From: carl@ecr.mu.oz.au (Carl_Ivan BREWER)
Subject: Re: Sequencers, guitars etc
Organization: Dept. Engineering Computer Resources, Melbourne Uni.
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:38:24 GMT

In article <pet.716011111@munagin> pet@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (paul eng-yi tan) writes:
>carl@ecr.mu.oz.au (Carl_Ivan BREWER) writes:
>>>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...
>
>Actually, classical music like Bach is not directly comparable to current
>pop and rock. The extension of classical music lives on in 20th century
>"serious" composition, as exemplified by Cage, Xenakis, Sculthorpe, Messiaen,
>Broadstock (from MU), and Gerard (also MU). Some of it uses acoustic
>instruments and orchestras, and some uses electronics. Modern classical,
>as I shall call it, often has extreme complexity. However, it doesn't
>sound like Bach because it's in a different style. Debussy doesn't sound
>like Bach either. If someone were to imitate Beethoven today, he'd most
>likely be rather unoriginal, even if his skill were such that he could produce
>works which could pass for Ludwig's own.

I agree re the imitation of ludwig, what I meant was that (in general)
the older music was more sophisticated than modern "pop" or indeed almost
any modern music.  Which brings up your next point ...


>
>Sting/DM/dance music is better compared with the "pop" music of the old days.
>Folk songs, ethnic dance music, and the like. However, I tend not to try
>and directly compare the various styles. They have their own merits, and
>within each style you find good and bad.

I agree in terms of comparison, you can't compare the music directly, but
you can compare the level of complexity of the music.  It's bloody hard 
to write a piece for more than about 4-5 instruments and have it sound good!

>
>>(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.  
>
>Nope, I don't think so. First it depends what you want to do. If you want to
>stick to synth presets, that's like sticking to knowing 4 chords on the
>guitar and playing them over and over. If you want to do complex programming,
>sound design, and sampling, that's more like trying to do what Van Halen
>does with his guitar.

which is why when I hear a band like Floyd I like it !!, but when I 
hear PWEI I throw up, and change stations!!!


>
>>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)
>
>Y'know, most electric guitar bands do use studio techniques and electronics
>to modify their sound. FX boxes are closely related, sound wise and tech
>wise, to synths. They produce (synthesize) sound components which are added
>to the guitar sound. It would be silly to expect a guitarist to do what he
>does without FX. I should also mention here that guitar bands also lay down
>lots of tracks, to re-takes, etc.  It's not as if they are all so talented
>that they go into the studio and play one thru a 5 minute song and it's
>recorded in one go.  In the case of live recordings, they are often touched
>up and mixed properly in the studio anyway.

yes, I've been in recording studios too :)  And my next purchase is a 
digital delay pedal!  *but* the sound still had to be originally created by
strings vibrating, drum skins rattling etc, and when the said band plays 
live (assuming they do actually play live!) they have to do it themselves,
and I *love* live band sound!!


>
>>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.  
>
>Well, it's just as easy and common to see people who can't write songs,
>who often can even play well, using guitars to make crap music. Quickly and
>easily. A lot more crap guitar bands get signed than do synth bands!!!

because there's a lot more guitar players than synth programmers ???

>They get airplay too! I think, in your case, since you don't like (hardly)
>any synth music, every time you hear a synth song on the radio, you think
>that a shit seq'd song is being played! BTW what music do you yourself like?
>Name 10 or so bands that you really go for...

ok: in no particular order

Pink Floyd
Spinal Tap (ok, they're not real, but I love it!!)
Hendrix (he's dead ...  :) )
Sisters of Mercy
Baby Animals
Dire Straights (when I'm in the mood)
John Lee Hooker
Tchaicoskvy (ok, I can't spell, he's dead and not a band ..  but the Marche 
SLave with the lights out, a good red ...  wow !!!)
Metallica's latest album (hehehe, there goes *my* credibility!!)
um, now, what is the 10th?  so many bands, so little time...  :)

There's more, that I can't think of off the top of my head !!!

cheers

carl


 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,rec.music.misc