>To make Krell music, you NEED a modular. That's all there is to it. It's the
>right tool for the job.
Actually, you have to build some circuits with vacuum tubes and run them
until they self destruct. Process with lots of tape echo. Don't forget the
spicing block. That's how the Barrons did Krell music. 8^)
>Today... well let's just say that the music that tends to be called
>"electronic" is not what it used to be, while what I personally would call
>"electronic music" is found either in the "classical" bins, "new age," or
>most likely, nowhere at all. Look up Tomita or Carlos in the CDDB and you'll
>see what I mean. Why someone couldn't think up a new term for this new stuff
>is beyond me.
Did I say music? That should have been "electronic tonalities". My apologies.
BTW, I totally ignore the category setting in CDDB, mp3 tags, etc.
>So has EM really advanced? It has been ∗usurped∗.
They used to be afraid that "synthesizers" would put "real" musicians out
of work (hence the aforementioned screen credit euphemism--the Barrons
weren't union members). This may actually be true today with digital tech
(forget pop music, I've heard some awful soundtracks) but I doubt if analog
modulars put too many people out of work.
Seems to me that a lot of people think they can crank something out with a
[whatever gadget], diddle with it some, slap it on a CD (or mix it into a
soundtrack) and I'm supposed to think it's worth listening to, great stuff.
Notice that I didn't say "art" or even "music", I said "worth listening
to". I can think of a whole variety of music that I enjoy listening to. I
can think of a whole lot more that I don't, and sure as hell ain't gonna
buy!
Funny how this split occurs in just about every imaginable genre of
"music". So if it isn't that [your least favorite musical genre] just
intrinsically sucks, what is it that makes a particular piece of music
UN-interesting? Whether or not it WORKS.
(Using one recent electronic band as an example) I was impressed by The
Crystal Method because they actually wrote something remotely resembling
SONGS, memorable assemblages of musical sound as opposed to brain-deadening
regurgitated dance/rhythm tracks. Every time I listen to Vegas I get the
feeling that these guys just simply know how to do it right, and everybody
else (their musical peers) just doesn't get it. It's one of those rare
albums I'd like to be able to say I wrote and recorded myself (well, not
every song but...). So what exactly is it that makes the album work? It's
good. It clicks. It's memorable. It...you know what, I'm not exactly sure.
For some reason it just works.
The current craze over old pre-MIDI Roland x0x boxes for purposes of
cranking out acres of the SAME OLD SHIT has me highly amused. Most of the
best work I've heard done with these machines is not in the recent crop of
hits or long, indulgent exercises that pass for "dance" music these days.
You CAN use a 606 in a good song, it just helps a whole lot if it's a good
song to begin with. Limitations in your timbres is actually helpful in
composition--it forces you to be more creative. And I'm certainly not
knocking synthesized percussion (or anything else. I'd love to have a
modular percussion synth even though I'm not much of a musician myself and
I'm not exactly sure what the hell I would actually do with it). But I've
always had the radical notion that songwriting--which includes picking
timbres--is sort of a key to good music regardless of what kinds of sounds
you've got. The problem with some contemporary music seems to be one of
unprecedented accessibility to a handful of instantly recognizable timbres
used in a totally cliche' fashion undreamt of even thirteen years ago.
Talent, or the lack thereof, seems to have little or no bearing on it.
This does NOT work. Makes Giorgio Moroder's production of "I Feel Love"
sound like one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of musical
composition rather than a slick rip-off of Kraftwerk. I think I'll get the
12" out right now and listen to it just to get the taste back in my
mouth...oh crap, my turntable isn't hooked up and there's not safe place to
set it...maybe I'll just listen to Paul Hardcastle's "19" instead--dammit,
that's on vinyl too! Guess it's nothing but Kraftwerk and The Crystal
method tonight. It's pretty bad when things have gotten so, uh, unworkable
that you stuff you used to think was kind of lame actually starts to be
memorable. OK, I admit it, I actually bought those records but at least I
didn't spring for The Spice Girls (and we know how many people have a copy
of that in the closet), although I'm still trying to get a CD of that first
Milli Vanilli album. Someday it'll be worth more than an old PAiA
synthesizer, you just hide and watch.
(To use a different example) Adrian Sherwood got a lot of mileage out of
processing and editing rhythm tracks. But those tracks weren't laid down
with a computer and some generic machines, they were laid down by some good
musicians using everything from old fashioned acoutic-electric instruments
to cheesy digital sampling. They were much more interesting when he got
done diddling with them so "mixing" is obviously a part of the creation of
good music, too. I guess he just knew how to mix things right, and other
people don't. Obviously he must know what works, and what doesn't.
I could rant on like this all night but you already get the idea. Besides I
want to save some for the next time this flares up.
--
Terry Bowman, KA4HJH
"The Mac Doctor"