At 05:29 PM 12/5/2003 +0000, ceccles_ca wrote:
>Sequencer triggered vs keyboard triggered voices:
The style of music I like, Berlin School, relies heavily on sequencers (and
the dash of 'tron). Many people don't consider it to be music, however,
and consider it pretty easy to do. Well, yeah, bounce around a sequence
from a Minimoog or PolySix, noodle over it with a 'tron flute, play a
3-violins chord now and then, and stick to E minor. That's about it. I do
it ("Needs Edit" is just that in Gm, I think), I admit it, but it's fun and
it sounds like I'm doing something, so I'll do it for that reason. The
trick is to make it sound like more than a noodling session, which is a bit
harder to do, and that's where the creativity comes in.
Larry Fast and Tomita probably used sequencers (don't know how much), but
way early they were likely using the analog pattern sequencers way back for
some stuff---but they went beyond just a repeating 16-note pattern with
noodling and composed/arranged their stuff instead. Big
difference. "Live" Tangerine Dream? Pretty much noodling, but there was
something about it that didn't make it sound like complete farting around
(perhaps it was all the mistakes :-)---and I do enjoy their stuff, maybe
because of the power/range of the gear used and every now and then the
'tron gets me, ya know?). Jarre? Somewhere in the middle.
Nearly everything today is sequenced. Today's "sequencers" are now
essentially MIDI recorders; the definition of "sequencer" has changed to
refer to Cakewalk, Cubase, and all that stuff. I consider the "analog
sequencer" or "pattern sequencer" to be the n-step sequencer found on the
old Moogs and a "MIDI sequencer" to be today's sequencing software
programs, used by pretty much everyone.
>With recordings of "Mellotron sounds", it can be:
>A sampler triggered by a midi keyboard,
>A sampler triggered by a sequencer or,
>A Mellotron (a sample triggered by a keyboard)
That last one is ironic, isn't it?
>If the end result is good music, it doesn't matter what method was
>used.
Defining "good" is all in the ears of the listener, although one can
probably argue that some music is more complex and less formulaic than
another (let's face it -- you can't tell one Britney Spears song from the
other, but it's still "good music" to millions of screaming 14 year old
girls, meanwhile those 14 year old girls will consider Rachmaninof's Piano
Concerto #2, or RVW's "Lark Ascending" to be rubbish, meanwhile others who
are into really complex jazz may consider everything else formulaic and
simplistic). In a word? "Whatever."
And, by and large, yes, Berlin School is simplistic (why its initials are
"B.S."), but, hell, if you like it or have fun playing it, what's the big deal?
>I do think that the "sequence programmers" should always be credited
>for their contribution. Even when they are not the composer, they are
>using their skills to create good music, and should receive credit.
Berlin School "musicians" play "sequencers" as their instruments, and it
reminds me of Fritz's comments about using phonograph scratches as an
instrument and how it's become a talent of its own. It's in the clever and
dare I say non-formulaic use of these "instruments" that makes someone
stand out.
Meanwhile...the rest of us just have fun. I've listened to that horrific
noodling I've done on the EMI and enjoyed it for background noise. Jeez,
guess that doesn't say much about my musical taste. I can't bring myself
to tolerating rap, though---too many sequenced patterns!!! :-)
...kl...
M400 #805 - well, how about ACTUALLY PLAYING SOMETHING, then...?
M400 #1037 - [unplayable]
EMI E4 #103S - [participated in the horrific noodling]
∗ Ken Leonard - Web Table of Contents:
http://www.kleonard.com∗ Get Outdoors New England:
http://www.GONewEngland.org >> Mystery writer Rick Blechta Shoots Straight in the Dark:
>> http://www.rickblechta.com/Pages/SSitD.html -> Special Promotion!