Too much influence?

[Little_Fella!]

As for attaining higher consciousness through drugs, the mystic warned that "it is one thing to unloosen the girders of the mind, and quite another to get the rivets tightened up again, and unless one is prepared to go through life rattling like a cheap motor-car it is unwise to seek this method of development, speedy and effectual though it is."

....??

Heh heh...:;

I like this analogy... I think you have to have been there, loosening them girders - or rather, I feel I have benefited anyways...

To do anything about it though, I think you have to take a step back n try tightening them up again...

Nice one...:cheese:

[Ritzi Lee]

This topic looks like an influence from my last topic. (where almost nobody replied)

Producers have to understand the game again of making techno music. It's about what you can create with sound. Throw away all your used samples and loops and all that shit. If you are talking about influences, it's particularly those samples, because they are taken from existing tracks. Especially the loops.

And what's left: An empty space.
If you really are a techno producer, on this point you are able to create your own interpretation of (let's take something) thunder and lightning.

[RDR]

This topic looks like an influence from my last topic. (where almost nobody replied)

Producers have to understand the game again of making techno music. It's about what you can create with sound. Throw away all your used samples and loops and all that shit. If you are talking about influences, it's particularly those samples, because they are taken from existing tracks. Especially the loops.

And what's left: An empty space.
If you really are a techno producer, on this point you are able to create your own interpretation of (let's take something) thunder and lightning.

Right then
so who's been copying off ritzi?



Like the idea of throwing it all away though!

[Ritzi Lee]

Right then
so who's been copying off ritzi?



Like the idea of throwing it all away though!

thanks m8.
sometimes i know i aint that stupid. ;)

[eyeswithoutaface]

This topic looks like an influence from my last topic. (where almost nobody replied)

Producers have to understand the game again of making techno music. It's about what you can create with sound. Throw away all your used samples and loops and all that shit. If you are talking about influences, it's particularly those samples, because they are taken from existing tracks. Especially the loops.

And what's left: An empty space.
If you really are a techno producer, on this point you are able to create your own interpretation of (let's take something) thunder and lightning.

to be fair, i couldnt understand what you were getting at with your thread Ritzi mate and i think that's why not many people replied, i couldnt grasp what you were trying to say and i can only presume others didnt also. It doesnt matter who started what thread, as long as the discussion is going on in the first place, which it is here, so its all cool

[Ritzi Lee]

to be fair, i couldnt understand what you were getting at with your thread Ritzi mate and i think that's why not many people replied, i couldnt grasp what you were trying to say and i can only presume others didnt also. It doesnt matter who started what thread, as long as the discussion is going on in the first place, which it is here, so its all cool

Well Tony it's really simple. You understand it or you don't. :)
But with so many techno minded people over here, I at least expected all to understand what I was talking about.

[The Overfiend]

Well Tony it's really simple. You understand it or you don't. :)
But with so many techno minded people over here, I at least expected all to understand what I was talking about.

I'm Tony so what are you talking about?

[dirty_bass]

Well I think creativity can be self destructive, and most artists with or without drugs tend to live through extreme emotion.
I think the bolts are already loose in most cases.
But that`s the price you pay for the muse.

[RDR]

Well I think creativity can be self destructive, and most artists with or without drugs tend to live through extreme emotion.
I think the bolts are already loose in most cases.
But that`s the price you pay for the muse.

I agree in part with that, high emotion does breed artist creativity.

However i dont think that its something that is NEEDED for artists to function - there have been plenty of stable, happy and mentally secure artists who have created enormous works of art both in music and the visual arts.

What perhaps is most important is the idea. Which kinda leads to another interesting point - Machine driven music can be just that. Randomisation techniques without setting base parameters. Are these randomisation techniques part of the human idea or do they side step that. sure we bring them into play when randomising a mad synth line but is that the same as launching the program or even turning on the computer. i.e. is it part of the process of operating a machine or is it part of the creative process to let the machine do the thinking for us, just giving it some boundaries and letting it do its business according to a lawless environment.

anyone understand what im on about?

BTW point 2 has got nothing to do with point 1. or has it....

[RDR]

innonvation will become more and more refined i think.

isnt that an oxymoron?

[clubsynthetic]

isnt that an oxymoron?

I'm not sure if its contradictory to itself.. (that's an oxymoron isn't it?)


I agree with dirty bass about the artists and hacks thing. There are degrees of how high one's emotion is when making music, but usually the best artistic shit comes from, say, someone wanting to cut there ear off..

Yip, the best music comes from the people who love it most and have no agenda but to create it for it's own exsitance and for nothing else.

I think that comes part and parcel.

As for randomisation....good for ideas and learning, bad for final expression of the artist i think, as its not what they wanted to convey it's what a computer did and it takes no effort to think about. Less organic - which is the beauty thats lost!

But to be honest if one is bringing it all together in a masterpiece of music then i don't give a ****.

[RDR]

I'm not sure if its contradictory to itself.. (that's an oxymoron isn't it?)


I agree with dirty bass about the artists and hacks thing. There are degrees of how high one's emotion is when making music, but usually the best artistic shit comes from, say, someone wanting to cut there ear off..

i know its being picky but there a few visual artists i know who dont rate van gogh. and at the time he wasnt rated at all.

which brings up another interesting point about art/music and vitality.

Death and the artist?

An artists work suddenly gets better after death... why?

there were contemporaries of V.G who were better trained, better eye fro colour and far more prolific - what made him so great.. surely not just the golden raito, or an eye fro colour.

he certainly didnt have a ear for the critics...

[dirty_bass]

I agree in part with that, high emotion does breed artist creativity.

However i dont think that its something that is NEEDED for artists to function - there have been plenty of stable, happy and mentally secure artists who have created enormous works of art both in music and the visual arts.

What perhaps is most important is the idea. Which kinda leads to another interesting point - Machine driven music can be just that. Randomisation techniques without setting base parameters. Are these randomisation techniques part of the human idea or do they side step that. sure we bring them into play when randomising a mad synth line but is that the same as launching the program or even turning on the computer. i.e. is it part of the process of operating a machine or is it part of the creative process to let the machine do the thinking for us, just giving it some boundaries and letting it do its business according to a lawless environment.

anyone understand what im on about?

BTW point 2 has got nothing to do with point 1. or has it....

I can`t think of many stable, happy, mentally secure artists who were anything more than working hacks.

Randomisation techniques, yeuch, not for me, I just won`t let the machine generate any of my music, I want to make it, not leave it to the damn PC.

[RDR]

I can`t think of many stable, happy, mentally secure artists who were anything more than working hacks.

Randomisation techniques, yeuch, not for me, I just won`t let the machine generate any of my music, I want to make it, not leave it to the damn PC.

Happy and mentally secure?

How about you?

I love randomisation, i enjoy being a shepherd to my machine to its own conclusions. And of course it leads to another question - how does random influence your own self initiated actions?

[Jay Pace]

Copying is just a derogratory way of interpreting influence.

Any work could be praised for being influenced by X or slated for being an attempt to copy X. Comes down to whoever is doing the copying/influencing in the first place. If they set out to copy its a copy. If they set out to do something and ended up making what sounded like a copy its influence. A question of intent, and totally subjective and dependent on the listeners interpretation of the artists work.

Starting out, being young you have limited experience and influence. You haven't seen that many people play live, you've listened to a certain amount of albums and you haven't seen scenes rise and fall. So if you get into a new sound, which is defined to you by Mr X and Mr Y and you start making stuff its hardly your fault if it ends up sounding like a cross between Mr X and Mr Y. Sure, some artists emerge from nowhere and become the musical zeitgeist but this is the exception rather than the norm.

I'd say you need to keep your potential pool of influencers as broad as possible, this will make your music personal and unique to you - your output being the sum of your influences + whatever else goes into your creativity and output.

That said I think even people with very limited listening repetoire can produce incredibly original stuff. Some people are just very creative that way. Personally I don't think I am, I'm more reliant on my influences. So depends on the person.

[Little_Fella!]

Copying is just a derogratory way of interpreting influence.

Any work could be praised for being influenced by X or slated for being an attempt to copy X. Comes down to whoever is doing the copying/influencing in the first place. A question of intent, and totally subjective and dependent on the listeners interpretation of the artists work.

I'd say you need to keep your potential pool of influencers as broad as possible, this will make your music personal and unique to you - your output being the sum of your influences + whatever else goes into your creativity and output.

A very moot point...

A producer who has had limited knowledge of what has gone before may produce an absolutely wicked tune - only to be told that it sounds like Mills back in '95, or whatever...:whoops:

What does he/she do? Attempt to release the track, only to be shot down in flames as a mimmick...? bin it and say a lesson has been learnt..? try to manipulate the elements into something different so that the hard work put in wasn't a total waste of time..?

As time marches on it becomes more of a minefield for producers to try to infuse the influences they have experienced into a definitive sound that they can genuinely call their own, which has a sense of unique-ness and innovation....:mmm:

[clubsynthetic]

yes maybe so, fella, but innovation can never be completely deminish 'tho eh? It will be a minefield, but innonvation will become more and more refined i think.

Its nice when other people feel your music, whether other people like it or not. all artists can do is create what they feel an hope lots of people (or in the future less people or even someone) feel thier music. The reward is in what they make for themselves and not for others really.

[Little_Fella!]

yes maybe so, fella, but innovation can never be completely deminish 'tho eh? It will be a minefield, but innonvation will become more and more refined i think.

The reward is in what they make for themselves and not for others really.

It will have to...

I am optomistic that innovaion will thrive as time goes on... we have a lot more tools available to us that are becoming ever more advanced these days... it is quite amazing how you can manipulate sounds... which is a very healthy breeding ground for individual creativity...

So....

How do you help rebuild a whole scene if the reward is purely on a personal level , and not for others?

I understand your point, because if you don't like the tune you've just created then lawdy, what is the point...:whoops:

That's your starting point, but surely there has to be some purpose that drives your creativity....

[dirty_bass]

It will have to...

I am optomistic that innovaion will thrive as time goes on... we have a lot more tools available to us that are becoming ever more advanced these days... it is quite amazing how you can manipulate sounds... which is a very healthy breeding ground for individual creativity...:

Well I agree, I only wish more techno producers made more use of the huge pallete available to them.
Rather than just bunging in another rack of nokicks samples, a few hasty "nasty" synth presets and compressing it all to buggery.

[BloodStar]

yeah randomization, i quite like it lately. machine can sometimes create patterns i would never think about.. really enjoying it,.