Part of the decision for me is whether most people already have several CDs that sound like it. Being that I'm not a hot woman, my only chance is if I make music that's different, that folks can't get unless they come to me. I'm very very interested in the science of perception, and how people perceive order in sound, and so the other part of the decision for me is that I just find it more interesting to make music that's tonally complex.
I also like the process of expectation and disappointment. Get a good booty-shakin groove going, then let it fall apart. Bring it back in, let it fall apart again. Bring it back in again, at which point no one "trusts" the groove to keep going, but at the crucial moment, add more instruments and modulate and make the groove stronger as a pleasant surprise. They'll respond much more than if you just looped the groove over and over, and not know why. The effect is even stronger in that most people have no vocabulary to describe what just happened.
The best explanation I know of emotional response is Leonard B. Meyer in 'Emotion and Meaning in Music'. It's an abstract, esoteric book, but one point he makes is essential: emotional response comes from tendencies being inhibited. If a smoker reaches into his pocket for a cigarette and pulls one out and lights it, he does so with very little awareness of what he's doing. He might not even remember later whether he had a cigarette. If, however, he reaches into his pocket and finds an empty pack, he is immediately aware of the action and has an emotional response.
Form isn't something for chin-strokers, it has a real visceral effect that you should study if you want to move people with music. It's not *that* removed from the experience.
-Chuckk
On 4/7/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Well first off, when I say it's easy, I don't mean it's going to write your tracks or patterns for you. It will just allow you to to stepsequence any synth parameter, and build patterns quick. What you do with that stuff is up to you. It doesn't make beats for you or anything...
Second, I'm a socialist, and I think the "means of production" should be available to everyone. The tools already exist if you buy them, so I want to make some free software, as in "free pizza" and "free beer" that can do it. Also, I think it would be nice to have free tools to teach with.
So you are right, cost IS the reason to simulate an analog synth. No way a working guy like me can afford an analog synth and the gear to record it right, besides it won't fit in my tiny studio apartment.
Finally, I think academic researchers can worry about how to "try out new techniques and create new and original sounds". I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project. When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be. Sorry if that doesn't match some bourgeois "high art" concept and sounds like "entertainment" to everyone... I do other music that is more "serious" though, I say everything has its place.
~David
Peter Worth wrote:
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- "It is not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters." -Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"