David and all:
One little comment and everyone gets talking:)
I have always been an experimenter, if you listen to my frictional record;)
computers are also great for using as sequencers...I've sworn by them
for years for that very purpose. David makes a great point. Being an
outsider, I don't really make 'real detroit techno' all the time...so
for me doing what i do is very influenced by tha D...but I don't ask
questions like "what would Juan use to make this sound?"
Anyhow, I really love making music any way I can, and having four
computers in my studio makes me a geek (LOL). The hardware, the
samplers, etc. make me feel more alive to some extent. I have this
connection to the toys I use, and it makes me very excited to use/own
them. That feeling must be translated into the music, mainly because
I feel like that part has been lost in this music.
We make connections not with patchbays, cables, or
interfaces...the best musicians connect with our energy and our
hearts.
On 2/27/10, David Powers <[email protected]> wrote:
> To me, computers are good for two things:
> First of all, any track that uses FM synthesis, which means any track
> with a Yamaha DX-7 or related synths, uses a computer for some of the
> sound generation. A sampler is also a computer, and early house
> already used samples, though Detroit techno less so. So computers have
> always, in some way, been a part of house and techno.
>
> However, the sounds were indeed all mixed down in the analog realm,
> and I agree that can create a different feel to the music; it takes a
> lot of work to mix down your stuff on computers and get a similar
> feeling. However, I do believe it can be done!
>
> I think computers in music are great for 3 things:
>
> 1. Besides FM synthesis and sampling, computers are necessary for
> newer synthesis and signal processing techniques, such as granular
> synthesis, which require digital processing, and can sound really good
> when done well. "Traditional" 313 techno does not use these
> techniques, since they weren't commonly available when the sound was
> first created, but there is no reason they can't be incorporated into
> a Detroit sound. Also, FM synthesis seems to be fairly common in
> Detroit techno. Although "mnml" has resulted in a lot of stupid stuff,
> I do think it is nice that newer synthesis and DSP techniques have
> been accepted into house and techno, although they aren't often used
> in a creative, not to mention "musical", manner.
>
> 2. Making electronic music when you are poor... the cost of making
> electronic music via hardware is prohibitively expensive
> unfortunately. I would love to use gear but some
>
> 3. Creating musical forms and processes that would be too labor
> intensive to create by hand, such as generative and probability based
> structures. There is also possibility working with things like
> artificial neural networks and programs trained to respond to user
> input in unpredictable ways. This clearly isn't part of traditional
> Detroit techno, but again, I'd argue that you could apply such
> techniques to the Detroit sound and get extremely interesting results.
> In fact, I'd argue that anybody who wants to make "futuristic" sounds
> should really focus on this area, especially because you could control
> analog gear with these techniques and so still produce a very warm
> classic sound while doing some cutting edge things with the structure
> and musical content Just don't forget to keep it soulful and funky!
> ;-]
>
> Most people use computers for convenience I'd say, and I think it's
> kind of funny that people would use plugins to do traditional
> synthesis when they could afford proper analog gear. If I could afford
> gear, I'd probably record MIDI performances into a computer and use
> them to trigger both analog and digital sources, then mix down on
> analog gear.
>
> I will say, I have grown very tired of the work flows created in
> current digital software, so even though I'm using all digital, I've
> started to record my keyboard performances on MIDI a lot more, which
> makes it much easier to get that funky feel which can be a pain to
> create by hand in a digital environment. It's amazing how good even a
> digital plugin can sound when you actually use a human performance as
> the basis of the part instead of just a grid!
>
> I also spend a lot of time playing piano; it's extremely helpful to
> turn off the computer and spend time making music with an actual
> instrument that becomes a part of your body... There is a spiritual
> aspect to music that you simply can't experience if you don't
> participate in some type of physical music making.
>
>
> ~David
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:38 PM, kent williams <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > All hardware is The Detroit Way(tm), and one can't argue with results.
> > Virtually ('Virtually'?) every track that defines Detroit Techno and
> > House music was made with hardware synths and mixed down outside the
> > computer. As it happens, prior to roughly 1998, a computer was of
> > limited utility for anything other than MIDI sequencing.
> >
> > The sound of Detroit techno arose at least in part from the way
> > working with the hardware influences the aesthetic choices made. The
> > one measure drum loop is a limitation of Roland Drum Machines* so
> > Techno mostly involves one measure rhythm loops. Within that
> > limitation, producers soon used the tools available to them (volume
> > controls for individual sounds, sound parameters, write-mode real-time
> > step programming) to make something static come alive.
> >
> > I use a mix of hardware and software, and end up doing the mix in the
> > computer. That's just what I've evolved into using over the years. I
> > still have nearly every synth & drum machine I've ever bought, and got
> > my latest analog synth in 2008.
> >
> > That being said, I think it is very possible to make good music
> > without the hardware, and in fact many people who make tracks simply
> > can't afford a full-on hardware studio. Software synths are free to
> > cheap; a proper modern analog synth costs a minimum of $300-400, a
> > TR909 -- if you can find one -- is $1000 or more. A usable laptop is
> > $600, and sufficient software is free to cheap (or stolen).
> >
> > If you don't like how all-computer productions sound, you can spend
> > the multiple thousands of dollars to equip yourself with 'real' gear**
> > or you could learn to get the sound you want out of the computer. The
> > production techniques required for working in the computer are
> > different than working with outboard hardware.
> >
> > In the end it's always what your'e able to do with the gear more than
> > the gear itself. Whatever inspires you or feels comfortable should
> > your guide, not what anyone thinks that you 'should' be using.
> >
> > *You can use drum loops longer than one measure on Roland drum
> > machines, but it isn't the easiest or most natural way to work.
> >
> > **My rule of thumb about buying external gear -- if it's just a
> > computer on the inside, I'd rather save my money and use my computer.
> > A lot of external synths -- e.g. Nord, Elektron Machine Drum, Alesis
> > Micron -- are just computers in a fancy box. They may be useful for
> > many reasons, but they don't do anything your computer can't, at least
> > insofar as sound is concerned.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Kevin Kennedy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> As a side note, I have gone back to using hardware, and there will be
> >> results to post for everyone soon...
> >>
> >
>
--
fbk
sleepengineering/absoloop US
