Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
the automobile is the most hideous acoustical environment. the bass people hear is the bunching up of sound nodes which can't escape the small space- especially if you use the trunk as a speaker cabinet - thanx.H.A.L. Judging by your site http://users.bigpond.com/dadebonair/ Debonair, it looks like you quite enjoy your car, especially the back seat ;p out. dave. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
Last one from me today, I promise... dn == darw_n [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: dn Exactly, thus making it very unique music in the modern art dn world. The producers aren't aware (well, usually not, I dn believe Oliver Ho actually says he tries to create toneshifts dn audibly, assuming that was really him I was talking to!) of dn this effect because no one has really yet tried to examine and dn define this art on a more scientific level, the producers are dn generally sitting around making something they think sounds dn good, often never becoming intellectually involved in their dn own art, for good or for bad. Well, _why_ does it sound good, dn and _why_ is utter repeatition often tear jerking to some? dn Also, the basic appeal I said above resides in the listener dn and the artist as he is being the listener too, NOT a creater dn in it's definition being one who is in total control with a dn completed image as to his/her goal. I am willing to bet that dn when Beyer makes a track he is more listening than creating, dn he is toneshifting his own tracks while in the studio... I wouldn't be so sure. Considering that the foundations of the modern musical avant-garde were built on various composers' inquiries into the effects of repetition and minimalism (Steve Reich, Iannis Xennakis, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Terry Riley, LaMonte Young, Philip Glass), and given that most of the folks who've been making techno for a few years have probably thought pretty hard about what they're doing (you have to, to stay interested enough to keep doing it), I don't think it's at all safe to assume that the producers are ignorant of the possible effects of their music. In underground dance music, where a very large percentage of the producers are also DJs, this is doubly true. If I understand what you mean by toneshifting, DJs like Claude Young have purposefully been using flanging, phasing, EQ tricks, and whatnot to shape and bring out the hidden music within minimal techno for years. Art is not science, and while most arts have at least a partially scientific / mathematical foundation, none of them can be _defined_ scientifically. Even the second- and third-order effects generally can't be defined, and I don't think it will be possible to do so until we have a complete theory of cognitive science and psychology, which is still a long ways off. In addition, to state the producers are generally sitting around making something they think sounds good, often never becoming intellectually involved in their own art sounds pretty arrogant from where I sit. I think most of them have had to think pretty hard about what they're doing, even if they can't (or won't) articulate the results of that process. If you're not following a rote formula (and sometimes even if you are, if you're doing it well), making music is really hard. You _have_ to think about what you're doing, even if it's not on some highfalutin theoretical level. Finally, I don't think I've _ever_ met an artist who can, godlike, take an idea and turn it into a finished work without the idea being destructively altered at least a little along the way. Stockhausen, maybe, but Stockhausen is a genius and comes from a completely different tradition than anyone you and I are likely to hear on a pair of 1200s / behind a 909. Making art puts you in this incredibly bizarre position, where the act of creation alters the idea you're attempting to make manifest. Creators are never completely in control. Forrest . . . the self-reflecting image of a narcotized mind . . . ozymandias G desiderata [EMAIL PROTECTED] desperate, deathless (415)558-9064http://www.aoaioxxysz.com/ ::AOAIOXXYSZ::
Intention (was Re: some toneshifting tracks...)
dn == darw_n [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: dn I am willing to bet that dn when Beyer makes a track he is more listening than creating, dn he is toneshifting his own tracks while in the studio... on 9/28/00 8:59 PM, ozymandias G desiderata at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think most of them have had to think pretty hard about what they're doing, even if they can't (or won't) articulate the results of that process. If you're not following a rote formula (and sometimes even if you are, if you're doing it well), making music is really hard. You _have_ to think about what you're doing, even if it's not on some highfalutin theoretical level. True, but I believe there are a lot of producers out there (experienced and not so experienced) who are operating on gut feeling and instinct. There's a certain leap of faith and logic that allows uninformed but passionate people to make strong art (Basquiat?). It's the old if it kick, it kick instinct. You cannot deny or minimize the desire of 313 creators to make sh*t happen on the floor (Detroit Grand Pubahs?). Finally, I don't think I've _ever_ met an artist who can, godlike, take an idea and turn it into a finished work without the idea being destructively altered at least a little along the way. Stockhausen, maybe, but Stockhausen is a genius and comes from a completely different tradition than anyone you and I are likely to hear on a pair of 1200s / behind a 909. I think you might be giving KS a little too much credit (certainly godlike is a little strong). I imagine that, when Stockhausen was in the thick of creating, he was exercising a passion that obfuscated his ability to understand how listeners might react to his music. Hindsight alone tells us what the transforming and significant artistic statements are. Everything else is stuff I'm digging right now... -- There4IM
Re: Intention (was Re: some toneshifting tracks...)
im == [EMAIL PROTECTED] com [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: im dn == darw_n [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: dn I am willing to bet that when Beyer makes a track he is more dn listening than creating, he is toneshifting his own tracks dn while in the studio... I think most of them have had to think pretty hard about what they're doing, even if they can't (or won't) articulate the results of that process. If you're not following a rote formula (and sometimes even if you are, if you're doing it well), making music is really hard. You _have_ to think about what you're doing, even if it's not on some highfalutin theoretical level. im True, but I believe there are a lot of producers out there im (experienced and not so experienced) who are operating on gut im feeling and instinct. There's a certain leap of faith and im logic that allows uninformed but passionate people to make im strong art (Basquiat?). It's the old if it kick, it kick im instinct. You cannot deny or minimize the desire of 313 im creators to make sh*t happen on the floor (Detroit Grand im Pubahs?). Hell no, and I certainly wouldn't want to try! I'm not going to argue that techno as a genre is filled with self- consciously avant-garde, Nietzschean creators who must consider the implications of all their actions before they cast the first sequence upon the digital void. As a rule, I think we're predisposed to sitting in front of our computers and twiddling knobs and seeing what happens if we crank up the compressor a little bit. Maybe we drool sometimes. Most of the time we swear. In my admittedly limited experience, about 9/10s of making techno involves twiddling and tweaking and about 1/10 of the process is coming up with the original idea for a track. It's also undeniable that many techno creators are almost painfully loyal to their formulae -- once they get a sound they like, they don't want to mess with it. At the same time, the only way the music can progress is if artists sit down periodically and say, What's working for me in these tracks? What's not? Why did everyone like that one track so much? Why do I keep making tracks that sound like this? What am I trying to do here, really? Maybe they aren't articulating it that cleanly, but that's the process that's going on under the skin. And I would contend that the more minimal the artist, the more they think about this. I would argue, in fact, that minimal music will only work if the artist is thinking _especially_ hard about what they're doing. There's not enough there there to obfuscate your intentions. To recast what I'm saying in terms resembling darwin's original argument, I think most of us who have been around for a while are aware that toneshifting exists. I know that most of my peak moments at raves were centered around hearing things in the music that aren't there (in fact, the first time I noticed that effect was at a Psychic TV show, long before I knowingly heard any techno). It's pretty hard for artists consciously to put that stuff in there (to do so they'd have to know how all our brains work, which is knowledge I'm unwilling to credit them with). But at the same time, if you've worked with loops for a while, you know how to use repetition to evoke those kinds of effects, and I'd at least suspect the people who make the most loop-happy tracks are trying, on a certain level, to mess with their listeners' heads in exactly that way. Finally, I don't think I've _ever_ met an artist who can, godlike, take an idea and turn it into a finished work without the idea being destructively altered at least a little along the way. Stockhausen, maybe, but Stockhausen is a genius and comes from a completely different tradition than anyone you and I are likely to hear on a pair of 1200s / behind a 909. im I think you might be giving KS a little too much credit im (certainly godlike is a little strong). I imagine that, im when Stockhausen was in the thick of creating, he was im exercising a passion that obfuscated his ability to understand im how listeners might react to his music. I'm not sure. If you believe what he says, works like _Hymnen_ were fully scored before he ever started splicing tape (and if you want to see something totally wild, get your hands on a Stockhausen practice score someday). He may not have had any idea of how it would affect his audience, but I do think he had a clear conception of what the work would sound like before he even started the formal compositional process, much less was able to hear what he was doing. Of course, he could be lying (and cynical me is predisposed to thinking that he's not averse to fudging the truth a little bit). I will say that reading the program notes while listening to one of of Stockhausen's more complex works is an incredibly enlightening and humbling experience. Especially because it's very hard to
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
darw_n wrote: But there is method behind my generalization and persuit of this effect, as I will state again, I feel that it is the entire premise and drive behind percussive techno (NOT jazzy techno). The reason percussive techno exists at such a powerful and popular level is that this effect is occuring with most people, whether realized or not. And I would hate to see percussive techno go down in the books as merely a interesting yet unimportant music and be done. I am concerned with the why and how in this new music, and the toneshift effect is, IMHO, the main reason behind it... the toneshift discussed here sounds _to me_ much like a side effect of some effect, like phasing, or delay that shift's the pitch upwars or downwards. also, this kind of effect can be achieved by time-stretching sounds, so that they will be faster (or slower) than they used to be without changing the pitch. ring modulation is also a nice way to achieve this kind of sounds. or chorus or.. / sakke -- work http://www.teraflops.com/ personal http://www.vip.fi/~sakke/
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
From: darw_n [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] some toneshifting tracks... Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:35:09 -0700 Go listen to Hawtin's Decks Effex whatever it's called CD -I lose respect for people who feign ignorance.- , and tracks 11 12 have some minor toneshift capability in the mid congas, particularly at track 12 time 28 seconds when the bass snaps back in (although it only lasts until good 'ol Ritchie does that awfully boring mix into 13)... -Perhaps the reason he does a boring mix, is so that he can get a reaction similar to the one you are getting at a different time. Also, another mix that goes from audible toneshifts (toneshifts that are actually there) to my version of projective toneshifts, track 7 into 8. On 7, that cute little Latin like piano (my favorite part on the whole CD) has actual shifting in it (minor/major), then the mix starts at 8, the piano drops and a girls chant thing starts. The toneshift really becomes noticeable after the first little feedback loop that Hawtin does (that weird sucky noise), and the girl chant come back in, and the chant is toneshifting (not really switching from minor to major, its just in your head) I think that people will generate their own toneshifting based on mood and personality, so to generalize it would be a detrement to the thinking behind it.- Just my 2 centavos Regards, Dennis _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
-I lose respect for people who feign ignorance.- sorry, Decks, Effects, and 909. I was merely adding a light hearted appraoch to a more serious matter, no offense intended... -Perhaps the reason he does a boring mix, is so that he can get a reaction similar to the one you are getting at a different time. Sorry again, that is in fact a decent mix, I should have left my opinion out in this case... I think that people will generate their own toneshifting based on mood and personality, so to generalize it would be a detrement to the thinking behind it.- Actually, your very right here, and I was perhaps premature and hasty in that post, in fact, I think it negatively effected my arguement for toneshifts... In other words, I should have never even have brought this up, but I was attempting to find a popular recording of the effect as I see it, but I am kicking myself now... But there is method behind my generalization and persuit of this effect, as I will state again, I feel that it is the entire premise and drive behind percussive techno (NOT jazzy techno). The reason percussive techno exists at such a powerful and popular level is that this effect is occuring with most people, whether realized or not. And I would hate to see percussive techno go down in the books as merely a interesting yet unimportant music and be done. I am concerned with the why and how in this new music, and the toneshift effect is, IMHO, the main reason behind it... So I contend, let us not sluff it off as some mundane and unimportant effect of the mind to be just assumed about. Yes, in it's basic premise, the effect in and of itself is almost text book, but it is this very basic thing in which a very basic music appeals so, and thus this legitimizes my search for a definition and deep undestanding along with qualifying repetion as indeed a new and vastly important achievement... And again, this is what Detroit was after in the beginning, a way to be free and away while never leaving the city, the toneshift is what became of that search... let us define... darw_n create, demonstrate, toneshift... http://www.mp3.com/darw_n http://www.sphereproductions.com/topic/Darwin.html http://www.mannequinodd.com
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
In a message dated 9/28/00 12:04:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that people will generate their own toneshifting based on mood and personality, so to generalize it would be a detrement to the thinking behind it. Is tone shift an acoustical term, or something invented for this thread? The way it's being used here sounds a bit arbitrary. When I was in a hisory of music theory class, we talked about some acoustical phenonmenon such as: listening to pop CD's on the car radio for EQ ing. The car speakers can't produce the the low bass tone people claim to hear. Yet people swear they're hearing the low bass tone. The psychoacoustical explanation was that people hear the overtones of the sound, then psychologically superimpose the fundamental of the overtone series (from previous hearings of what a bass or bass drum should sound like (from their past experience). When I was in school , I never heard of the term tone shift. But Hey!, I'm always willing to learn mediadrome
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
the automobile is the most hideous acoustical environment. the bass people hear is the bunching up of sound nodes which can't escape the small space- especially if you use the trunk as a speaker cabinet - thanx.H.A.L. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks... In a message dated 9/28/00 12:04:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that people will generate their own toneshifting based on mood and personality, so to generalize it would be a detrement to the thinking behind it. Is tone shift an acoustical term, or something invented for this thread? The way it's being used here sounds a bit arbitrary. When I was in a hisory of music theory class, we talked about some acoustical phenonmenon such as: listening to pop CD's on the car radio for EQ ing. The car speakers can't produce the the low bass tone people claim to hear. Yet people swear they're hearing the low bass tone. The psychoacoustical explanation was that people hear the overtones of the sound, then psychologically superimpose the fundamental of the overtone series (from previous hearings of what a bass or bass drum should sound like (from their past experience). When I was in school , I never heard of the term tone shift. But Hey!, I'm always willing to learn mediadrome - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
But there is method behind my generalization and persuit of this effect, as I will state again, I feel that it is the entire premise and drive behind percussive techno (NOT jazzy techno). The reason percussive techno exists at such a powerful and popular level is that this effect is occuring with most people, whether realized or not. And I would hate to see percussive techno go down in the books as merely a interesting yet unimportant music and be done. I am concerned with the why and how in this new music, and the toneshift effect is, IMHO, the main reason behind it... This all seems a bit suspect to me. Unless I've read you wrong this is an effect of which most of its producers aren't even aware. Yet you contend that this is the basic appeal of the music? I'm sceptical of attempts to reduce any music to one principal, and I'm especially wary of it with regards to techno. Such reductionism surely hastens on a music's death - in trying to justify a particular aesthetic formula you'll end up making formulaic music. Sure, the minimalism might appeal, or the politics might appeal, but take the *general* appeal as your starting point, not your theory. And again, this is what Detroit was after in the beginning, a way to be free and away while never leaving the city, the toneshift is what became of that search... Bollocks. Detroit was after a great time with some great music. (And I reckon this should come before toneshifting, afro-futurism, neo tribalism or anything else.) This idea of there being an essential nature to the music you happen to like is always going to narrow your vision. Of course, the theory often does play a part in the appeal (witness Drexciya, Mills etc) and if that's what inspires you, fair enough. I just think it's important to remember it just plays a *part*, you shouldn't wear it as goggles to view the world with, if you catch my drift. Basically the music should be your starting point rather than any of its components. Listen before you think! IMO, of course ;) Jonny.
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
DARW_n : are you trying to do a charles with this 'toneshifting' theory? is this a pet project, or uni thing! please send me detailed info on this theory one day, and i'll print it out, however long it is. out. bond - Original Message - From: Jonny McIntosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks... But there is method behind my generalization and persuit of this effect, as I will state again, I feel that it is the entire premise and drive behind percussive techno (NOT jazzy techno). The reason percussive techno exists at such a powerful and popular level is that this effect is occuring with most people, whether realized or not. And I would hate to see percussive techno go down in the books as merely a interesting yet unimportant music and be done. I am concerned with the why and how in this new music, and the toneshift effect is, IMHO, the main reason behind it... This all seems a bit suspect to me. Unless I've read you wrong this is an effect of which most of its producers aren't even aware. Yet you contend that this is the basic appeal of the music? I'm sceptical of attempts to reduce any music to one principal, and I'm especially wary of it with regards to techno. Such reductionism surely hastens on a music's death - in trying to justify a particular aesthetic formula you'll end up making formulaic music. Sure, the minimalism might appeal, or the politics might appeal, but take the *general* appeal as your starting point, not your theory. And again, this is what Detroit was after in the beginning, a way to be free and away while never leaving the city, the toneshift is what became of that search... Bollocks. Detroit was after a great time with some great music. (And I reckon this should come before toneshifting, afro-futurism, neo tribalism or anything else.) This idea of there being an essential nature to the music you happen to like is always going to narrow your vision. Of course, the theory often does play a part in the appeal (witness Drexciya, Mills etc) and if that's what inspires you, fair enough. I just think it's important to remember it just plays a *part*, you shouldn't wear it as goggles to view the world with, if you catch my drift. Basically the music should be your starting point rather than any of its components. Listen before you think! IMO, of course ;) Jonny. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] some toneshifting tracks...
This all seems a bit suspect to me. Unless I've read you wrong this is an effect of which most of its producers aren't even aware. Yet you contend that this is the basic appeal of the music? Exactly, thus making it very unique music in the modern art world. The producers aren't aware (well, usually not, I believe Oliver Ho actually says he tries to create toneshifts audibly, assuming that was really him I was talking to!) of this effect because no one has really yet tried to examine and define this art on a more scientific level, the producers are generally sitting around making something they think sounds good, often never becoming intellectually involved in their own art, for good or for bad. Well, _why_ does it sound good, and _why_ is utter repeatition often tear jerking to some? Also, the basic appeal I said above resides in the listener and the artist as he is being the listener too, NOT a creater in it's definition being one who is in total control with a completed image as to his/her goal. I am willing to bet that when Beyer makes a track he is more listening than creating, he is toneshifting his own tracks while in the studio... I'm sceptical of attempts to reduce any music to one principal, and I'm especially wary of it with regards to techno. Such reductionism surely hastens on a music's death - in trying to justify a particular aesthetic formula you'll end up making formulaic music. yes, very good point... But there is danger in just letting something be, for there is often a world of knowledge in which a world of newness can derive from. What if, I contend, a new school in art is created based completely around toneshifts, and it is found that this can be achieved in words and vision? What if this turns out that it can move into anything, and the school creates what is know as emotionshifting? Big thoughts yes, but to ignore these possibilies in the protection of what is now is certainly ill-progressive, IMHO... Bollocks. Detroit was after a great time with some great music. OK, I am not from Detroit, I am simply referring to Kevin Saunderson's (or Juan Atkin's, I have to go look again) words. But I think rave and all techno gained popularity for deep-seeded sociological reasons, aside from simply have a good time, there is some real escapist mentality that permiates all of this, and that shouldn't be discarded... I just think it's important to remember it just plays a *part*, you shouldn't wear it as goggles to view the world with, if you catch my drift. here here!!! Good point indeed... darw_n create, demonstrate, toneshift... http://www.mp3.com/darw_n http://www.sphereproductions.com/topic/Darwin.html http://www.mannequinodd.com
some toneshifting tracks...
Go listen to Hawtin's Decks Effex whatever it's called CD, and tracks 11 12 have some minor toneshift capability in the mid congas, particularly at track 12 time 28 seconds when the bass snaps back in (although it only lasts until good 'ol Ritchie does that awfully boring mix into 13)... Also, another mix that goes from audible toneshifts (toneshifts that are actually there) to my version of projective toneshifts, track 7 into 8. On 7, that cute little Latin like piano (my favorite part on the whole CD) has actual shifting in it (minor/major), then the mix starts at 8, the piano drops and a girls chant thing starts. The toneshift really becomes noticeable after the first little feedback loop that Hawtin does (that weird sucky noise), and the girl chant come back in, and the chant is toneshifting (not really switching from minor to major, its just in your head) Now this second one (7-8) is a common effect I know, where the ear is used to hearing something and when that something disappears, the ear seems to still hear it, I just wanted to point that out as to its general sound in my head... The first mix I talk of is a real toneshift, BUT it's really faint, and perhaps even impossible to hear for I could have trained myself to easily hear it. There are much better examples, but I choose to point this out because everyone and there mom has this CD... darw_n create, demonstrate, toneshift... http://www.mp3.com/darw_n http://www.sphereproductions.com/topic/Darwin.html http://www.mannequinodd.com
