Re: (313) re: production
On 8/31/06, Stoddard, Kamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think all the dudes who know the technicals and still suck, should just become engineers and bring in a producer with creative ideas who didn't have to be concerned at all with the technicalities. That would sort all this out and then creative people would never be tempted to overproduce because they wouldn't know how to work the gear. Oh wait! That's how it used to work since like, forever. And crap was still the overwhelming outcome. Oh well. There's no hope for music. There never was. Idiots will win on sheer numbers. Give up. Die. those kinds of arrangements did of course produce the motown stable of artists, philly international, etc etc. id say that if you have a good vision and a stable of artists to work with, that kind of arrangement will produce good stuff more often than a bunch of engineers sitting around twiddling their knobs tom
Re: (313) re: production
On 8/31/06, chthonic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so let's extend this argument one further - if people don't care as much about spoils that are not hard-won, why should anyone truly care about music? some people work very hard to discover and purchase and listen to music. i know i do. tom
Re: (313) re: production
many ifs in that sentence. while i agree that some of the motown output was classic, it also had a formulaic quality to it that's plagued the pop industry ever since. e.g. had a hit? next single will be a rehash of that hit. also, this is probably the wrong list to mention this name, but stephen stapleton (nurse with wound) is almost more a knob-twiddler than anything else, but he's also a great artist in my opinion, pushing the boundaries of music and experimentation. there have also also several engineer/producers who had both the skills and the creativity to being out the best in an artist, cutting out one step in the committee version - flood comes to mind. d. -- Original Message -- From: Thomas D. Cox, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:15:19 -0400 On 8/31/06, Stoddard, Kamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think all the dudes who know the technicals and still suck, should just become engineers and bring in a producer with creative ideas who didn't have to be concerned at all with the technicalities. That would sort all this out and then creative people would never be tempted to overproduce because they wouldn't know how to work the gear. Oh wait! That's how it used to work since like, forever. And crap was still the overwhelming outcome. Oh well. There's no hope for music. There never was. Idiots will win on sheer numbers. Give up. Die. those kinds of arrangements did of course produce the motown stable of artists, philly international, etc etc. id say that if you have a good vision and a stable of artists to work with, that kind of arrangement will produce good stuff more often than a bunch of engineers sitting around twiddling their knobs tom Sent via the WebMail system at chthonicstreams.com
Re: (313) re: production
On 8/31/06, skept [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: seems like some of you are blaming the bad computer generated music on producers having ridiculous amounts of vst effects and instruments which causes them to over use them and not even take the time to learn them and use them to their fullest capabilities. as opposed to a studio where one would spend a lot of money on one thing and learn every last little detail about it, produce the greatest sounds it could etc. first off i agree with that completely. but it's not like the people who have every vst effect and instrument in existence are buying them. so the problem with the bad computer generated music is software piracy not the computer itself. software is expensive just like hardware (maybe not completely comparable price ranges). if people bought every piece of software they use i am assuming they would devote a lot more time to mastering it and would have less distractions from other toys causing better computer music to be produced. but its also the general design of the software. do people REALLY need more than 16 tracks to make a dance song? 16 tracks would get LAUGHED at by today's standards. people want infinite tracks so they can make infinite small changes to their infinite bit depth sample of someone in a little room banging on a drum set. music would be better had this nonsense just never existed. tom
Re: (313) re: production
i completely agree on the 16 track comment. i'll add it to my previously mentioned thoughts about vsts which have already drastically affected the way i work... with software. i disagree about music being better off had software not existed. it is too absolute. a mix of hardware along with a computer and certain software is what i personally prefer. why not have lush sound and convenience all in one. but its also the general design of the software. do people REALLY need more than 16 tracks to make a dance song? 16 tracks would get LAUGHED at by today's standards. people want infinite tracks so they can make infinite small changes to their infinite bit depth sample of someone in a little room banging on a drum set. music would be better had this nonsense just never existed. tom
Re: (313) re: production
soon people are going to have to apologise for using software. *goes in the cellar to fetch his analog equipment* - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:23 AM Subject: (313) re: production also, this is probably the wrong list to mention this name, but stephen stapleton (nurse with wound) is almost more a knob-twiddler than anything else, but he's also a great artist in my opinion, pushing the boundaries of music and experimentation. Both Stapleton and Tibet have done some excellent work, Coil would be my favourites in this area but some of the production ideas these guys have come up with are, indeed, brilliant... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:26, fab. wrote: soon people are going to have to apologise for using software. *goes in the cellar to fetch his analog equipment* Most people wouldn't notice the difference and I'm sure the other 99.9% don't actually care m
Re: (313) re: production
Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:29, Martin Dust wrote: On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:26, fab. wrote: soon people are going to have to apologise for using software. *goes in the cellar to fetch his analog equipment* Most people wouldn't notice the difference and I'm sure the other 99.9% don't actually care m
Re: (313) re: production
On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m
Re: (313) re: production
before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P f. - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Brunton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
On 1 Sep 2006, at 10:08, fab. wrote: before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P True, true but this makes no difference as it's more difficult to control temperature etc and the behavior of old circuit boards, if only was as simple as above... m
Re: (313) re: production
You're preaching to the converted here- I use 50% old school hardware and 50% Digital Software stuff- the joyous thing about the software is that it's the same in the morning as the night before- the joyous thing about the hardware is the interface- ie dedicated sliders for functions that don't move around or have 18 different meanings depending on what mode you are in. And the sound. Jason On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:53, Martin Dust wrote: On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m
Re: (313) re: production
of boobies - Original Message - From: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:08 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P f. - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Brunton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
no, that's what you should be doing slacker. - Original Message - From: /0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 1:24 PM Subject: Re: (313) re: production of boobies - Original Message - From: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:08 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P f. - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Brunton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
on about the difference between digital and analogue okay now you are all just winding me up .. to me it's all about the system .. aka . the sound system at the end of the day ' dance music is about the PA . the actual speakers that the sound is coming out of. Techno is about dance floor reinforcement, so if you are not thinking about the final product. ie: the sound system on the floor .,. then just forget it .. you could spend a thousand hours in the studio, but if you play in a club where the cross over is set wrong . then . its all a waste of time .. please, please, please .. if you make, or play dance floor music, you should be worrying about your FOH sound like a guitar player worries about the tuning of their guitar! if you really want to push the future, if you really want to push sound, to break the curve, set the dimension think about the sound system .. this is your instrument! imagine a chef that did not care what plates his food was served on .. imagine a painter who did not care to understand his canvas .. dance music, TECHNO is all about the sound, its about the physical presence of the sound waves .. so all the talk mutter about computers means nothing to me .. if you do not understand the the fundamental basics of sound reinforcement .. what we are dealing with is the the presentation of sound through large sound systems .. thats what techno was built for! It's electronic sound .. which is the evolution of the electricity ... with out electricity .. we would not have modern sound systems . the speaker is your instrument .. like a guitar players instrument is the interaction of the strings with the body of the guitar .. with out a speaker we have no TECHNO ! the future of music ' is within the establishment of sound as a space Theo is onto the right tangent . the boy understands what is important, and has been trying to represent this through cut ups, mash downs and spatial social representation. if anyone is truly listening to TECHNO .. and following the relationship to space, dimension cultural architecture, then you will begin to see sound as space, as dimensional communication. why the muck is everyone getting stuck inside the wires .. when everything about TECHNO is what is going on in real space, in the environments that surround us .. I am inspired by vision, by honesty .. I am moved by Artists who define reality, who decide what is important and use sound as a medium to realize their own truth. Stop messing around on the inside ' and start looking at sound around you. Forget about the internal, and look at what is happening in front of the speakers, look at what is important on the floor, in the dance. This is about communication, this is about presenting sound ideas. All I want to listen to is honesty. .simon
Re: (313) re: production
on about the difference between digital and analogue okay now you are all just winding me up .. to me it's all about the system .. aka . the sound system So that's why all records are cut in mono these daysjessshhh m
Re: (313) re: production
But, couldn't you also just keep taking that arguement back against practically ANY new musical technology that was invented? Do people REALLY need more than 2 tracks to make ANY music? Humans only have 2 ears, and most consumer playback hardware only has 2 tracks, left and right. Anything else is superfulous. I suppose I could argue that multitrack recording ruined music, and we would have been better off had Les Paul never invented it. Before multitrack recording, if you wanted to make music you actually had to invest the time to learn how to play an instrument, and play it WELL. Recorded music was written and performed only by people who were willing to put in the years of training and practice that were required to do it well, you had to have an actual band that was capable of all playing the material together and in one take. No overdubs. No layering. No re-takes. Now, with multitrack recording, you've got singers that couldn't put together a solid performance to save their lives and instead rely on overdubs, punching in and out, and multiple takes to get a good performance. Ditto on guitarists, drummers, and on and on. Heck, it's enabled people to get rid of the concept of a band alogether. You've got people sitting in rooms alone with racks of synths and sequencers tapping out little patterns and eschewing any kind of collaboration or real performance, people who couldn't actually PERFORM the songs if they had to. Darn that Les Paul, he's ruined music. I don't have a problem with any of this personally, just as I don't have any problem with using computers and softsynths. I'm just playing devil's addvocate and extrapolating out the point to a further degree. And there certainly ARE some people in the world who would argue in favor of many of these points. People who would claim techno isn't REAL music, simply because of the tools and methodology that's used to produce it. Besides, if you REALLY want to point to the villian for the sad state of music today, I would suggest pointing to the internet. There have always been tons of people making really BAD music, but before the internet it was so much more difficult to distribute it and share it with the world, so it was easier to avoid and ignore. Sure, there are more people making bad music now than ever before, but were it not for the internet we wouldn't have to hear so much of it. :) but its also the general design of the software. do people REALLY need more than 16 tracks to make a dance song? 16 tracks would get LAUGHED at by today's standards. people want infinite tracks so they can make infinite small changes to their infinite bit depth sample of someone in a little room banging on a drum set. music would be better had this nonsense just never existed. tom
Re: (313) re: production
John Coleman wrote: But, couldn't you also just keep taking that arguement back against practically ANY new musical technology that was invented? Do people REALLY need more than 2 tracks to make ANY music? Humans only have 2 ears, and most consumer playback hardware only has 2 tracks, 2 Channels? Quite a few have 5 now (Ears I mean). The argument about tracks is pointless. It's all about choice. Just because a computer offers you infinite tracks doesn't mean you have to use them. Plus it's a software design choice it has no affect on the sound. If you put your drums on one track or 10,000, the song is gonna sound the same. However it's often very convenient to be able to lay out your drums on individual tracks so you can apply affects/control volume etc. to them individually. It's all about choice. Heck, it's enabled people to get rid of the concept of a band alogether. You've got people sitting in rooms alone with racks of synths and sequencers tapping out little patterns and eschewing any kind of collaboration or real performance, people who couldn't actually PERFORM the songs if they had to. I think there is a common misconception that producing music with a computer is easy. Making music in general is easy, anyone can pick up a guitar practice for a week and make up a three cord song. Making good music is the difficult part - if Dale's computer does work by just pressing return he's lucky. If you're good at using an instrument/synth it doesn't imply you'll make good music, and vice versa. I don't have a problem with any of this personally, just as I don't have any problem with using computers and softsynths. I'm just playing devil's addvocate and extrapolating out the point to a further degree. Ditto. You post wasn't literal, was it? Besides, if you REALLY want to point to the villian for the sad state of music today, I would suggest pointing to the internet. There have always been tons of people making really BAD music, but before the internet it was so much more difficult to distribute it and share it with the world, so it was easier to avoid and ignore. Sure, there are more people making bad music now than ever before, but were it not for the internet we wouldn't have to hear so much of it. :) I say stop the internet! The 313 should use snail mail - imagine that... I think I'd be thankful for junk mail. -Mike This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
Re: (313) re: production
im booking my flight, get your cans ready, sweety :D fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no, that's what you should be doing slacker. - Original Message - From: /0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 1:24 PM Subject: Re: (313) re: production of boobies - Original Message - From: fab. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:08 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production before the advent of (cheap) digital photography we would write down all the parameters and make little sketches of the settings. now we just take snapshots with our cam phones :P f. - Original Message - From: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason Brunton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; list 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: (313) re: production On 1 Sep 2006, at 09:35, Jason Brunton wrote: Ss- you'll get Tom going again- remember he's one of the all important 0.1% minority aka The Underground :) Jason I don't think there's anything wrong with it Jason, Ken endlessly bangs on about the difference between digital and analogue - there are differences in the sound but the beef for me with a lot of the old stuff we use is that it's totally unpredictable, the sound changes based on a number of factors and it's not fun after getting some sleep to return to the kit and find it's changed... m -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006
Re: (313) re: production
i completely agree on the 16 track comment. etc etc Bit late to this one but I kinda figure that what Tom is taking about is the point of entry, and while it is a lot easier to get into doing electronic music now than it was say 20 years ago, the process of making music hasn't really changed at all. You may luck out a few times hitting the random button but that's about all that will happen. There's a massive difference between the Mona Lisa and a picture done by Paint By Numbers, there's no process for writing good tunes or being creative - there are things that will make it easier for you to work but it won't make you good, much the same as taking acid won't turn your every word/thought in something deep and meaningful, although Syd may argue with me hear :) I know when I work I try to convey the feeling and/or movement from myself into a track, other times I write little stories and try to give a narrative, other times I'm got myself in a state of mind and gone in and made music with Rich and Ken. On the number of tracks, sometimes I'd say you'll need that many simply so you can work in an nondestructive environment but more isn't always better and sometimes having limits is an interesting creative challenge, I often go back to using my W30 with just 8 seconds of sample time for example but having more tracks allows me to go back in and make changes which is of great value... m
RE: (313) re: production
I think all the dudes who know the technicals and still suck, should just become engineers and bring in a producer with creative ideas who didn't have to be concerned at all with the technicalities. That would sort all this out and then creative people would never be tempted to overproduce because they wouldn't know how to work the gear. Oh wait! That's how it used to work since like, forever. And crap was still the overwhelming outcome. Oh well. There's no hope for music. There never was. Idiots will win on sheer numbers. Give up. Die. K mwnb -Original Message- From: skept [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:18 PM To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: (313) re: production seems like some of you are blaming the bad computer generated music on producers having ridiculous amounts of vst effects and instruments which causes them to over use them and not even take the time to learn them and use them to their fullest capabilities. as opposed to a studio where one would spend a lot of money on one thing and learn every last little detail about it, produce the greatest sounds it could etc. first off i agree with that completely. but it's not like the people who have every vst effect and instrument in existence are buying them. so the problem with the bad computer generated music is software piracy not the computer itself. software is expensive just like hardware (maybe not completely comparable price ranges). if people bought every piece of software they use i am assuming they would devote a lot more time to mastering it and would have less distractions from other toys causing better computer music to be produced.
Re: (313) re: production
VERY good point. when i drop $1k on a piece of gear, i get into it. plugins are like oh, this doesn't work, i'm bored with it, let's try the next one. plugins are wonderful things, capable of huge transformations barely available to even the most high-end gear a few years ago. but there's an over-reliance on them and the fact that they're so widely distributed as cracks is a big issue. musicians can all easily access the ultimately similar-sounding, overused loops and effects without figuring out how to make them do something unique that speaks of their own perspective and experience. and now people without much trouble, can access the music for free, at random, for a few seconds or a few minutes. so let's extend this argument one further - if people don't care as much about spoils that are not hard-won, why should anyone truly care about music? (take this with a grain of salt and bear in mind the devil's-advocate nature of the question and hypothesis) d. -- Original Message -- From: skept [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:17:34 -0400 seems like some of you are blaming the bad computer generated music on producers having ridiculous amounts of vst effects and instruments which causes them to over use them and not even take the time to learn them and use them to their fullest capabilities. as opposed to a studio where one would spend a lot of money on one thing and learn every last little detail about it, produce the greatest sounds it could etc. first off i agree with that completely. but it's not like the people who have every vst effect and instrument in existence are buying them. so the problem with the bad computer generated music is software piracy not the computer itself. software is expensive just like hardware (maybe not completely comparable price ranges). if people bought every piece of software they use i am assuming they would devote a lot more time to mastering it and would have less distractions from other toys causing better computer music to be produced. Sent via the WebMail system at chthonicstreams.com
