From: carl@ecr.mu.oz.au (Carl_Ivan BREWER)
Subject: Sequencers, guitars etc
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:13:16 GMT


ok, this is a long one,  skip it if you're sick of my opinions !

From: pet@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (paul eng-yi tan)

carl@ecr.mu.oz.au (Carl_Ivan BREWER) writes:
>opps, no *I* could not,  I've only been playing the humble bass for 2 years..
>still only a learner I'm afraid.  But I could get a sampler to duplicate
>a lot of the so called "modern"  music reasonably convincingly inside
>6 months, with a big budget, especially if it was dance music.  It has it's
>place,  but it's not exactly hard to create is it ...

>I seriously doubt that. Firstly, sampling well is a skill which takes time
>and practice. Then, looping and integrating the samples into the song is
>another painstaking, often trial-and-error process. Composition of the
>overall sound is not as easy as it seems to you. I wonder, have you ever
>*tried* to create a dance track?

in all honesty, no.  I have worked in at metropolis a bit,  but I have never
actually used a sequencer.

>Anyone can write a "dance" song. Anyone can write a mainstream rock song.
>But whether it's good, original, and interesting to fans of the genre,
>that's the big point.

too true :)

>How long does an audio-engineering course take again ?

>What??? Are you implying that any audio engineer could make hit dance music???
>I think not. 

Kylie Minugue may agree with you !

>I doubt you could duplicate a lot of the sounds and samples and in many
>cases the effects and techniques which went into the production.

yeah, *I* probably couldn't, I've got no experience with a sequencer, and I'm
not a studio engineer,  just a humble bass player

From: pet@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (paul eng-yi tan)

carl@ecr.mu.oz.au (Carl_Ivan BREWER) writes:
>Unfortunatly I may have made my point unclear.  It is far far easier 
>to sample, cut and paste sounds today with modern equipment than it
>was in the past when it involved splicing magnetic tape (ever done it?
>it's bloody hard to get right, and if you fuck up, no easy restart)

>That doesn't mean it gets easier to produce leading-edge music. If you
>just use your sequencer to do stuff that could have been done in the 50s,
>then you're vastly underusing its potential. To create state-of-the-art
>music now, you must be just as skilful at using modern technology as
>the 50s people were at using their technology. There's no way that most
>of today's electronic music could have been done in the 50s. As the technology
>has improved, so has the quality of the music and the expectations of both
>public and academia.

Hmm,  I'm not a big fan of your use of the word quality here.  IMHO some of
the best quality music is classical, and that if anything, the expectations
of the mythical public have diminished in terms of their musical sophistication,
compare Beethoven and Bach to Sting and Michael Jackson??  Anyway, I digress...

I think you would agree however, that while it is just as hard to create 
leading edge stuff today, it's far far easier to make mediocre stuff too (forgive
my spelling !).  Would Minogue have got so far in the 50's ?`

>"plastic" drums? You of all people should realize that a drum machine
>contains silicon chips and digital circuits.

plastic as in artificial, not as in actual thermoplastic polymers!!

>The only reason that you don't understand our music is because you
>don't like it  

>Oh, so *that's* why you don't understand dance/electronic music!
>I forgive you all your remarks then :)
>Paul

thanks :)

From: gifford@krang.vis.citri.edu.au (Jonathan Gifford)

>Back to music - would you rather listen to a technically perfect (ie:
>*highly* skilled) piano recital, or a less highly skilled piece of
>improvisation? I'd value the latter, because it shows that the player
>is exhibiting a skill I find more valuable. This is not meant to
>suggest that concert pianists are all automatons, btw.

both, depending on my mood.  But when I listen to live music, I want it
live, and I prefer it to have some improvising, or I'd just buy the 
concert video and listen to the CD.

>or alternativly, they're a cheap shortcut to making money?

>Sure, but thats got nothing to do with what instruments they're
>playing. Can you say "Milli Vanilli"? How about Sid's bass playing?
>How about Ringos drumming? How about...

I understand your point here Jon, but it basically agrees with mine,
I am not defending bad playing of instruments (hey, listen to my bass
one day to make Sid sound good !!) What I am saying is that it is easier
to make music now, with less instrumental ability.  Sure bad musicians are
not a new thing, but it's easier to cover for them today than 10 years ago
(as in Milli Vanilli, Betty Boo etc).  And my funadamental point is that 
(IMHO) I have more respect for a good guitar band than a synth band, because
it's a damn site harder to get a guitar to do what you want than to get a synth
to.  

From: cde@mulka (Colin Entwisle)

: Unfortunatly I may have made my point unclear.  It is far far easier 
: to sample, cut and paste sounds today with modern equipment than it
: was in the past when it involved splicing magnetic tape (ever done it?
: it's bloody hard to get right, and if you fuck up, no easy restart)

	Yes.
>	And the standard approach is to run off copys of the
>desired bits for mixing from the master to another tape which
>is then cut and taped.  It is quite easy to cover for "fuck ups"
>by recopying the desired bit.  Or better yet by anticipating where
>problems may occur and doing a few tapes of that bit.
>	Now in theory anyone could do this.  But in practise only
>experienced and talented people do much of it to much sucess;  which
>is exactly the same as the modern sample and sequence methods.

or anyone with access to a 4/16/24/48 track recorder or 2 :)
and a modicum of skill with using the thing (yes, I *can* use a 
48 track, it's not difficult)

>	Do you think artists are anyless talented because they
>use paint brushes rather than the clumsy sticks their predicessors
>used.

not at all.  But I'd rather listen to guitars than synths.  That's
just my personal preference of course!  

>	The new equipment allows for new possibiliites - it still
>requires talent, care, and effort.

: 
: I have *never* said that it's easy to get a sequencer to "a good groove",
: but it's a damn site easier than getting a drummer, bass player,
: one or 2 (or more) guitarists etc to synchronise, there are so many more
: variables, called human beings, to control.  Also, human timing is
: never perfect, which is why human drummers sound so much warmer than
: plastic drums.  It's the little errors that give the music its character
: (IMHO, of course)

>	Oh dear.
>	It takes us (me and four others) prox 30mins to do a semi reasonable
>band track using instruments.  And about 10 times that to do it on computer.
>I don't think the computer is a time saver - it just allows for extra things.
>eg very late in the day changes of mind.  This extra power costs you in effort
>and time.
>	Have a good listen to the add on telly which uses "I'm too sexy"
>to see how computers can be out of time.
>	Have a listen to Beastie Boys to get the idea of how human warmth
>and sequencing can be combined.

is that a good example?  I would have said someone like Pink Floyd on their
Momentary Lapse of Reason, or U2 in "real thing".  I'm not saying that it's 
not possible to blend the two, and get damn good sound, because of course 
it is possible.  But I have more respect for the guitarist than the programmer.
And I can't stand drum machines!

>	But it is hard as hell to do.  Thats why sequencing is so hard.
>If you set up a band - a few little variables (mistakes etc) easly turn
>a fairly boring structure into something good.  However on computer you
>have just a perfect boring structure - which is not easily converted to
>the afore mentioned.

true, and unfortunatly JJJ plays that stuff all the time :)  I have heard good
sequenced music, but it sure isn't dance music !


: 
: I see sequenced music as the automatic transmission of music,  but 
: I've got much more respect for the driver who can change gears ...
: 
: 

>	I hope you still eat with your hands, and
>haven't sucumbed to the "automatic transmission" of eating
>the knife and fork.

Hey, I eat the live cow mate, clip it's horns and wipe its' arse :)


: >
: >	I think it probably ranks up there with the 
: >		"my kid cold painted that"
: >	response to a non-photographic peice of art.
: 
: yeah, but could he explain it?
: 
: ob quote, Rick from the Young Ones:
: 
: The only reason that you don't understand our music is because you
: don't like it 
: 

>	oh
>	did you read this while typing it
>	if not have a look now.

Yes,  I wrote it as it stands,  think about it ...

>	stop bagging new instruments and methods.

I'll bag whatever I want to thankyou very much

>	I guess you used to tell drummer jokes before
>you had sequencers to laugh at.

what is the range of a Bass guitar ??

about 20 metres ...


I don't laugh at sequencers,  I just think that they are often used as shortcuts
to making crappy music,  and unfortunatly, rather than admit that they often do
sound crappy, dull and monotonous, some people jump up screaming that I'm a 
neanderthal who just doesn't like the "new music".  Bad guitar bands don't get 
airplay (I hope!) but unfortunatly, bad sequencer bands do, just because they're
sequencer bands.  

There, that's my 2c worth.  Sorry for the long post ...


 Annal  Natrach, Usthvah Spethed,         carl@ecr.mu.oz.au (IRC: Bleve)
 Dochoel Dienve                           carl@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au
					  carl@montebello.ecom.unimelb.EDU.AU
 Merlin, where are you?  Call your dragon, to weave a mist...
Newsgroups: aus.music