german category (for two of the most popular trendy genres out today). even those recentish dan bell tracks that were on that comp didnt do anything for me because they sounded way too microhouse or whatever its called these days. Generally, there are a lot of old records (funk/soul/disco) that you and other 313 list members really like that I can't for the life of me get into AT ALL (unless there's a really hot synth part)! the old stuff still (for the most part) has that raw funkiness. plus theres no way for an old record to be made to fit into a modern sound trend! What has made me happy in the last few years is that a lot of IDM/glitch/experimental production values have seemed to come into their own in the techno world, and have been interpreted in ways that are a little more dance friendly. I don't mind digital production values, especially if they are used to create a high level of detail. However, it seems that there are two camps in the 313 world, and one camp is rather opposed to these IDM-style sounds infiltrating techno, and sees the new stuff as being a cold imitation of the old soulful stuff. im not staunchly against digital stuff. i love soundhack and some of the MMM stuff. that predated the corny glitch stuff and features entirely digital sounding production. but they were somehow more interesting than what has come since then. i dont believe that digital = bad. i do believe that digital seems to give people easier access to overdoing some aspect of their music at the price of sacrificing the overall quality. From my point of view, I really don't think there is any kind of attempt to be purposely hip, and I love the newer sounds. It is a natural integration of ideas (IDM/experimental v. techno) that should not really be seperated anyway. dan bell's recent tracks are the best examply of this trendiness. you have a guy who went from being a complete innovator to a complete biter. im not trying to knock the guy, but it feels like he took the easy way out by just fitting into some premade sound instead of trying to further his own sound. you can look at people like juan atkins or UR or rob hood to see people who havent tried to fit into any trends. and thats why i still care about and buy their music. those guys are utilising lots of digital stuff these days and their productions are definitely clean sounding. but they know what theyre doing so it doesnt come off sounding wack. However, all the glitchiness does sometimes seem to leave the some of the disco sensibilities behind for something a little more stark and digital sounding. I don't mind - I'm a Cyborg. As long as the funk is there - and I don't define funk by analog warmth and production value, or old school type soul, but rather by rhythms that have some character and are off-kilter or polyrhythmic. Which is really just a natural extension of minimal techno, except that tracks seem to be a little more intricate now thanks to software. theyre more than a little more intricate. theres definitely a point at which people should stop working on a track and call it finished. the current technology allows that point to be essentially irrelevant. with old technology, you could keep tweeking things out. but you couldnt call back up your sounds unless you kept things sitting in a state of stasis in the studio. this seems to have caused people to have a better understanding of when enough is enough. And I don't think ANYTHING on vinyl sounds that clean when it is played on a turntable and sound system (maybe on CD though). I actually think that sometimes having clean production and not overdriving everything to sound like #$%! is a GOOD thing, though some dirty tracks do work for me too of course. like i said, im not just against clean production. im against clean production at the expense of good music. too many producers these days are actually just engineers. ill take someone who produces good stuff with no engineering skill over someone who has mad engineering skill but doesnt actually make anything good and worthwhile. i dont think other people feel the same. tom andythepooh.com
Re: (313) In defense of new techno
Totally agree with Kent here, when something is good it's often due to indefinable factors (thankfully perhaps?) At 12:09 pm -0500 6/7/05, Kent Williams wrote: On 7/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Thomas, but I have to totally disagree on this one! I know Kent might have some opinion on this... I'm kind of all opinioned out at the moment. I will say that the records that work, work because they somehow partake of the mystical sea of un-suckiness, in ways that transcend production techniques, sound design, hair styles, whoring publicists and the rest. Rob Hood has made a lot of tracks using sounds from his Yamaha QY70, which is a book sized thinger with a sequencer and minimal builtin sounds. In the hands of anyone else, it would sound like cheap crap. Some of the best techno tracks are incredibly simple, but most people either overcomplicate their music, or make simple tracks that sound dumb. The best tracks always have something great about them that can't be decomposed into production technique or melodies or basslines.
