err.. laid back? minimal?.. microsound?.. lowercase? I wouldn't describe kid606's music as being any of those. but, he keeps changing up his style, instead of settling which is pretty refreshing. none of his albums sound like each other, his sets are pretty unique too. Last time I saw him, it was more of a 'sonic assault' than anything else. Quite the barrage. Incidentally, I didn't really dig the guy until I saw him live. What a show..
Yay.. someone else that appreciates Mick Harris. Next thing you know 'minimal hip-hop' will become all the rage. Anyways, I do have lull albums, and I think the microsound people would definitely consider themselves to have a different aesthetic. Although they're both still definitely 'minimal/sparse' in nature.
But, I think the whole definition of music is getting pretty silly. There's a pretty good article here needledrops on the subject. Especially the classifications based on what type of process you're using to create your sound.
If it's something that's been done before, and you're just using somebody elses new techniques to make generic music, what's the point of it? This happened with the whole 'glitch' thing a while ago. People started making clicks and pops a more integral part of their music.. it sounded neat/different for a while, then everyone started copying the 'neat idea'. Pretty soon it became generic.
Now, I remember when I heard 'A chance to cut is a chance to cure' for the first time by Matmos. It's got danceable tracks composed entirely out of microsounds of cosmetic surgery. again.. another new thing to hear and process with the ears. but when a bunch of other people start using the same techniques to make similar music, it stagnates ; it's not really growing anymore. using fashionable techniques to make mediocre music isn't really getting you anywear.
John Cage has been cited a bunch of times already, but he stated:
I believe the use of noise to make music will increase until we reach a music produced through the aid of electrical instruments which will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that can be heard.
back in 1937, no less.
Noise/sound is just a tool. You can make stellar music with an acoustic guitar, you can make crap music with a $100,000 state-of-the-art digital recording studio.
that being said, i've got a lot of respect for many of the people listed in that article, i'm just getting annoyed with people proclaiming sound techniques 'the next big thing'.
it's interesting tho that programmers are becoming a more integral part of the music scene. if everyone uses the same software, everyone tends to start making similar sounding music. if you program your own software, you can make something much more unique.
Anybody heard the Cex parody of a MTV music awards after the 'minimal techno scene blew up'? hilarious. 'look at all the guys with laptops'
> GNOME widget themes are color fixed. They are
> completely pixmap based.
um, false. Try my fav Xenophilia, among others.
> They are incredibly slow, it is not uncommon to
> see GTK apps redraw themselves.
you're probably using pixmap themes here. if you have big pixmaps, it's going to make things slower. same with kde themes.
> A kde 2 app will look kind of raunchy in a gnome
> environment (consistency is key) but KDE is far
> prettier then GNOME in my opinion.
This is a matter of personal taste i guess. I wouldn't touch a single one of the top 10 themes on kde.themes.org. The sawmill/gtk ones tend to agree with me much more.
Slashdot Mirror
err.. laid back? minimal?.. microsound?.. lowercase? I wouldn't describe kid606's music as being any of those. but, he keeps changing up his style, instead of settling which is pretty refreshing. none of his albums sound like each other, his sets are pretty unique too. Last time I saw him, it was more of a 'sonic assault' than anything else. Quite the barrage. Incidentally, I didn't really dig the guy until I saw him live. What a show..
But, I think the whole definition of music is getting pretty silly. There's a pretty good article here needledrops on the subject. Especially the classifications based on what type of process you're using to create your sound.
If it's something that's been done before, and you're just using somebody elses new techniques to make generic music, what's the point of it? This happened with the whole 'glitch' thing a while ago. People started making clicks and pops a more integral part of their music.. it sounded neat/different for a while, then everyone started copying the 'neat idea'. Pretty soon it became generic.
Now, I remember when I heard 'A chance to cut is a chance to cure' for the first time by Matmos. It's got danceable tracks composed entirely out of microsounds of cosmetic surgery. again.. another new thing to hear and process with the ears. but when a bunch of other people start using the same techniques to make similar music, it stagnates ; it's not really growing anymore. using fashionable techniques to make mediocre music isn't really getting you anywear.
John Cage has been cited a bunch of times already, but he stated:
back in 1937, no less.
Noise/sound is just a tool. You can make stellar music with an acoustic guitar, you can make crap music with a $100,000 state-of-the-art digital recording studio.
that being said, i've got a lot of respect for many of the people listed in that article, i'm just getting annoyed with people proclaiming sound techniques 'the next big thing'.
it's interesting tho that programmers are becoming a more integral part of the music scene. if everyone uses the same software, everyone tends to start making similar sounding music. if you program your own software, you can make something much more unique.
Anybody heard the Cex parody of a MTV music awards after the 'minimal techno scene blew up'? hilarious. 'look at all the guys with laptops'
With any luck, it'll be as awesome as the ghost in the shell game was
Hmm... a little analysis
> GNOME widget themes are color fixed. They are
> completely pixmap based.
um, false. Try my fav Xenophilia, among others.
> They are incredibly slow, it is not uncommon to
> see GTK apps redraw themselves.
you're probably using pixmap themes here. if you have big pixmaps, it's going to make things slower. same with kde themes.
> A kde 2 app will look kind of raunchy in a gnome
> environment (consistency is key) but KDE is far
> prettier then GNOME in my opinion.
This is a matter of personal taste i guess. I wouldn't touch a single one of the top 10 themes on kde.themes.org. The sawmill/gtk ones tend to agree with me much more.
I'll trade you 1 stockwell day for 1 ralph nader.