E Nation Online :: gr00veboards ::

ELECTRONIC MUSIC NATION
It is currently Jun 26 2019 12:47 pm

All times are UTC-04:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Interesting article...
PostPosted: Sep 26 2006 02:51 pm 
Offline
Vestax
Vestax

Joined: Oct 21 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 931
Location: Jacksonville, FL
http://www.bzangygroink.co.uk/wordpress ... -benjamin/


1. Even if we accept that a computer can be programmed to perform any task, it would be foolish to assume that a computer will always be the best tool to perform every task.

2. We are encouraged to think that computers provide the ideal level playing field; that they are the ultimate transparent medium, and the perfect blank page. This is completely, utterly wrong. In fact, the reverse is true.

3. ‘Fidelity’ is a red herring in sound recording. A recording medium only ever works tolerably well within certain parameters. You never get back exactly what you put in. This applies to digital and analogue recording alike.

4a. To talk in terms of ‘better’ or ‘worse’ sound quality entails a category mistake. The clue is in the question: there are qualitative *differences* between sounds. There is no objective measure of sound quality. (The efficiency of a recording device can be measured, in terms of frequency response, dynamic range and so on, but that’s not the same thing.)

4b. While there are some interesting differences between analogue and digital recording media, these are not all that significant. A much more striking difference is between a standalone digital recorder and a computer-based DAW.

5. A process that requires three decisions to be made will be completed more quickly than a process that requires thirty decisions to be made. A process that requires three hundred decisions to be made may never be completed. Limiting the number of decisions that has to be made can therefore be an effective strategy for increasing productivity (which is defined as the frequency with which one finishes things).

6. Computer software is designed according to what successive programmers have assumed is a reasonable or rational way of working.
Their assumptions may have been wrong.

7. Computers are a powerful force for rationalisation. Sometimes (e.g. when editing recordings) this is useful. In other circumstances, it may not be. Historically, interesting artistic results have been produced by people who were using technology The Wrong Way. People working exclusively with computers have relatively little opportunity to do this.
(Source: Aural Spells)

I think Paul raises points that every producer, engineer and recording musician needs to consider very carefully. I’m a gadget freak: if it’s shiny and new and perhaps bleeps a bit, I’ll start salivating until I can get my fat paws on it. I often dream about synthesizers I want to buy. Yep.

But how much new musical tech actually helps us to make music?

I don’t write sitting at the computer, I write songs with my acoustic guitar or perhaps one of my old synths. I’ve written a lot of songs just singing to myself on buses or trains. I think I’ve avoided writing at the computer because it engages the wrong parts of my brain. When I’m songwriting, I don’t want to think about bars and beats or parameter values. I don’t want to be staring at a virtual piano roll as it scrolls along, looking at my song rather than listening to it. And, yep, I can turn the screen off. For the five seconds until I need to access or change something.

On the other hand, I do write with the Monomachine. It’s fun, quick and it sounds really, really good. I can bash a lumpy idea into a highly arranged track very quickly and simply. So, it’s not tech that I’m against, the Monomachine is as tech as it gets. I’m just against the use of inappropriate technology.

In our lust for the new computer, the new plugin, the latest software upgrade we can easily lose sight of the reason for all this stuff: to make music. And, as Paul says above, the bigger your palette, the more time you’ll spend choosing which colour to use. I do believe that art thrives on limits. If you can’t write a great pop song on a four track cassette recorder, having 128 tracks of 96KHz, 24-bit audio + a gazillion softsynths won’t get you any closer.

But there’s another trap musicians fall into, especially those under thirty. They simply invert hi-tech lust into lo-fi lust. For these lost souls, nothing can be good unless it’s got a valve in it, analogue circuitry or was made out of Soviet spaceship spare parts. This is just as much of a musical cul-de-sac as worshipping everything new. It’s the old story of the Golden Age Myth: some people put it in the past (curved mixer faders, glowing tubes), some people (especially ex-Marxists like me) put it in the future. I grew up using a lot of that “vintage” gear when it was brand-new. Trust me, most of it was hopeless, noisy shit we were glad to see the back of. Both the hi-tech and the lo-fi approaches fetishise the production of music, they displace making music with buying musical gear.

The key is appropriate tech, not in the exact sense that Schumacher used the phrase but slightly related, I guess. I’m now in a process where I’m examining what I use to make music from both rational and emotional perspectives. It took the shock of using the Monomachine to spark this realisation, a piece of new hi-tech that plays and feels like old-tech. In some ways, I wish I could just carry on using computers for everything. After all, it’s easy to do everything in the one program, use only softsynths, plugins, mix and master in one package.

I’m just not sure any more if it sounds good, that’s all. Actually, scratch that. I think I should say:

If it sounds wrong, it is wrong.

Time to start listening with my ears again and give my eyes (and mouse) a rest.

_________________
www.beatport.com/sample+records


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sep 27 2006 04:01 pm 
Offline
Vestax
Vestax

Joined: Oct 21 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 931
Location: Jacksonville, FL
come on people...that shit is deep.

_________________
www.beatport.com/sample+records


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Nov 17 2006 09:52 am 
Offline
Stanton
Stanton

Joined: Mar 10 2006 04:03 pm
Posts: 374
Location: Atlanta
seriously, this guys got some really valid points. It's what I needed to read before aproaching software again, while integrating hardware.
I love the part about how he said that he dreams about new gear, I do that also. I'll be in a store with some sick little pocket sized analog machine with lots of knobs and lights! Then you wake up, and wish that they would make the toy that you were just dreaming about.
Pretty damn good article bro.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Nov 17 2006 02:28 pm 
Offline
Vestax
Vestax

Joined: Oct 21 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 931
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Thanks man!....bout time somebody rekanized!

_________________
www.beatport.com/sample+records


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Dec 17 2009 01:37 pm 
Offline
newskool
newskool

Joined: Apr 27 2007 12:19 pm
Posts: 81
Location: SRQ
Quote:
seriously, this guys got some really valid points. It's what I needed to read before aproaching software again, while integrating hardware.
I love the part about how he said that he dreams about new gear, I do that also. I'll be in a store with some sick little pocket sized analog machine with lots of knobs and lights! Then you wake up, and wish that they would make the toy that you were just dreaming about.
Pretty damn good article bro.




I like it >>> gets u thinkin u know. . . start to see another side to things i have not paid much attention too. I work on songs consistanly eveyday. . .with or without much real tought about the actual song or its structures. making beats on everything from 307, FL, Acid, Cakewalk, 909, 305 ect. . .recording what i like and saving it on a Hard drive -carfully organized for later use. I use a healthy amount of software and hardware but still find myself engaged in alot of the point in your post. I think to be sucessful at music u have to develope and maintain a style. . . I myself believe i am very experimental and have a need and want to develope and undertand all the many different sounds and genres and effects that can be achieved by pushing all my eqpt beyond it normal capabilitys or general use.

does anyone agree with 4b??? That is some crap -in my opion. ... as i have had a recent personal experience with digital to analog sound on one of my tracks that has changed my view. Iif u are a true sound engineer and u know your shit u will say that their is a drastic difference. We produced a track and released it digially - i personally played it out 100's of times as mp3/ wav over the course of a year -many sounds sytems. The digial file does not hold a candle to the vinyl press we just released. Night and Day! The vinyl is so much more rich, full, thicker with almost another dimension feel to it than the digital. FUnny is we sent the same mp3 we were using to make the vinyl and had no other master changes done before press.

But 5 and 6 are my favorite as they are the most True to me! - Some songs take 5-6 months while just using the programs while if i remake the song thru hardware i can finish it instead of keep making changes or processing ideas -

anyway ->> Good STuff and thanks for posting

_________________
"A minute of perfection was worth the effort!"

Buy VINYL, CD, MP3, WAV from this artist @
www.TrueSkoolMusic.com


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC-04:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited