From: gifford@krang.vis.citri.edu.au (Jonathan Gifford)
Subject: Re: Cut+Paste
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:05:06 GMT

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)
>
>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)

I don't think it is the "errors" that make music interesting, I'd say
it is the fact that people pick up on the mood of other band members
and blend that into the overall sound that makes each *performance*
unique. I think that the creative use of sequencers and samplers is in
a lot of ways more difficult to achieve than being part of a band in
which everyone has their own individualities, because if only one
person is doing the techno-wiz job they have to expand their abilities
to try to match the collective abilities of a whole band. If they
don't the music can tend to be boring and repetitive. This problem
exists in "real" bands too of course - if you only have one creative
person in your band, it's going to sound like shit after a while, when
the ideas run out. At least if you have a band full of creative
interested people, each member can concentrate on their particular
ability.

I also can't help thinking that many of the earlier "technology" bands
(that I have heard) had an underlying philosophy of alienation and
despair anyway, so it is no wonder the music was "dead" from a
traditional perspective - this is just what they wanted to achieve,
perhaps.

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

Do you have any respect for current formula one drivers? Maybe you
should check out a F1 ferrari or lotus and wonder why the gear lever
has been replaced by buttons on the steering wheel. Semiauto gearboxes
are becoming *very* common... Then again, you probably drive a car
that you can manually control the ignition advance, don't you? My view
is that these things (samplers, sequencers, auto-boxes) take some of
the drudgery away, and allow you to be more creative, since you don't
need to spend two years being indoctrinated into an arcane and limited
regime.

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

I just love this line! 

jon
-- 
Jonathan Gifford        gifford@vis.citri.EDU.AU        gifford@cs.mu.OZ.AU
--- CITRI, 723 Swanston St, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia  +61 3 2822475 ---
      He didn't say "thou shalt have dominion over a big wad of tofu"
Newsgroups: aus.music