If you like it, you like it, but I've just seen too much of an uncreative attitude about its creation from quite a few people. I mean, I realize that certain genres are generally certain tempos to aid in beatmatching by DJs, but I've heard people talking like a 120 BPM for a trance song or 160 for a jungle song are statutory, as well as the same basic structure, the same sounds, the same effects. I just don't like dance music. I like music for the mind. To me, trying to fit into happy-gabber-goa-techstep-hardcore or whatever and having to make it dancable is a limit on personal creativity.
Well, I have a problem with the term electronic music, because, as I've said, I have a problem with people thinking that all electronic music is the kind played at raves. And it's not. There are a lot of people who don't like the type of music mentioned above and assume all electronic music is dance music.
That' my definition of DJ as well, but people seem to call themselves and others who actually compose music (at least to some degree ie: using loops from other sources) DJs. To me a DJ plays prerecorded music (whether on vinyl, CD, or hard drive) and may or may not mix it into a unique performance. A musician, given some sort of noise-making device, creates music.
I agree, I don't see why people do this either. It was officially announced only a few years ago and then the *rumored* release date was pushed back *once*. The first *official* release date "this summer" is looking to be correct.
Screenshots and trailers were released fairly early on to show that it was in fact real.
id's policy has always been to release things when they're done, and it's always been worth the wait. Doom3 has not taken an inordinatedly long time or anything. Compare this to Duke Nukem Forever and Daikatana. DNF was announced around the time Quake came out. It's still not out, or showing any signs of being out soon. Doom3 was hinted at (as I remember) a little while before RTCW came out and officially announced afterwards. It's officially coming out soon. We've been waiting...what, maybe 3 years since first unofficially hearing about it? Yes, it sucked that it didn't come out last May like was rumored, but that was never officially announced, and thus, can't be counted against id or Doom3.
Do you have Far Cry? If not, I'd recommend it, becuase a) it's awesome and b) it's a good way to gauge whether your system will be good for Doom 3, since they're supposed to be similar in graphics and the like. Ditto for Half Life 2.
I can run Far Cry with pretty much maxed out graphics at 1280X1024 minus antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, so I should be ok for Doom3. I have an AMD Athlon 3000+ XP, a ATI Radeon 9800 XT and 1G RAM, in case you're wondering.
I have never heard of "rave music" as a specific genre. I was talking about suff that is played at raves, and to a lesser extent electronic dance music in general. I was referring to trance/house/jungle/d'n'b/hardcore/breakbeat/techn o/etc. I don't like about 95% of that stuff. To me it's mostly uncreative fluff that is made to be danced to, not appreciated as music. Even people who make it don't call themselves musicians. They're "DJs" or "producers". And then they're not songs, they're "tracks" or *shudder* "choons". Now there's nothing wrong with music that is danceable, but when that's the only focus, rather than creative expression, it generally sucks IMO.
I do like some techno--the darker stuff, and some dnb/breakbeat stuff is alright. I don't know if IDM or glitch is played at raves, but I like that stuff too. I only mention it because it's probably known to and listened to to some people who listen to...*sigh*...house/trance/hardcord/dnb/jungle/bre akbeat/etc. What would you like me to call all that type of music? Isn't there a super-genre that encompasses all that? I call it rave music because, as you've said, it's played at raves. At least I didn't refer to all that music as techno, like most people do. I know that calling all electronic dance music techno is like calling all rock heavy metal. I said rave music rather than that listing all the bajillions of genres included.
I'm not clueless about what is played about raves...what you listed is exactly what I had in mind. I just don't like the vast majority of it.
house/jungle/trance/breaks/dnb/techno is all what I consider rave music. It's exactly what I was referring to when I said "rave music". What did you think I was talking about when I said rave music? Kylie Minogue? Madonna? I'm familiar with the most basic of the zillions of dance music genres out there and I don't like about 98% of it. It's so forumlaic it's sad. My point is *all* that is dance music that is typically played at raves. There is a whole other world of electronic music out there besides that. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
It's still electronic music designed to be danced to. I'm aware that there's more to it than most people think. However, I still don't like it, and I disagree that it's the bleeding edge of electronic music. You obviously don't know much about electronic music beyond dance music.
How do you know I haven't been? Maybe I have been and I just don't like the music.
Sorry, but I'm not impressed by your 1337 REAL raverness. At least tell me you don't dress like a hippy baby with pants the size of a parachute.
Besides, if the music played at such events can't be enjoyed without being high on horse tranquilizers and ecstasy, it can't be very good, now, can it?
I don't mean to insult anyone who likes this sort of music. My original point is that there is a lot more to electronic music than dance/rave/trance/hardcore/D&B/jungle/whatever-the -new-sub-sub-sub-genre-is -today music and most people don't realize it. You've proven my point, just from the other side of the rave music rules/sucks fence.
Well, there are definately geeks in any musical pursuit, but I just meant that electronic music is the geekiest kind to me. For the record, I have played piano, violin and guitar. The thing about electronic music is that if you're going to write good stuff, you usually need to have a pretty decent understanding of how your hardware/software works. In order to make new sounds (instead of using synth presets), you need to understand how myriad kinds of synthesis works. Just like any type of music, you can have fun and make decent music without neccesarily having a deep understanding of how your instrument(s) works. Electronic musicians also have multiple instruments that they all have to be familiar with to create whole songs.
Anyway, I'm not dismissing guitars or any other instruments, as I used to play one and know that it's not as easy as it looks. I'm just saying that to me, there's a lot more technical knowledge needed to surpass the most basic "look, ma, I'm a DJ!" level of electronic music composition and production than there usually is to surpass the "look, ma, I'm a rock star!" level of guitar proficiency.
And yes, geeks can exist in any field and people who geek out overy any instrument are full-fledged geeks.
BTW, The Minibosses are a pretty geeky rock band; they cover Nintendo songs...and do a good job of it.
I agree. Techno isn't even what people here think of as techno, for that matter, hence the quotes you put around it, I assume.
That's why whenever people learn that I write electronic music, they ask if I'm a DJ, which I'm not. It get pretty old after a while. Different sorts of electronic music are more known in Europe and even Canada than here (the US). It's sad they're not known here too, since a great many electronic pioneers were and are American.
I didn't say anything about skill, I just said technical aspects, by which I meant technical knowledge. You're referring to skills, which all decent musicians need. I'm talking about technical knowledge like how to hook up a complex MIDI set up, how to program complex synthesizers, how to tweak soundcards for low latency, stuff like that. Guitarists need to know what knobs on their amps to turn to make it sound cool and how to string and tune their guitars (and I used to be a guitarist in a band, so I'm not badmouthing them in any way).
Musique Concrete is commonly looked at as the precursor to electronic music as we know it today. It was made (in the 40s and 50s) by taking electronic lab equipment that produced tones, recording them to tape (along with sounds occuring in nature) and then splicing that tape creatively to make music. The first "loop" came from this era also and was an physical loop of audio tape that played endlessly. Very tedious, obviously, but at the time it was the only way to make music electronically. This was before synthesizers as we know them today (ie: noise-making boxes with keyboards or some kind of control input) existed.
The history of electronic music and its precursors is pretty interesting if you care to look into it.
To me, electronic music is the geekiest kind. At least some (ie: not rave crap or piano music played on an electronic keyboard) electronic music. What other kind of musician other than a geeky one sits around staring at a computer screen and in front of boxes with oodles of knobs making bleepy noises? It's not as "cool" or socially accepted as playing guitar, piano, etc. Guitarists and drummers and the like don't have to worry about all the very technical aspects of synths, sequencers, samplers, etc that electronic musicians do. Plus, if you like computers and technology, it seems like you'd want to make or listen to music made possible by computers and technology.
Most people on Slashdot don't seem to be that much into electronic music, which kind of surprises me. Or maybe I'm guessing wrong.
I agree that they shouldn't have stopped at 1990, but what do MiniDiscs, MP3, etc have to do with electonic music? It's about instruments, not ways of storing music electronically. Country music can be stored in MP3s, but it's certainly not electronic music.
You're right that there have been advances since then, but not about what kind. I think the widespread use of software rather than hardware is the biggest change in the last few years. Modern software synths, samplers and effects now are comparable in sound quality and usually more flexible than their hardware equivalents.
Far from all electronic music is rave "music". There is a lot of innovative stuff being made today. But, it's just like mainstream rock, rap, whatever...the most visible 90% of any music genre sucks. Of course, "electronic music" isn't a genre per se, it's the way it's made. Anyway, my point is: not all electronic music now is rave "music", just like not all electronic music in the 80s was New Wave.
I'm wondering why they didn't make it until 2000 and make it 130 years of electronic music? Well, the article is actually about instruments, not the actual music (from what I saw, anyway). But plenty of cool isntruments have come out since 1990; both software and hardware.
And I realize that your post was probably intended as humor, but I thought I'd point this out anyway.
Ok, I'm glad. That's just the impression I got from your post; that "real" instruments are good and electronic ones are tools of uncreative mass-musicians.
I've had to deal with that mentality a lot, so I'm kind of sensitive to it, I guess. It also annoys me that when you tell most people that you write electronic music, they say, "oh, are you a DJ?". I write my own music, I don't mix prerecorded music. I do respect DJs who can mix music very well and come up with their own thing. It's just not what I do. Nor do I "produce" "tracks". I write music that is electronic, not rave "music".
Well, it certainly was the best and most flexible game computer/console soundchip of its time. It's a classic synth that now is available in a nice case with MIDI and knobs.:) It's somewhat limited by today's standards, but it's still a very cool and flexible synth.
It can sound relatively clean, but it can make some very crunchy sounds also. But is a pretty noisy (you can hear a lot of background noise whenever it's on) synth and has a (very cool) distorting filter, so it's not as clean as most synths today. But its noisyness gives it lots of character--more than most modern synths.
I'd also love to see a NES synth. I'm working on one in SynthEdit (and will port it to Reaktor once I get it). I love the NES sound too.
I agree with about 90% of your post. However, not all electronic computer music is mass-produced pop or monotonous "rave" music. There is a lot of very good electronic music with plenty of creativity (and dynamic range) out there. Being able to physically play an instrument isn't as important anymore as being creative and being able to compose music.
I write serious (as in not cheezy "i'm a DJ!" crap that is made out of downloaded loops by 14 year olds with pirated software) music on my computer and with hardware synths. I don't use any premade loops or drum beats. I usually sythesize each individual sound (percussion, notes, etc) myself and write all the parts myself as well as mixing and engineering it all myself.
I do agree with the point about pop-music being a commodity--not art, but I didn't agree with the seeming anti-electronic sentiment. The record industry has become more and more an "industry". Music nowdays is put together and designed to sell as many copies as possible, not to be creative or push limits or anytyhing. As you said, most "artists" now don't write any music, lyrics or anything, they just sing. They aren't even creative with their vocals. I can't distinguish between different pop bands (not that I care anyway). I'd have a lot more respect for people who at least wrote their songs and produced them themselves. Writing quality electronic music requires a lot of skill and knowledge.
And for the record, I have played piano, violin and guitar, so I have knowledge of traditional instruments as well. I just prefer electronic ones for the flexibility they provide.
It's just nostaligia and what people are used to. People that grew up with tube guitar amps learned that that was what a guitar sounded like. This sound included coloring and inaccuracy. Then as technology advanced, they heard the sound change and didn't like it, so they think that the old technology sounds better. In fact modern (quality) digital sound tech sounds more accurate. People think it's no sterile and has no warmth, but it's simply reproducing the sound accurately.
I find myself liking old-school 8-bit audio, growing up in the 80s. You see all kinds of bitcrusher effects and lofi effects for that low-bit, low-sampling rate, noisy effect. Yet, it's obviously colored compared to the original signal. So I think this is similar to tubes for older people (or people who just like tube sound). Now people remember the way old samplers and video games and the like sounded and miss the sound. This is why I spent over $500 on a SidStation synth, which has an actual Commodore 64 sound (SID) chip in it. Very low-fi, but very cool stuff. There is software that replicates it pretty well, like SIDAmp --a Winamp plugin, but I like having the real thing (along with the knobs). Of course, I use it to make my own music, not just play back C64 tunes.
Personally, as a musician, I'd rather record the sound exactly as it is, and add coloration or effects later. For the record, I used to play guitar and now write electronic music. I have some analog gear, some digital gear, some hybrid gear, and lots of software (which is obviously digitial). As far as synths go, I generally prefer digital, but analog has its place too. Digital sythesis (and effects) is(are) capable of much more flexibility and weirdness. Aphex Twin and Autechre, for instance, couldn't do what they do with all analog gear. But I would like to build a nice big analog modular synth one day.:)
Anyway, my point is, if you like analog or tube or vinyl or whatever better, use is, but don't be so elitist thinking that it's obviously so much better.
Money is a great motivator. Many students study things that they're not exactly passionate about to get jobs to make money. If you're truly passionate about something, you will have already learned about it before going to school. I'm sure that most MBAs aren't that passionate about business, they just want to make the money.
On another note, I don't understand how anyone can be passionate about *business*. I wouldn't take a business administration job if you paid me (er...wait). I'd rather work in fast food for the rest of my life than be a businessman (or a lawyer). Am I weird? It just seems so inane and boring to me.
It sounds like the scientist route wasn't what you wanted to do in the first place. I would think that scientists must love what they do, because as far as I know, they don't make a whole lot of money. So if you think that research is boring and don't like being around geeks, then it's a good thing you didn't go into such a field. For that matter, what are you doing on Slashdot if you don't like geeks?
Many people, however, like that sort of thing: the pure joy of learning and discovery.
I'm wondering why you were going to be a researcher in the first place if you didn't want to do that?
How do we get power from killing people? What, do you think we eat people's souls or something? We were trying to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnam. We didn't just go there and start killing people for no reason.
How are any of those countries "crushed"? Just because we have intervened doesn't mean that they're crushed.
And Iraq, in the first Gulf War, invaded another country. We, along with the UN, pushed them out. How did we crush them?
Yes, we've intervened in many other countries, since that's what super-powers tend to to do. It doesn't mean we've crushed anyone. I would agree with that list as a list of interventions, but not a list of "the crushed".
Well, I haven't heard any Libertarian college students lately, they all seem to be leftists, if not outright socialists.
I think a poor college student who espouses financial responsibility where that will not help him (since he's not rich and will have to work hard for his money) is more credible than a college student living off someone's else's money who espouses a government model that lets people live off of other people's money. In the latter case, self-interest seems to be a major motivator. After all, that liberal college student probably would like to be able to continue living off of the money of others, in this case, evil rich people. After all, if you have more money than you really need, you need to give half of it to the government to distribute as it wills.
I may not be a strict libertarian, but I definately think that moving in that direction would be an excellent change in this country. I don't mind some taxes as long as they're low and used for things that I use. I think that taxes should be a flat percentage and should be spent on things that the all citizens can use: a military for defense, police for protecting rights and order, streets to drive on, etc. Having voluntary fees would be good for many things, but would probably not be practical for police and the like. School taxes should be paid mainly by parents who have children going to public schools. If their children go to private schools instead, they save their money and spend on the school of their choice.
If taxes are decreased, everyone benefits. More jobs become available for those who don't pay taxes because they can't work. Those who can work but choose not to should not receive money. I have no problem with people who can't work (through disability or whatever) recieving aid, but people who try to mooch off the system need to work or starve. That may sound harsh, but I don't think it is. Almost everyone since the dawn of mankind has had to work for a living...I would love to be able to live, but not work, but it's not going to happen.
Anyway, as I said, I'm not a extreme libertarian, but I think that legalizing (on the federal level --then leaving it to the states) at least most drugs would be a good thing, as well as reducing firearm restrictions and most of all, lowering taxes and making them a flat percentage.
Crap, I'm rambling. It must be because I'm tired, so I'm going to bed now before I ramble more.
One more thing. I took your post to mean that libertarianism was a horrible, selfish ideology. So that's why I replied how I did. I truly don't think that it's about being selfish. It's about freedom to run your own life how you want. In every aspect--as long as you don't infringe upon the same rights of other people.
That's the price I'm willing to pay to be able to defend *myself*. What you mentioned is a common complaint against firearms in homes, but it is the result of carelessness and lack of responsibility. Guns should always be kept in a safe place until children are old enough to learn gun safety and responsibility. I have never heard of a kid who has been taught gun safety and is familiar with gun accidentally shoot himself or another kid. I learned these things fairly early on and I've been nothing but responsible. Kids go looking for and playing with guns when they do not know about them and they are mysterious "cool" "forbidden" things. If children are taught that guns aren't like in the movies that they are *dangerous*, but that they are only as bad or good as the person using them, these things won't happen. It's the gunowner's responsibility, not the governments. To me, it's worth allowing guns if *one* person is able to defend his life against an armed attacker. And many do just that. It's been proven that where guns are available, violent crime decreases. If you were a burglar, would you work somewhere where people were known to have firearms at their homes and businesses? It has also been shown that in countries where guns have been outlawed, that violent crime increases. Australia is a good example. I've heard from Australian sources that crime has increased quite a bit. I'm thinking bout 20%, but I could be way off. If you really want, I can try to find the source, but I'm about to go to bed right now, so I dont' have time.
I still think it's hypocritical. How are individual humans to defend themselves without means to do so? Criminals, by definition do not obey laws, and can obtain weapons whether they're legal or not. Armed criminals have it made in a country where guns are forbidden.
We became a Super-Power (along with the Soviet Union) at the end of WWII. Who did we crush there except Nazism and Japanese imperialism? Did we crush them when we helped them rebuild their countries and economies? We were lucky that we emerged relatively well after the war. Our country was not bombed or fought over. Soviet Russia crushed other nations. They kept the land that they took during the war. We didn't. When did crush another country to become a superpower? I think you're just as brainwashed as you claim I am. I am no mindless patriot. I try to critically analyze what I hear and read. Do you, or do you go along with the America is evil propaganda? I'm not saying the US is perfect. But my point is that most of the world is biased against us and many people are just as brainwashed as you think I am.
I don't think we gained power in Vietnam. We lost, we became disillusioned as a nation and became an international bully in the eyes of many countries. There was protesting and rioting in the streets and at colleges. Vietnam was some of the worst years of this country's history. So I don't see how we gained power. Vietnam ended up falling to the Communists, which we were trying to prevent. We gained power in WWII, yes. Not in Vietnam. I'm honestly not familiar with Korea enough to discuss it much, so I won't go into it.
Well, we've had to help other countries quite a few times in the past, I'm sure it will happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing you I are sense phone appallation make wheel no stick ear police vacuum screen book.
Suck and sprite floor cheese you wax bug no plane xbox juno pen.
^
This is how much sense you make.
If you like it, you like it, but I've just seen too much of an uncreative attitude about its creation from quite a few people. I mean, I realize that certain genres are generally certain tempos to aid in beatmatching by DJs, but I've heard people talking like a 120 BPM for a trance song or 160 for a jungle song are statutory, as well as the same basic structure, the same sounds, the same effects. I just don't like dance music. I like music for the mind. To me, trying to fit into happy-gabber-goa-techstep-hardcore or whatever and having to make it dancable is a limit on personal creativity.
Well, I have a problem with the term electronic music, because, as I've said, I have a problem with people thinking that all electronic music is the kind played at raves. And it's not. There are a lot of people who don't like the type of music mentioned above and assume all electronic music is dance music.
That' my definition of DJ as well, but people seem to call themselves and others who actually compose music (at least to some degree ie: using loops from other sources) DJs. To me a DJ plays prerecorded music (whether on vinyl, CD, or hard drive) and may or may not mix it into a unique performance. A musician, given some sort of noise-making device, creates music.
I agree, I don't see why people do this either. It was officially announced only a few years ago and then the *rumored* release date was pushed back *once*. The first *official* release date "this summer" is looking to be correct.
Screenshots and trailers were released fairly early on to show that it was in fact real.
id's policy has always been to release things when they're done, and it's always been worth the wait. Doom3 has not taken an inordinatedly long time or anything. Compare this to Duke Nukem Forever and Daikatana. DNF was announced around the time Quake came out. It's still not out, or showing any signs of being out soon. Doom3 was hinted at (as I remember) a little while before RTCW came out and officially announced afterwards. It's officially coming out soon. We've been waiting...what, maybe 3 years since first unofficially hearing about it? Yes, it sucked that it didn't come out last May like was rumored, but that was never officially announced, and thus, can't be counted against id or Doom3.
...and my vacation hours at work expire July 20. :/
Duke Nukem 3D did not have a modified Doom Engine. It was built on Ken Silverman's Build engine along with Shadow Warrior and Blood.
Do you have Far Cry? If not, I'd recommend it, becuase a) it's awesome and b) it's a good way to gauge whether your system will be good for Doom 3, since they're supposed to be similar in graphics and the like. Ditto for Half Life 2.
I can run Far Cry with pretty much maxed out graphics at 1280X1024 minus antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, so I should be ok for Doom3. I have an AMD Athlon 3000+ XP, a ATI Radeon 9800 XT and 1G RAM, in case you're wondering.
I have never heard of "rave music" as a specific genre. I was talking about suff that is played at raves, and to a lesser extent electronic dance music in general. I was referring to trance/house/jungle/d'n'b/hardcore/breakbeat/techn o/etc. I don't like about 95% of that stuff. To me it's mostly uncreative fluff that is made to be danced to, not appreciated as music. Even people who make it don't call themselves musicians. They're "DJs" or "producers". And then they're not songs, they're "tracks" or *shudder* "choons". Now there's nothing wrong with music that is danceable, but when that's the only focus, rather than creative expression, it generally sucks IMO.
e akbeat/etc. What would you like me to call all that type of music? Isn't there a super-genre that encompasses all that? I call it rave music because, as you've said, it's played at raves. At least I didn't refer to all that music as techno, like most people do. I know that calling all electronic dance music techno is like calling all rock heavy metal. I said rave music rather than that listing all the bajillions of genres included.
I do like some techno--the darker stuff, and some dnb/breakbeat stuff is alright. I don't know if IDM or glitch is played at raves, but I like that stuff too. I only mention it because it's probably known to and listened to to some people who listen to...*sigh*...house/trance/hardcord/dnb/jungle/br
I'm not clueless about what is played about raves...what you listed is exactly what I had in mind. I just don't like the vast majority of it.
house/jungle/trance/breaks/dnb/techno is all what I consider rave music. It's exactly what I was referring to when I said "rave music". What did you think I was talking about when I said rave music? Kylie Minogue? Madonna? I'm familiar with the most basic of the zillions of dance music genres out there and I don't like about 98% of it. It's so forumlaic it's sad. My point is *all* that is dance music that is typically played at raves. There is a whole other world of electronic music out there besides that. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
It's still electronic music designed to be danced to. I'm aware that there's more to it than most people think. However, I still don't like it, and I disagree that it's the bleeding edge of electronic music. You obviously don't know much about electronic music beyond dance music.
e -new-sub-sub-sub-genre-is -today music and most people don't realize it. You've proven my point, just from the other side of the rave music rules/sucks fence.
How do you know I haven't been? Maybe I have been and I just don't like the music.
Sorry, but I'm not impressed by your 1337 REAL raverness. At least tell me you don't dress like a hippy baby with pants the size of a parachute.
Besides, if the music played at such events can't be enjoyed without being high on horse tranquilizers and ecstasy, it can't be very good, now, can it?
I don't mean to insult anyone who likes this sort of music. My original point is that there is a lot more to electronic music than dance/rave/trance/hardcore/D&B/jungle/whatever-th
Well, there are definately geeks in any musical pursuit, but I just meant that electronic music is the geekiest kind to me. For the record, I have played piano, violin and guitar. The thing about electronic music is that if you're going to write good stuff, you usually need to have a pretty decent understanding of how your hardware/software works. In order to make new sounds (instead of using synth presets), you need to understand how myriad kinds of synthesis works. Just like any type of music, you can have fun and make decent music without neccesarily having a deep understanding of how your instrument(s) works. Electronic musicians also have multiple instruments that they all have to be familiar with to create whole songs.
Anyway, I'm not dismissing guitars or any other instruments, as I used to play one and know that it's not as easy as it looks. I'm just saying that to me, there's a lot more technical knowledge needed to surpass the most basic "look, ma, I'm a DJ!" level of electronic music composition and production than there usually is to surpass the "look, ma, I'm a rock star!" level of guitar proficiency.
And yes, geeks can exist in any field and people who geek out overy any instrument are full-fledged geeks.
BTW, The Minibosses are a pretty geeky rock band; they cover Nintendo songs...and do a good job of it.
I agree. Techno isn't even what people here think of as techno, for that matter, hence the quotes you put around it, I assume.
That's why whenever people learn that I write electronic music, they ask if I'm a DJ, which I'm not. It get pretty old after a while. Different sorts of electronic music are more known in Europe and even Canada than here (the US). It's sad they're not known here too, since a great many electronic pioneers were and are American.
I didn't say anything about skill, I just said technical aspects, by which I meant technical knowledge. You're referring to skills, which all decent musicians need. I'm talking about technical knowledge like how to hook up a complex MIDI set up, how to program complex synthesizers, how to tweak soundcards for low latency, stuff like that. Guitarists need to know what knobs on their amps to turn to make it sound cool and how to string and tune their guitars (and I used to be a guitarist in a band, so I'm not badmouthing them in any way).
Musique Concrete is commonly looked at as the precursor to electronic music as we know it today. It was made (in the 40s and 50s) by taking electronic lab equipment that produced tones, recording them to tape (along with sounds occuring in nature) and then splicing that tape creatively to make music. The first "loop" came from this era also and was an physical loop of audio tape that played endlessly. Very tedious, obviously, but at the time it was the only way to make music electronically. This was before synthesizers as we know them today (ie: noise-making boxes with keyboards or some kind of control input) existed.
The history of electronic music and its precursors is pretty interesting if you care to look into it.
To me, electronic music is the geekiest kind. At least some (ie: not rave crap or piano music played on an electronic keyboard) electronic music. What other kind of musician other than a geeky one sits around staring at a computer screen and in front of boxes with oodles of knobs making bleepy noises? It's not as "cool" or socially accepted as playing guitar, piano, etc. Guitarists and drummers and the like don't have to worry about all the very technical aspects of synths, sequencers, samplers, etc that electronic musicians do. Plus, if you like computers and technology, it seems like you'd want to make or listen to music made possible by computers and technology.
Most people on Slashdot don't seem to be that much into electronic music, which kind of surprises me. Or maybe I'm guessing wrong.
I agree that they shouldn't have stopped at 1990, but what do MiniDiscs, MP3, etc have to do with electonic music? It's about instruments, not ways of storing music electronically. Country music can be stored in MP3s, but it's certainly not electronic music.
You're right that there have been advances since then, but not about what kind. I think the widespread use of software rather than hardware is the biggest change in the last few years. Modern software synths, samplers and effects now are comparable in sound quality and usually more flexible than their hardware equivalents.
Far from all electronic music is rave "music". There is a lot of innovative stuff being made today. But, it's just like mainstream rock, rap, whatever...the most visible 90% of any music genre sucks. Of course, "electronic music" isn't a genre per se, it's the way it's made. Anyway, my point is: not all electronic music now is rave "music", just like not all electronic music in the 80s was New Wave.
I'm wondering why they didn't make it until 2000 and make it 130 years of electronic music? Well, the article is actually about instruments, not the actual music (from what I saw, anyway). But plenty of cool isntruments have come out since 1990; both software and hardware.
And I realize that your post was probably intended as humor, but I thought I'd point this out anyway.
Ok, I'm glad. That's just the impression I got from your post; that "real" instruments are good and electronic ones are tools of uncreative mass-musicians.
I've had to deal with that mentality a lot, so I'm kind of sensitive to it, I guess. It also annoys me that when you tell most people that you write electronic music, they say, "oh, are you a DJ?". I write my own music, I don't mix prerecorded music. I do respect DJs who can mix music very well and come up with their own thing. It's just not what I do. Nor do I "produce" "tracks". I write music that is electronic, not rave "music".
Well, it certainly was the best and most flexible game computer/console soundchip of its time. It's a classic synth that now is available in a nice case with MIDI and knobs. :) It's somewhat limited by today's standards, but it's still a very cool and flexible synth.
It can sound relatively clean, but it can make some very crunchy sounds also. But is a pretty noisy (you can hear a lot of background noise whenever it's on) synth and has a (very cool) distorting filter, so it's not as clean as most synths today. But its noisyness gives it lots of character--more than most modern synths.
I'd also love to see a NES synth. I'm working on one in SynthEdit (and will port it to Reaktor once I get it). I love the NES sound too.
I agree with about 90% of your post. However, not all electronic computer music is mass-produced pop or monotonous "rave" music. There is a lot of very good electronic music with plenty of creativity (and dynamic range) out there. Being able to physically play an instrument isn't as important anymore as being creative and being able to compose music.
I write serious (as in not cheezy "i'm a DJ!" crap that is made out of downloaded loops by 14 year olds with pirated software) music on my computer and with hardware synths. I don't use any premade loops or drum beats. I usually sythesize each individual sound (percussion, notes, etc) myself and write all the parts myself as well as mixing and engineering it all myself.
I do agree with the point about pop-music being a commodity--not art, but I didn't agree with the seeming anti-electronic sentiment. The record industry has become more and more an "industry". Music nowdays is put together and designed to sell as many copies as possible, not to be creative or push limits or anytyhing. As you said, most "artists" now don't write any music, lyrics or anything, they just sing. They aren't even creative with their vocals. I can't distinguish between different pop bands (not that I care anyway). I'd have a lot more respect for people who at least wrote their songs and produced them themselves. Writing quality electronic music requires a lot of skill and knowledge.
And for the record, I have played piano, violin and guitar, so I have knowledge of traditional instruments as well. I just prefer electronic ones for the flexibility they provide.
It's just nostaligia and what people are used to. People that grew up with tube guitar amps learned that that was what a guitar sounded like. This sound included coloring and inaccuracy. Then as technology advanced, they heard the sound change and didn't like it, so they think that the old technology sounds better. In fact modern (quality) digital sound tech sounds more accurate. People think it's no sterile and has no warmth, but it's simply reproducing the sound accurately.
:)
I find myself liking old-school 8-bit audio, growing up in the 80s. You see all kinds of bitcrusher effects and lofi effects for that low-bit, low-sampling rate, noisy effect. Yet, it's obviously colored compared to the original signal. So I think this is similar to tubes for older people (or people who just like tube sound). Now people remember the way old samplers and video games and the like sounded and miss the sound. This is why I spent over $500 on a SidStation synth, which has an actual Commodore 64 sound (SID) chip in it. Very low-fi, but very cool stuff. There is software that replicates it pretty well, like SIDAmp --a Winamp plugin, but I like having the real thing (along with the knobs). Of course, I use it to make my own music, not just play back C64 tunes.
Personally, as a musician, I'd rather record the sound exactly as it is, and add coloration or effects later. For the record, I used to play guitar and now write electronic music. I have some analog gear, some digital gear, some hybrid gear, and lots of software (which is obviously digitial). As far as synths go, I generally prefer digital, but analog has its place too. Digital sythesis (and effects) is(are) capable of much more flexibility and weirdness. Aphex Twin and Autechre, for instance, couldn't do what they do with all analog gear. But I would like to build a nice big analog modular synth one day.
Anyway, my point is, if you like analog or tube or vinyl or whatever better, use is, but don't be so elitist thinking that it's obviously so much better.
Money is a great motivator. Many students study things that they're not exactly passionate about to get jobs to make money. If you're truly passionate about something, you will have already learned about it before going to school. I'm sure that most MBAs aren't that passionate about business, they just want to make the money.
On another note, I don't understand how anyone can be passionate about *business*. I wouldn't take a business administration job if you paid me (er...wait). I'd rather work in fast food for the rest of my life than be a businessman (or a lawyer). Am I weird? It just seems so inane and boring to me.
It sounds like the scientist route wasn't what you wanted to do in the first place. I would think that scientists must love what they do, because as far as I know, they don't make a whole lot of money. So if you think that research is boring and don't like being around geeks, then it's a good thing you didn't go into such a field. For that matter, what are you doing on Slashdot if you don't like geeks?
Many people, however, like that sort of thing: the pure joy of learning and discovery.
I'm wondering why you were going to be a researcher in the first place if you didn't want to do that?
How do we get power from killing people? What, do you think we eat people's souls or something? We were trying to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnam. We didn't just go there and start killing people for no reason.
How are any of those countries "crushed"? Just because we have intervened doesn't mean that they're crushed.
And Iraq, in the first Gulf War, invaded another country. We, along with the UN, pushed them out. How did we crush them?
Yes, we've intervened in many other countries, since that's what super-powers tend to to do. It doesn't mean we've crushed anyone. I would agree with that list as a list of interventions, but not a list of "the crushed".
Well, I haven't heard any Libertarian college students lately, they all seem to be leftists, if not outright socialists.
I think a poor college student who espouses financial responsibility where that will not help him (since he's not rich and will have to work hard for his money) is more credible than a college student living off someone's else's money who espouses a government model that lets people live off of other people's money. In the latter case, self-interest seems to be a major motivator. After all, that liberal college student probably would like to be able to continue living off of the money of others, in this case, evil rich people. After all, if you have more money than you really need, you need to give half of it to the government to distribute as it wills.
I may not be a strict libertarian, but I definately think that moving in that direction would be an excellent change in this country. I don't mind some taxes as long as they're low and used for things that I use. I think that taxes should be a flat percentage and should be spent on things that the all citizens can use: a military for defense, police for protecting rights and order, streets to drive on, etc. Having voluntary fees would be good for many things, but would probably not be practical for police and the like. School taxes should be paid mainly by parents who have children going to public schools. If their children go to private schools instead, they save their money and spend on the school of their choice.
If taxes are decreased, everyone benefits. More jobs become available for those who don't pay taxes because they can't work. Those who can work but choose not to should not receive money. I have no problem with people who can't work (through disability or whatever) recieving aid, but people who try to mooch off the system need to work or starve. That may sound harsh, but I don't think it is. Almost everyone since the dawn of mankind has had to work for a living...I would love to be able to live, but not work, but it's not going to happen.
Anyway, as I said, I'm not a extreme libertarian, but I think that legalizing (on the federal level --then leaving it to the states) at least most drugs would be a good thing, as well as reducing firearm restrictions and most of all, lowering taxes and making them a flat percentage.
Crap, I'm rambling. It must be because I'm tired, so I'm going to bed now before I ramble more.
One more thing. I took your post to mean that libertarianism was a horrible, selfish ideology. So that's why I replied how I did. I truly don't think that it's about being selfish. It's about freedom to run your own life how you want. In every aspect--as long as you don't infringe upon the same rights of other people.
That's the price I'm willing to pay to be able to defend *myself*. What you mentioned is a common complaint against firearms in homes, but it is the result of carelessness and lack of responsibility. Guns should always be kept in a safe place until children are old enough to learn gun safety and responsibility. I have never heard of a kid who has been taught gun safety and is familiar with gun accidentally shoot himself or another kid. I learned these things fairly early on and I've been nothing but responsible. Kids go looking for and playing with guns when they do not know about them and they are mysterious "cool" "forbidden" things. If children are taught that guns aren't like in the movies that they are *dangerous*, but that they are only as bad or good as the person using them, these things won't happen. It's the gunowner's responsibility, not the governments. To me, it's worth allowing guns if *one* person is able to defend his life against an armed attacker. And many do just that. It's been proven that where guns are available, violent crime decreases. If you were a burglar, would you work somewhere where people were known to have firearms at their homes and businesses? It has also been shown that in countries where guns have been outlawed, that violent crime increases. Australia is a good example. I've heard from Australian sources that crime has increased quite a bit. I'm thinking bout 20%, but I could be way off. If you really want, I can try to find the source, but I'm about to go to bed right now, so I dont' have time.
I still think it's hypocritical. How are individual humans to defend themselves without means to do so? Criminals, by definition do not obey laws, and can obtain weapons whether they're legal or not. Armed criminals have it made in a country where guns are forbidden.
We became a Super-Power (along with the Soviet Union) at the end of WWII. Who did we crush there except Nazism and Japanese imperialism? Did we crush them when we helped them rebuild their countries and economies? We were lucky that we emerged relatively well after the war. Our country was not bombed or fought over. Soviet Russia crushed other nations. They kept the land that they took during the war. We didn't. When did crush another country to become a superpower? I think you're just as brainwashed as you claim I am. I am no mindless patriot. I try to critically analyze what I hear and read. Do you, or do you go along with the America is evil propaganda? I'm not saying the US is perfect. But my point is that most of the world is biased against us and many people are just as brainwashed as you think I am.
I don't think we gained power in Vietnam. We lost, we became disillusioned as a nation and became an international bully in the eyes of many countries. There was protesting and rioting in the streets and at colleges. Vietnam was some of the worst years of this country's history. So I don't see how we gained power. Vietnam ended up falling to the Communists, which we were trying to prevent. We gained power in WWII, yes. Not in Vietnam. I'm honestly not familiar with Korea enough to discuss it much, so I won't go into it.
Well, we've had to help other countries quite a few times in the past, I'm sure it will happen again.