|
My confession (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Freak |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
I want to come out in the open and confess the following:
I am absolutely not influenced by these "fathers" of EDM:
- Kraftwerk
- Vangelis
- Gary Neuman
|
Fine
But i bet you the people that you are influenced by, are/were influenced by them.........which means that indirectly you actually are:tongue3 |
|
|
| DJ-Igloo |
| ahaha ^^ good point it all circles around somewhere |
|
|
| Beyer |
| ^^ lol That's a really good point! |
|
|
| dj jasonF |
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
Hey. Thanks for the passionate response Jason F. You know, I did happen to post a sample to prove otherwise that there is a beat in there, its just quiet. As for it having to do nothing with trance or house, I'd highly beg to differ. While yes, vangelis came before what we now know as trance, many of his elements have been looked to (this has been previously said but obviously not read) for ideas on how to design hardware and software synths. And yes, thank you, I do know what progressive means. If you would like a musical definition of progressive (in the terms of styles), its where a song builds to a climatic center center and dies down. This is unlike many sopngs heard on the radio or found in other genres of edm, such as techno or the standard forms of hosue where a melody plainly comes in and plainly comes in and out. In terms of musical history, progressive has also been known to be defined as a defining point in musical history or where a song makes a large jump in terms of creativeness. So thank you once again for trying to disprove me but sorry for your being wrong.
Cheers,
Zac |
wrong??? hah. man because a track has a bassline it doesnt mean its trance... or progressive... lol.. and yes there is no beat in there... the only "beat" is the snare.. or could it be the hihats the ones you describe as beat? :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:. its just percussion man. no beat sorry.
and all that blah blah blah about progressive... man thats just numbers. there are 100 genres that could be described this way.
sorry if i was offencive didnt mean to.. maybe passionate yes :P |
|
|
| dj jasonF |
| quote: | Originally posted by IDarkISwordI
Hey. Thanks for the passionate response Jason F. You know, I did happen to post a sample to prove otherwise that there is a beat in there, its just quiet. As for it having to do nothing with trance or house, I'd highly beg to differ. While yes, vangelis came before what we now know as trance, many of his elements have been looked to (this has been previously said but obviously not read) for ideas on how to design hardware and software synths. And yes, thank you, I do know what progressive means. If you would like a musical definition of progressive (in the terms of styles), its where a song builds to a climatic center center and dies down. This is unlike many sopngs heard on the radio or found in other genres of edm, such as techno or the standard forms of hosue where a melody plainly comes in and plainly comes in and out. In terms of musical history, progressive has also been known to be defined as a defining point in musical history or where a song makes a large jump in terms of creativeness. So thank you once again for trying to disprove me but sorry for your being wrong.
Cheers,
Zac |
wrong??? hah. man because a track has a bassline it doesnt mean its trance... or progressive... lol.. and yes there is no beat in there... the only "beat" is the snare.. or could it be the hihats the ones you describe as beat? :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:. its just percussion man. no beat sorry.
and all that blah blah blah about progressive... man thats just numbers. there are 100 genres that could be described this way.
sorry if i was offencive didnt mean to.. maybe passionate yes :P
+! |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
Eat something. |
|
|
| staticblue |
| quote: | Originally posted by thoughtlessjex
Eat something. |
i'm lucky you're on this board :) |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJule
I think it's not a question of I love that/I hate that. WHO CARES YOU DON'T LIKE VANGELIS?
It's your right to like hime or not, but you have to recognize that Eletronic Music wouldn't be what it is now if Vangelis hadn't composed his tracks like this, if Kraftwerk hadn't made this electro tracks.
Before I began to listen techno and other electronic music styles I was so impressed by the work of Vangelis, Jean-Michel Jarre and some other guys. Who used the synths by this way in the past except them? Who would use it like this now if they hadn't made that before?
I think the subject of this thread is a little bit unuseful, because what's the interest of saying? I DON'T LIKE THEM! GNAGNAGNI GNAGNAGNA.
You have just to realize that everything would be different if those guys hadn't opened the way by trying these crazy things.
The Blade Runner Sound Track is wonderful. I love the main theme! :cool: |
to make a statement that person X invented this and this is why people have it now. I personally believe that genious is universal. If person X didn't invent it, person Y would. I find so many of my "invention" ideas are already taken in one form or the other - and I'm not talking about something simple, like a toothbrush. I'm talking about highly sophisticated technological solutions. If you didn't have Vangelis, you'd have Jean Michel Jarre or you would have Koto or you would have 10,000 other people who would say: "hey, what would I need to do to make this a really cool sounding?". for ignorance's sake - check out Pink floyd "Meddle" album, that came out ages before Vangelis. Or better yet - check out "electronic" music circa 1930!! Yes, 1930's!!! Before Kraftwerk, before Vangelis, before all of them!
I trully believe that human beings are the universe's distributed computing machine - which sometimes works great in parallel or works great in separate pieces. I know I sound silly, but there was a whole lot of philosophy involved in Douglas Adams' "HHGTG" - the Earth is swirming with computers. we face different challenges, problems, questions every day and come up with our own solution. quite personally, I'd think that in some cases it would be better if we didn't have "standard" set of solutions for the problem - would have done a lot more to our progress, in some areas. in some problems we keep on perpetuating our old mistakes, building on top and around them. whereas it may have been better to pursue another road. Like one scientist who invented something significant (can't remember what now) that everyone kept on saying couldn't be invented. He said the reason he invented it is that he didn't know it couldn't be invented.
so, I choose to strongly disagree with your statement. I know I enjoyed melodic pads and sustained sounds way before I even knew who vangelis was! I remember holding a single chord on accordeon and playing it for long periods of time, thinking - wow, this sounds cool!
so, that's that.:clown: |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | | If you didn't have Vangelis, you'd have Jean Michel Jarre or you would have Koto or you would have 10,000 other people who would say: "hey, what would I need to do to make this a really cool sounding?". |
In other words, there are no beautiful and unique snowflakes? :)
| quote: | | Or better yet - check out "electronic" music circa 1930!! Yes, 1930's!!! Before Kraftwerk, before Vangelis, before all of them! |
Yes, and Pierre Shaeffer actually does get props from people who know their . But wait, we can't say Shaeffer was totally awesome, because if he hadn't been around, it would have been all Varese. Sheesh. |
|
|
| emc^2 |
Most of you get A+ for passion but F for paying attention. At no point in my initial post, did I discredit the accomplishments and contributions of the people I mentioned. I just expressed the thought that I did not find them an inspiration in my musical taste. Whatever else your mind found necessary to conjure up - is purely that, a figment of your imagination.
Vangelis, Kraftwerk, etc - they were explorers of the sound and I would even go as far as to call Kraftwerk - engineers. They were more consumed with the question "what can I force the machine to do" rather than "this is the sound I want to express my message". Their idea was to let the sound do the talking and they are the programmers of sound. If you don't find that substantial enough, look through their title tracks, the lyrics, etc to find further substantiation.
So, in a sense, I'd say that kraftwerk were sound designers, engineers, explorers, the original 'glitchtech'-musicians. but I just don't find their music "inspirational" or "awe-inducing". though, I do understand the difficulty with which these sounds were made. Having spent number of hours, making a "perfect" patch, a patch that would do what I want it to do - I can say it is hard. And if it takes me 5 hours to make it today, how many days/weeks/months did it take them then, considering they may have not had the "save" feature on their synths.
so, yes - I do see the contribution and I do agree that people that were influenced may be influencing me. and I do agree that there is only one Bach. but that's musical idea. I'm talking about the "sound design" aspect of the thing. Sure, Mozart, Bach, Bethoven, Shtrauss, Chaikovskiy, etc - were all musical geniouses and without their contributions we would be missing a huge piece of musical heritage. However, when it comes to making technology do something - the point somewhat becomes less significant.
The comparisson would like somewhere in the area of Apple OS vs. Windows vs. Linux. So, yes, there's art in technology but existing technology limits the path to defined boundaries (even if they seem invisible) and within those boundaries, we create. What happens when one steps out of the currently imposed boundaries? instead of using keyboard keys - what happens when your mind is directly able to put music from thought to sound, just the way you invision it? Think of the boundaries, within which we operate:
- Learning the instrument
- Producing the sound
- forcing the instrument to make the sound you hear or convince you that this is the sound you want
- capturing the sound
- making it sound acceptable
I'm not even going into deeper objects associated with the objects above. this is all top level. basically, we spend vast ammounts of time on learning and using our "musical/artistic appendages". Imagine there was no barrier and you could go from concept to reality?
What happens when you can transmit a mental picture to a tangible picture, that others can see? Will there be the same appreciation of art? Because we all have art and beauty in us. So, at that point in time, you'd find that all these initial pioneers were just a stepping stone. Very similar to what's been said of caveman's efforts to make an axe is what lead us to the industrial age. Can you name the caveman that made the first arrowhead? How about the one that invented the wheel? What about the other ones, that decided we should use the opposing feature of our thumbs and get up on two hind legs (instead of front legs. err, arms). I can see where Mozart, Bach, Bethoven would fit into the history of music, even thousand years from now. Meanwhile, "modern" musicians would be considered the intermediary "cavemen". Sorry, but that's my thought.
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, WE ARE STILL IN THE STONE AGE OF MUSIC AND SOUND.
Philosophical point, innit?:toocool: |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | | At no point in my initial post, did I discredit the accomplishments and contributions of the people I mentioned. |
Well, I beg your pardon, but,
| quote: | | I find Kraftwerk unlistenable, Vangelis - suitable for elevators, and Gary Neuman - a Trent Reznor wannabe without all the anger but definitely a 100% suicide music. |
sounds an awful lot like an attempt to discredit Kraftwerk, Vangelis and Neuman. Neuman especially. Then, your following posts have cut these artists down to the point where they're indistinguishable from their successors.
Your position may simply be that you don't like Kraftwerk, Vangelis nor Gary Neuman, and very pointedly do not look to them directly for influence. (Personally, I don't think it's something that merits a whole thread. At least not in Production Studio. This kind of inflamatory opinion post belongs in Music Discussion.) However, you've welcomed and encouraged a digression into whether or not these artists are credible by virtue of the inflamatory remarks in your first post.
In the end, it is not we who are not paying attention, it is you who are being unclear on your positions, and obfuscating your points with gradiose pontifications that no one really cares to read, let alone refute. |
|
|
|
|
