Man, I applaud the way you've found meaning in integrating music and creativity into you and your friends' lives.
I really do.
I'm not even going to front on that, at all.
It's true for me too, the recordings I make with my friends and work done by people I know dominate my listening habits. But that's modern music too, friend. We live in (r)evolutionary times and we are the movement. So who exactly are you dissing?
There are some forms of synthesis that "sample" portions of the shape of actual wav recordings, yes -- like, sample the attack, loop the next part for a sustain, etc. But technically this is not the same as "sampling", which to me connotes the use of verbatim sound clips (though potentially with manipulation) in an arranged fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musique_concr%C3%A8te . It is kind of an interesting technique however. I'd compare it to building skins out of instrument samples for ADSR envelopes to wear.
This is aside from samplers which are in the actual, sound-clip-manipulation-and-playback mold, and may be controlled by a keyboard. These use differnt techniques to map an instrument to the keys, and usually these patches (sounds on the keyboard) are designed by performers.
I mostly wanted to emphasize though that when you get to this level of, well, changing the sound of a piano, you still have to know how to play the piano to compose or (even more so) to perform. It's not copy and paste.
There's so many kinds of synthesizers though, and many kinds of sampling that don't need to involve a keyboard to be illy. Many of these also involve MIDI as a control mode. But with pop music I would place 'synthesis' at a much higher level than any of these forms of sampling, and right below live performance, as having the biggest role in pop recordings.
Who the eff are you talking to? I played the tuba for 7 years, and I play the guitar and a little keyboard, and yeah I rap and make beats too. This is all music. In fact, I find composing with samples, and rap performance, to be far more fulfilling than any of the other musical endeavors I've ever undertaken.
Modern music isn't shit. You just don't know how to listen to it. That's the fucking truth about ANY kind of music, i don't care what it is....OK, some is shit.
But not all of any genre. Every type of music, hell every artist has its shit work. And every inspired musical movement has its hangers-on. But don't give me this fuddy-duddy nerd cynic shit. If you can't get down to a banger then you're the one not living, son. And if doing so makes you feel isolated, get your head out of your ass, navigate your smile back onto your morose, sociophobic, Smashing Pumpkins-listening, old-school-Depeche Mode t-shirt-wearing, robot-talking domepiece, and spend a few minutes both forgetting and dwelling upon the fact that we are all fucked and that all that matters is what's driving you NOW, in the moment..that said, you're right, the best music happens in the moment. But are you going to go burn your CDs and learn a new instrument? No. So.... go find a hiphop show or a poetry slam and try to figure what it is that everyone except you has figured out about this modern shit.
Way to read what I wrote. I was just listing things the previous poster could have been motivated by. Is he legitimizing the youtube guy or demonizing pop music by equating the two? Regardless, your bullshit opinion made me vomit a little in my mouth. Thanks for the snack.
What's the point of arguing with what he said when you plainly don't know what you're talking about? He's right, sampling short individual sounds, like this guy has done, is not how pop music is made. Furthermore, MIDI is simply a control mode for musical instruments and can trigger either samples or, more commonly in pop music, synthesis. Tracked music is the same way. The mellotron is super rare and I dare you to name one non-Beatles record that features it. It is certainly not a common tool in the creation of the tens of thousands of pop songs written, produced, and recorded each year.
Pop music is most commonly made with recorded tracks; the sole exception -- from a certain point of view -- would be, as you mentioned, synthesis, and even then a lot of pop musicians (and, i would wager, most non-hiphop pop composers) are trained in the piano and would actually be performing live and in recordings even if the sounds they're triggering are synthesized or sample-based.
A good example of what this guy did is Danger Mouse's infamous Grey Album. All of the beats on that album are composed via the digital arrangement of White Album samples, micro and macro. Like this video, it is a feat of composition and editing, not of performance. That of course takes nothing away from it; it's great and it truly bangs. But there's no reason not to differentiate it from other forms of pop composition and recording.
Differentiate, not dis. In fact, it seems like you're using this argument to try and demean pop music -- it's just samples! -- by which you are also implying that sample-based composition and recording is inferior to other forms of recording and composition. If not, you're trying to lift sample-based music like this up to the level of pop music. Either way, the hierarchy only exists in your mind. Both are valid forms of composition.
I'm not sure if this would work at 40% -- might realistically need to be a bit higher -- but anyway, here's a thought.
Energy can be transmitted in the form of microwaves, right?
How about we build a ring or spherical grid of energy-collecting satellites around the Earth?
They'd be interconnected with each other as well as with the ground... no matter where the Sun was beaming, there'd be enough energy to power the grid.
High-frequency radiation is love,/.
It is fundamentally time for people to stop whining about third parties and start realizing that the us vs. them mentality is a product of our system, not the other way around. In a "winner take all" voting system, third parties can only be spoilers. Given this fact, only narcissism can justify voting for a spolier that will hurt the cause overall but provide some form of philosophical vindication for individuals.
Yes, a new voting system would be nice. But guess who is least likely to vote to change the way we vote? Republicans. Guess who is most likely to keep winning as long as the left votes its "conscience" and not its head? Republicans. The Democrats are US, we are the Dems, and if you're not standing up to change them then stop whining and vote for our team. It's as simple as that. Anyone who votes third-party in Federal elections against a Democratic candidate is as bad as any Republican.
You pretty thoroughly missed my point. You want to fight a battle of Science in a conversation about aesthetics, and you want to do so based on flawed, broad principles and a numerical "range" of hearing, the revelance of which you really have no idea. There are SO many issues with attempting to analyze aesthetics using the scientific method that I don't really know where to start: the different words people use to approximate the same abstract concepts, the false presumption that a difference between analog and digital sounds is about better and worse and not subtle difference, the subjectivity inherent in timbral preferences, the difference between peoples' listening skills and ear training. You are so immersed in the numbers that I doubt you have even considered that aesthetics are unquantifiable.
The best part -- well, my favorite part, at least -- is that you think this battle is a slam dunk victory for you -- which is why you choose it -- yet, no one who disagrees with you cares a single iota! Of course, that's their fault, for being sentimental and foolish, not yours for being an overintellectual, egomongering philistine. Still, even though our misperceptions are on us and never on you, they somehow vex you thoroughly. It is as funny as it is predictable.
I have been able to demonstrate it in tests I've performed with myself and my friends, and I haven't seen anyone link to any actual scientific study that disproves this widely held perception of vinyl as warmer. This isn't about what anyone believes -- I only cited belief because while y'all are throwing credentials around as if that makes your point of view more correct, I believe oppositely and know just as well what is involved.
In other words: The discussion is effing pointless. I just don't see any reason other than pedantry (or ego, arrogance, or obnoxiousness) to stand with your fists on your hips and declare that a bunch of 1s and 0s recorded in summary of discrete "samples" of sound is the same as the motion of a recording needle reacting directly to sound waves at an infinite sampling rate. The two things are obviously not the same, and so even if you believe that one is as good as, or better than, the other, the claim that the difference is not worth considering or eligible for particular value is asinine.
Besides which, it doesn't matter where the "warmth" comes from -- be it the record player, the vinyl format, the amplifier, or the listener's mind. It doesn't matter. People prefer what they prefer. You can't take the fact that every single piece of music I own in digital and analog formats sound WAY better coming out of my record player than out of my CD player -- through the same mixer/amplifier, even -- away from me. It's obvious to me, so I do not care if you're convinced.
Whatever, David. I, for one, am both highly educated in the technical qualities and specifications of sound, human hearing, and digital recording, and I also believe 100% that vinyl is inherently better-sounding than digital recordings. Wave interference involving frequencies that live both above and below the 20-20000 Hz range has a role in how we percieve sound. It makes perfect sense that an analog, actual reproduced sound without any transmogrification, abbreviation or digitalization would sound warmer and more real than more convenient substitutions. Waving your data around isn't going to change anyone's opinion, especially when it's irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
I really do.
I'm not even going to front on that, at all.
It's true for me too, the recordings I make with my friends and work done by people I know dominate my listening habits. But that's modern music too, friend. We live in (r)evolutionary times and we are the movement. So who exactly are you dissing?
There are some forms of synthesis that "sample" portions of the shape of actual wav recordings, yes -- like, sample the attack, loop the next part for a sustain, etc. But technically this is not the same as "sampling", which to me connotes the use of verbatim sound clips (though potentially with manipulation) in an arranged fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musique_concr%C3%A8te . It is kind of an interesting technique however. I'd compare it to building skins out of instrument samples for ADSR envelopes to wear.
This is aside from samplers which are in the actual, sound-clip-manipulation-and-playback mold, and may be controlled by a keyboard. These use differnt techniques to map an instrument to the keys, and usually these patches (sounds on the keyboard) are designed by performers.
I mostly wanted to emphasize though that when you get to this level of, well, changing the sound of a piano, you still have to know how to play the piano to compose or (even more so) to perform. It's not copy and paste.
There's so many kinds of synthesizers though, and many kinds of sampling that don't need to involve a keyboard to be illy. Many of these also involve MIDI as a control mode. But with pop music I would place 'synthesis' at a much higher level than any of these forms of sampling, and right below live performance, as having the biggest role in pop recordings.
Who the eff are you talking to? I played the tuba for 7 years, and I play the guitar and a little keyboard, and yeah I rap and make beats too. This is all music. In fact, I find composing with samples, and rap performance, to be far more fulfilling than any of the other musical endeavors I've ever undertaken. Modern music isn't shit. You just don't know how to listen to it. That's the fucking truth about ANY kind of music, i don't care what it is. ...OK, some is shit.
But not all of any genre. Every type of music, hell every artist has its shit work. And every inspired musical movement has its hangers-on. But don't give me this fuddy-duddy nerd cynic shit. If you can't get down to a banger then you're the one not living, son. And if doing so makes you feel isolated, get your head out of your ass, navigate your smile back onto your morose, sociophobic, Smashing Pumpkins-listening, old-school-Depeche Mode t-shirt-wearing, robot-talking domepiece, and spend a few minutes both forgetting and dwelling upon the fact that we are all fucked and that all that matters is what's driving you NOW, in the moment. .that said, you're right, the best music happens in the moment. But are you going to go burn your CDs and learn a new instrument? No. So.... go find a hiphop show or a poetry slam and try to figure what it is that everyone except you has figured out about this modern shit.
Way to read what I wrote. I was just listing things the previous poster could have been motivated by. Is he legitimizing the youtube guy or demonizing pop music by equating the two? Regardless, your bullshit opinion made me vomit a little in my mouth. Thanks for the snack.
What's the point of arguing with what he said when you plainly don't know what you're talking about? He's right, sampling short individual sounds, like this guy has done, is not how pop music is made. Furthermore, MIDI is simply a control mode for musical instruments and can trigger either samples or, more commonly in pop music, synthesis. Tracked music is the same way. The mellotron is super rare and I dare you to name one non-Beatles record that features it. It is certainly not a common tool in the creation of the tens of thousands of pop songs written, produced, and recorded each year. Pop music is most commonly made with recorded tracks; the sole exception -- from a certain point of view -- would be, as you mentioned, synthesis, and even then a lot of pop musicians (and, i would wager, most non-hiphop pop composers) are trained in the piano and would actually be performing live and in recordings even if the sounds they're triggering are synthesized or sample-based. A good example of what this guy did is Danger Mouse's infamous Grey Album. All of the beats on that album are composed via the digital arrangement of White Album samples, micro and macro. Like this video, it is a feat of composition and editing, not of performance. That of course takes nothing away from it; it's great and it truly bangs. But there's no reason not to differentiate it from other forms of pop composition and recording. Differentiate, not dis. In fact, it seems like you're using this argument to try and demean pop music -- it's just samples! -- by which you are also implying that sample-based composition and recording is inferior to other forms of recording and composition. If not, you're trying to lift sample-based music like this up to the level of pop music. Either way, the hierarchy only exists in your mind. Both are valid forms of composition.
I'm not sure if this would work at 40% -- might realistically need to be a bit higher -- but anyway, here's a thought. Energy can be transmitted in the form of microwaves, right? How about we build a ring or spherical grid of energy-collecting satellites around the Earth? They'd be interconnected with each other as well as with the ground... no matter where the Sun was beaming, there'd be enough energy to power the grid. High-frequency radiation is love, /.
It is fundamentally time for people to stop whining about third parties and start realizing that the us vs. them mentality is a product of our system, not the other way around. In a "winner take all" voting system, third parties can only be spoilers. Given this fact, only narcissism can justify voting for a spolier that will hurt the cause overall but provide some form of philosophical vindication for individuals.
Yes, a new voting system would be nice. But guess who is least likely to vote to change the way we vote? Republicans. Guess who is most likely to keep winning as long as the left votes its "conscience" and not its head? Republicans. The Democrats are US, we are the Dems, and if you're not standing up to change them then stop whining and vote for our team. It's as simple as that. Anyone who votes third-party in Federal elections against a Democratic candidate is as bad as any Republican.
You pretty thoroughly missed my point. You want to fight a battle of Science in a conversation about aesthetics, and you want to do so based on flawed, broad principles and a numerical "range" of hearing, the revelance of which you really have no idea. There are SO many issues with attempting to analyze aesthetics using the scientific method that I don't really know where to start: the different words people use to approximate the same abstract concepts, the false presumption that a difference between analog and digital sounds is about better and worse and not subtle difference, the subjectivity inherent in timbral preferences, the difference between peoples' listening skills and ear training. You are so immersed in the numbers that I doubt you have even considered that aesthetics are unquantifiable. The best part -- well, my favorite part, at least -- is that you think this battle is a slam dunk victory for you -- which is why you choose it -- yet, no one who disagrees with you cares a single iota! Of course, that's their fault, for being sentimental and foolish, not yours for being an overintellectual, egomongering philistine. Still, even though our misperceptions are on us and never on you, they somehow vex you thoroughly. It is as funny as it is predictable.
I have been able to demonstrate it in tests I've performed with myself and my friends, and I haven't seen anyone link to any actual scientific study that disproves this widely held perception of vinyl as warmer. This isn't about what anyone believes -- I only cited belief because while y'all are throwing credentials around as if that makes your point of view more correct, I believe oppositely and know just as well what is involved. In other words: The discussion is effing pointless. I just don't see any reason other than pedantry (or ego, arrogance, or obnoxiousness) to stand with your fists on your hips and declare that a bunch of 1s and 0s recorded in summary of discrete "samples" of sound is the same as the motion of a recording needle reacting directly to sound waves at an infinite sampling rate. The two things are obviously not the same, and so even if you believe that one is as good as, or better than, the other, the claim that the difference is not worth considering or eligible for particular value is asinine. Besides which, it doesn't matter where the "warmth" comes from -- be it the record player, the vinyl format, the amplifier, or the listener's mind. It doesn't matter. People prefer what they prefer. You can't take the fact that every single piece of music I own in digital and analog formats sound WAY better coming out of my record player than out of my CD player -- through the same mixer/amplifier, even -- away from me. It's obvious to me, so I do not care if you're convinced.
Whatever, David. I, for one, am both highly educated in the technical qualities and specifications of sound, human hearing, and digital recording, and I also believe 100% that vinyl is inherently better-sounding than digital recordings. Wave interference involving frequencies that live both above and below the 20-20000 Hz range has a role in how we percieve sound. It makes perfect sense that an analog, actual reproduced sound without any transmogrification, abbreviation or digitalization would sound warmer and more real than more convenient substitutions. Waving your data around isn't going to change anyone's opinion, especially when it's irrelevant.