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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ..
^95% of techno i've heard had nothing to do with dancefloor..what sort of a
sleeve you've pulled out this joke from?
unless you meant
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
here is the guide regarding tweaking xp some of you are interested in:
http://majorgeeks.com/page.php?id=12
hopefully you guys can minimize your unnecessary services and maximize
your performance... sorry... i couldn't help myself.
i can't really answer any questions regarding this process but
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
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
:[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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
