Acid Techno?

[dan the acid man]

It must be that time of the month for everyone

thats been all of this month for me :cry:

[tocsin]

I go out and listen to techno that I like, and like stuff as long as it
inspires me - "Acid", "Pure", "Shranz" or "what-the-feck-ever"... I don't quite understand all this anymore, but
love techno...

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Hell, when it didn't feel like there were 10,000 different genres, I had a hard enough time distinguishing between some. And now, respectively, classifications using the same name have had a shift in sound. For example, a guy I know who is very much into happy hardcore has pointed me to some stuff which sounds nothing like the happy hardcore I knew. So, whatever. Mix it up, have fun. The only thing I ever really liked about any techno was the energy, not wankery about why something is "technically" good or innovative. If I want that type of shit, I'll go listen to someone who mastered playing an instrument instead of programming a machine. And, keeping this on the subjective note, through my own experience I just found that a lot of the music I heard seemed to lose a lot of the energy I craved when people started getting really genre specific. As in, people making music to fit into a genre rather than just making what comes from the soul.

[FUSION]

even if it is another London label, but that don't bother me, as long as the music is good it doesn't matter where it comes from.

hes from leeds also, used to be a resident at our night, got an amazing studio , boy gunna do good :clap:

[dirty_bass]

I'll go listen to someone who mastered playing an instrument instead of programming a machine.

that`s a little narrow minded. The studio is an instrument.
Especially now that it can be all done in one machine.
It`s a lot harder being the drummer, keyboardist, percussionist etc making your own stuff electronically, than it is learning to play, the guitar for example.

[Jimfish]

well, yeah, but its about the degree to which you want to learn..
you could bash out a nirvana tune a couple of months after getting a guitar, or you could knob out a couple of loops a couiple of months after getting a studio.. but you can take either as far as you want to go with them, a good guitarist will still be learning after 20 years, as will a good engineer :)

[dan the acid man]

well, yeah, but its about the degree to which you want to learn..
you could bash out a nirvana tune a couple of months after getting a guitar, or you could knob out a couple of loops a couiple of months after getting a studio.. but you can take either as far as you want to go with them, a good guitarist will still be learning after 20 years, as will a good engineer :)

very true, you can never stop learning, if you really want to that is

[tocsin]

that`s a little narrow minded. The studio is an instrument.

Not in a way that needs to be sat down an analised while listening to a track. Programming a synth and sequencer is experimentation. I'm not slagging on any techno. But, I find the chinstroker stuff around the music to be irrelevant. If I'm not feeling it, that's it. Whereas, there's a lot of non-programmed music that takes significant practice which I also don't feel, but can respect the chinstroker stuff around it. Just about anyone here could go to school and learn production techniques that they can recreate on a machine with a little trial and error fairly quick. But, most people here would not be able to go to school and come out some fantastically gifted jazz fusion guitarist or classical violinist.

[machina]

that`s a little narrow minded. The studio is an instrument.

Not in a way that needs to be sat down an analised while listening to a track. Programming a synth and sequencer is experimentation. I'm not slagging on any techno. But, I find the chinstroker stuff around the music to be irrelevant. If I'm not feeling it, that's it. Whereas, there's a lot of non-programmed music that takes significant practice which I also don't feel, but can respect the chinstroker stuff around it. Just about anyone here could go to school and learn production techniques that they can recreate on a machine with a little trial and error fairly quick. But, most people here would not be able to go to school and come out some fantastically gifted jazz fusion guitarist or classical violinist.

that's simply not true - at the very least it's a gross generalisation. Different people make music in different ways - some people go for the trial and error approach (ie. experimentation).. but it is totally possible to program music as a composer - ie. writing lines and tracks that you hear in your head... it is no different to a classical composer - some classical composers use a trial and error approach and others write music which is already pre-conceived in their head. I'm a fully trained violinist - have played in the melbourne symphony orchestra blah blah whatever... and make techno - and they are as challenging and difficult as each other, just in different ways...

machina

[G-whizz]

I go out and listen to techno that I like, and like stuff as long as it
inspires me - "Acid", "Pure", "Shranz" or "what-the-feck-ever"... I don't quite understand all this anymore, but
love techno...

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Hell, when it didn't feel like there were 10,000 different genres, I had a hard enough time distinguishing between some. And now, respectively, classifications using the same name have had a shift in sound. For example, a guy I know who is very much into happy hardcore has pointed me to some stuff which sounds nothing like the happy hardcore I knew. So, whatever. Mix it up, have fun. The only thing I ever really liked about any techno was the energy, not wankery about why something is "technically" good or innovative. If I want that type of shit, I'll go listen to someone who mastered playing an instrument instead of programming a machine. And, keeping this on the subjective note, through my own experience I just found that a lot of the music I heard seemed to lose a lot of the energy I craved when people started getting really genre specific. As in, people making music to fit into a genre rather than just making what comes from the soul.

I with you there on the energy part .... if a tunes got that energy that grabs me then i'll buy it ... couldn't care less what kind of genre it is !

[TechMouse]

but it is totally possible to program music as a composer - ie. writing lines and tracks that you hear in your head... it is no different to a classical composer - some classical composers use a trial and error approach and others write music which is already pre-conceived in their head.

See Craig Armstrong...

[tocsin]

that's simply not true - at the very least it's a gross generalisation. Different people make music in different ways - some people go for the trial and error approach (ie. experimentation).. but it is totally possible to program music as a composer - ie. writing lines and tracks that you hear in your head...

The fact is that anyone can do it if they want to. It's part of what I find appealing about techno. Is anyone here going to seriously say that programming a computer requires the same skill as to play an instrument like Yo-Yo Ma? For the most part, I don't even see people play their synth lines during a live PA. It's just buttons pushed on a sequencer.

it is no different to a classical composer - some classical composers use a trial and error approach and others write music which is already pre-conceived in their head. I'm a fully trained violinist - have played in the melbourne symphony orchestra blah blah whatever... and make techno - and they are as challenging and difficult as each other, just in different ways...

See above. I wasn't talking about appreciating a composition. I'm talking about the genre snobbery where someone has to explain to me why a song programmed on a computer is so groundbreaking even though I don't feel it. Sorry, but that doesn't move me and I often find it to be unfounded hype. So, when it comes to such music/discussion, I'd rather listen to someone playing an instrument before programming a computer.

[dirty_bass]

that's simply not true - at the very least it's a gross generalisation. Different people make music in different ways - some people go for the trial and error approach (ie. experimentation).. but it is totally possible to program music as a composer - ie. writing lines and tracks that you hear in your head...

The fact is that anyone can do it if they want to. It's part of what I find appealing about techno. Is anyone here going to seriously say that programming a computer requires the same skill as to play an instrument like Yo-Yo Ma? For the most part, I don't even see people play their synth lines during a live PA. It's just buttons pushed on a sequencer.

it is no different to a classical composer - some classical composers use a trial and error approach and others write music which is already pre-conceived in their head. I'm a fully trained violinist - have played in the melbourne symphony orchestra blah blah whatever... and make techno - and they are as challenging and difficult as each other, just in different ways...

See above. I wasn't talking about appreciating a composition. I'm talking about the genre snobbery where someone has to explain to me why a song programmed on a computer is so groundbreaking even though I don't feel it. Sorry, but that doesn't move me and I often find it to be unfounded hype. So, when it comes to such music/discussion, I'd rather listen to someone playing an instrument before programming a computer.

This is an old and frankly quite pathetic argument, of Electronic Composition versus Real instruments, and not something I would expect from a forum like this.
I can play the guitar, the drums, the piano, bass guitar, and a bit of flute.
It`s a mechanical skill. Anyone can learn it.
The same as programming is a mechanical skill.
The talent lies in the musical ability.
To think you can just randomly bash away at a computer and come up with a good tune is so naieve.




there is a certian subset of musicians who for reasons unknown adhere to the false premise that "electronic" music or the tools involved imply a lack of creativity of inspired performance. Technology in the hands of creative, intelligent individuals is a tool for art, not a hindrance.

[G-whizz]

here is a certian subset of musicians who for reasons unknown adhere to the false premise that "electronic" music or the tools involved imply a lack of creativity of inspired performance. Technology in the hands of creative, intelligent individuals is a tool for art, not a hindrance.

but thats another argument all togeather ..... sometimes too much technology can be hindrance , creativly speaking ... look at liam howlett as and example !

[The Divide]

that's simply not true - at the very least it's a gross generalisation. Different people make music in different ways - some people go for the trial and error approach (ie. experimentation).. but it is totally possible to program music as a composer - ie. writing lines and tracks that you hear in your head...

The fact is that anyone can do it if they want to. It's part of what I find appealing about techno. Is anyone here going to seriously say that programming a computer requires the same skill as to play an instrument like Yo-Yo Ma? For the most part, I don't even see people play their synth lines during a live PA. It's just buttons pushed on a sequencer.

it is no different to a classical composer - some classical composers use a trial and error approach and others write music which is already pre-conceived in their head. I'm a fully trained violinist - have played in the melbourne symphony orchestra blah blah whatever... and make techno - and they are as challenging and difficult as each other, just in different ways...

See above. I wasn't talking about appreciating a composition. I'm talking about the genre snobbery where someone has to explain to me why a song programmed on a computer is so groundbreaking even though I don't feel it. Sorry, but that doesn't move me and I often find it to be unfounded hype. So, when it comes to such music/discussion, I'd rather listen to someone playing an instrument before programming a computer.

This is an old and frankly quite pathetic argument, of Electronic Composition versus Real instruments, and not something I would expect from a forum like this.
I can play the guitar, the drums, the piano, bass guitar, and a bit of flute.
It`s a mechanical skill. Anyone can learn it.
The same as programming is a mechanical skill.
The talent lies in the musical ability.
To think you can just randomly bash away at a computer and come up with a good tune is so naieve.




there is a certian subset of musicians who for reasons unknown adhere to the false premise that "electronic" music or the tools involved imply a lack of creativity of inspired performance. Technology in the hands of creative, intelligent individuals is a tool for art, not a hindrance.

Couldnt have said better myself

[miss bass]

that's simply not true - at the very least it's a gross generalisation. Different people make music in different ways - some people go for the trial and error approach (ie. experimentation).. but it is totally possible to program music as a composer - ie. writing lines and tracks that you hear in your head...

The fact is that anyone can do it if they want to. It's part of what I find appealing about techno. Is anyone here going to seriously say that programming a computer requires the same skill as to play an instrument like Yo-Yo Ma? For the most part, I don't even see people play their synth lines during a live PA. It's just buttons pushed on a sequencer.

it is no different to a classical composer - some classical composers use a trial and error approach and others write music which is already pre-conceived in their head. I'm a fully trained violinist - have played in the melbourne symphony orchestra blah blah whatever... and make techno - and they are as challenging and difficult as each other, just in different ways...

See above. I wasn't talking about appreciating a composition. I'm talking about the genre snobbery where someone has to explain to me why a song programmed on a computer is so groundbreaking even though I don't feel it. Sorry, but that doesn't move me and I often find it to be unfounded hype. So, when it comes to such music/discussion, I'd rather listen to someone playing an instrument before programming a computer.

This is an old and frankly quite pathetic argument, of Electronic Composition versus Real instruments, and not something I would expect from a forum like this.
I can play the guitar, the drums, the piano, bass guitar, and a bit of flute.
It`s a mechanical skill. Anyone can learn it.
The same as programming is a mechanical skill.
The talent lies in the musical ability.
To think you can just randomly bash away at a computer and come up with a good tune is so naieve.




there is a certian subset of musicians who for reasons unknown adhere to the false premise that "electronic" music or the tools involved imply a lack of creativity of inspired performance. Technology in the hands of creative, intelligent individuals is a tool for art, not a hindrance.

Couldnt have said better myself

no you couldnt really could you.

neither could i.

[Tony]

i could....

what are we talking about??

[G-whizz]

i could....

what are we talking about??

:lol:

yeah I think its slightly off topic at this stage (no help from me and my ramblings either )

[miss bass]

horse