|
"wall of sound' a new synonym for 'overproduction'? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Wall of sound is a deliberate production technique used for a certain effect. However, overproduction often leads to tracks being packed with so much aural they unintentionally resemble a wall of sound, even though there's no effect being gained from it. |
It isnt a technique. Pretty sure it was first used to describe phil spector's aestehtic. The technique he used was overlapping a lot of different takes. I think the next style of music was stuff with panned double tracked distorted guitars in metal.
For dance, anything where you have a continuos saw chord playing were most movement is comming from the side chaining of the kick and snare. The detuned unison is probably the thickest sound in terms of overtones unless you just throw in white noise.
The term is usuaslly ironic in that by. Making everything huge,everything tends to sound small. I still think the term in danced refers to music that is arguably under produced, not over. Less elements, and those elements sort of replicate the cliche double take rectifier type guitar tone. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
It isnt a technique. Pretty sure it was first used to describe phil spector's aestehtic. The technique he used was overlapping a lot of different takes. |
Is this another instance of you trying to redefine the English language in order to prove me wrong? The well-cited and informative Wikipedia entry on "wall of sound" opens with the line "The Wall of Sound is a music production technique for pop and rock music recordings developed by record producer Phil Spector at Gold Star Studios in Los Angeles, California, during the early 1960s", so I'm perfectly happy with my choice of wording. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
A technique delineates a way to achieve a result. The problem with calling it a technique is that it has been used to describe many techniques originally by a music critic years before to describe wagner. Was also used once or twice for Bruckner. The term describes the result. The modern usage uses a different technique as does its dance music application.
You get on my case for textbook knowledge and use wikipedia to source your newly aquired knowledge? Follow that link. Was it a journalist? It helps to have a more overarching context when being an about topics you seem to constantly defer to wikipedia. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| The result is the "dense, layered, reverberant sound that came across well on AM radio and jukeboxes popular in the era" that Wikipedia refers to. Wall of sound was the production technique, which can be broken down further into the various methods and processes you're insisting can only be called "techniques". This is simply a case of semantic quibbling, of you trying to impose a linguistic heirarchy in order to score inconsequential points. I may as well point out that your last sentence, despite all your edits, is syntactically nonsensical. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
except the term was coined before Phil Spector albeit didnt' become a trademark and it was also used after phil Spector for many different effects in many genres. They all used a trademark term to describe different techniques that gave the impression of the result which is pretty self explanatory. The only thing in common was an aesthetic. So why you chose to use the meaning of a particular era that doesn't coincide with modern dance especially in terms of the TECHNIQUE used by modern dance producers to get what they call a wall of sound is once again your annoying need to be right fed into a "I don't really know what the i'm talking about multiplexer". Perhaps you might extend your search beyond wikipedia. And if you are going to place your arguments in some anachronistic nether world , at least be consistent. Stop calling trance trance. Stop calling rock rock. I guess what i'm saying is you should be buying some blue prints for a flux capacitor. Or you could not be such a twit and expand what you know beyond the high-school style research you are ever so ing good at. WHy not just make a script that points what you think to the wikipedia upon which the topic is based around. seems much simpler .
that is pretty much what you do. You take wikipedia, you use the grad student bull brush to sound more authoritative but when it comes to actual details, you don't have a ing clue. Which is fine. You aren't a producer. You aren't a musician. But for the love of god stop being such a pompous . You have some serious ing issues where everything has to escalate. Chill the out brah |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
I like how you initially wrote "Pretty sure it was first used to describe phil spector's aestehtic", then you actually read the Wikipedia article and started pulling stuff from it like the Wagner thing to try and beat me in an argument, before telling me I just take things from Wikipedia and tart them up to sound intelligent. Then at the end of your incoherently angry think-blurt of a post you cap it all off by saying "Chill the out brah".
The only thing better than watching an idiot trip over his own hate-engorged dick in his haste to get one up on me is watching him then edit his post six million times and still end up sounding stupid. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I like how you initially wrote "Pretty sure it was first used to describe phil spector's aestehtic", then you actually read the Wikipedia article and started pulling stuff from it like the Wagner thing to try and beat me in an argument, before telling me I just take things from Wikipedia and tart them up to sound intelligent. Then at the end of your incoherently angry think-blurt of a post you cap it all off by saying "Chill the out brah".
The only thing better than watching an idiot trip over his own hate-engorged dick in his haste to get one up on me is watching him then edit his post six million times and still end up sounding stupid. |
really, you think not bringing in a wagner reference was a gaff. There is something called context. He made the term a trademark. And again , the same ing trope. Instead of addressing the arguments or points , you just attack my ing writing. I'm nota writer. You aren't a musician. I just don't pretend i know how to write well. And anyone that isn't ing retarded would get the gist of what I say. I'm sure you do as well but it is easier to address ipad gaffs, bad prose and side step the issues you bring up I assume for a debate. Once someone has something different to say, you go into ing attack mode like a child.
honestly, take your ball home or something. You have a serious anger issue over such trivial topics. Stop getting mad. You don't know as much as you thought you did. I hardly assume that you form your identity around this. So why are you always throwing tantrums. See a doctor. I don't know but is it ever annoying to have mr ing rhetoric trying to be a champion. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| you two need to settle this in some other manner. may i suggest a thumbwar? |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| read the transcript. Anything no matter how civil saod contrary to what he says will illicit a tantrum. He calls entire groups of people idiots. Denigrates entire genres or strains of those genres with no substantiation ( the dub step thread ) . He is always ing lipping of in the taste threads. And he does it regarding topics he is on equal footing with everyone else. I don't know what is going on in his life but god damn he is just a downer. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
really, you think not bringing in a wagner reference was a gaff. |
No, you're just failing to understand me. Again. It's difficult to have any kind of discussion with you because you have serious reading comprehension problems, and I'm talking off the chart inabilities to just read what's been written. You said, in your first post in this thread:
| quote: | | Pretty sure it was first used to describe phil spector's aestehtic. |
That's a direct quote. Then after I bring up the Wikipedia entry, you magically pull the information that the term was used some 70 years before Spector entered a recording studio, and start barracking aimlessly. Pretty ing obvious you are pulling ad hoc from an article you'd just read and trying to present that as you being some all-knowing studio expert, whilst simultaneously attacking me for apparently doing the same thing. It's just hilariously desperate.
As I said, I'm perfectly happy with how I used the term "technique" in context. You could quibble about whether the term should be used specifically to describe the precision production methodology, but these nouns are basically interchangeable and you will be comprehensively unable to cite me any kind of authority that says otherwise. You're just trying to score points because you've had your handed to you one too many times by yours truly and are on some sloppily written, half-assed revenge mission. Quite simply: go yourself.
| quote: | | Denigrates entire genres or strains of those genres with no substantiation ( the dub step thread ) |
Which dubstep thread? Quote some of my posts, please. You are well known to be a compulsive liar, and you are lying here as well. There is no dubstep thread where I denigrate the entire genre. You can't find one, you won't find one. I will write a cheque for $100 to any charity you care to name if you can find one, and I'll take a photo of that cheque being cashed. It won't happen, because I like dubstep. One of my albums and one of my EPs of 2012 was a dubstep record, the same in 2011 and the same in 2010. I've played dubstep in my mixes before. You are making up. It just makes you look absolutely pathetic. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
alright, lets parse your bull.
First, his technique was originally well guarded as were most studios hence why when questioned about it, you don't get a technique, you get a concept. Again you don't understand the culture or the history of the recording industry so I don't expect you to clue in on this. So wether it was a direct quote or not really means little even if we were to consider the term in the context of the time.
Now if it was a technique, then the concept which has been used to describe many genres would be similar. THey aren't. In fact they are completely different and in some ways the opposite approach. The term in later years was achieved by using less elements. In modern dance, the effect is achieved by a combination of rich saw wave making room when needed for the kick and snare with side chain compression.
So you argue it is a technique while i contested that given the context of the term and the fact it has been used many times by many people describing many genres, the only thing consistent is the aesthetic. The techniques change. So it isn't a technique. It wasn't a technique when Phil did it. It was his way to describe it without spilling the beans. Maybe read up on how studios ran their back then and then read how phil was that much more paranoid.
regarding the dubstep thread. There is only one. Yay or nay. You mention how certain strains, whIch is exactly what I said , are just gimmicky nonsense with surface novelties. Of course you don't mention specific artists but you make it clear that "brostep " is the particular strain you don't like which is arguably big enough to be its own genre. You then go on to say that you get it but despite getting it, you seem to be able to ascertain that the elements involved are just gimmicks with nothing of value. Do the ing search and keep your 100$.
And this is were I start to have issue. Because you call it a gimmick yet you don't know what the gimmick is. You couldn't recreate the sounds, you couldn't parse the form and realize what is different about it. I just wonder how you could possibly make that assertion. You know nothing about how it was produced. You find it gimmicky but you don't get it because to understand is to be able to recreate it. And sadly i think that is beyond the scope of your bedroom djing. You have no knowledge that would give you any sort of opinion that wasn't completely based on your own personal taste.
As to wether i'm a compulsive liar, it really doesn't matter in this thread but I fail to see how saying I graduated from 2 universities i did attend as a compulsive liar , well it doesn't matter. This is what you call a straw man.
The fact of the matter, is that this thread talks about the concept of the wall of sound as it is being used in its modern incarnation. You provide wikipedia dribble which is not relevant in any way. You actually don't say a ing thing that would add to this thread except incomplete historical context which could use a little more context.
But these frustrations are I suppose expected. You don't get it. You don't know a ing thing about music except for the little wikipedia searches that say little. And because your background is rather limited , you see things close up. You don't see the big picture.
It is all rather logical. It just takes a little more effort than reading a wikipedia entry. And that only explains your idiocy regarding that particular era which we are not discussing. of course there isn't a nice little wikipedia quote for you to mention regarding the concept and how it is applied in modern music. You don't account for its use in history, you willingly use your example in this thread were the concept is actually the opposite of what you think or read it was. The effect , or the technique used now is not the same, it involves less elements are that would not make the argument for over production. Bad production, in my opinion, perhaps.
And despite all this, you didnt' have to be a ing dick about it when i was being civil. You have no idea how patient I am with twits like you that know nothing. The extent of your knowledge is so ing small, your ego so ing big, it is no surprise you just never seem to get it. You get the surface details. The coles notes.
So please stop the bull. Stop posturing. Unlike you, i've answered countless ing questions in the production forum that nobody else was able to. I've thanked countless times. You would look like a ing idiot in that forum because unlike here, we talk about actual details. Do visit and try to whittle your way out with the flowery bs that has no ing substance what so ever.
Also, go get laid. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
and just to expound on how we differ. Unlike you , there seems to be a ing track record were i seem to be the one answering people's questions in the production forum on pretty much every single ing topic. And that doesn't include the promotion thread were i give people countless tips that they don't get anywhere else. I mean the ing list goes on and on and on and on. I seem to be constantly helping people. We only started having tiffs when I posted in other forums. You never ing stepped foot in the production forum because you don't know . But here we are talking about music , and although I welcome your opinion, perhaps have some ing humility like you do in the production forum by never posting because you can't post. You have nothing to say on the topic of music that isn't some bull rollingstone hackjob.
And that is why you are a . You care about maintaining some sort of moronic TA hegemony. The truth or expanding on the truth with more information doesn't matter to you. You care about being right. Unfortunately music is one topic that you don't hold a ing candle to me. You don't help people. You criticize, you lambaste and you use your writing skills ,which sadly don't seem to have provided much in terms of a career, adding a few worthwhile insights almost always historical in nature having nothing to do with actual musical details. But why you would ing care or let it get you mad is beyond me. You don't know as much as you thought in a topic that is not really that important. Get over it princess. You are a fan of EDM , that sometimes plays dj in his bedroom. Own that. Stop being so ing bitter. Writing and music, the 2 passions you seem to have are hobbies. Get over it and have fun.
You make fun of my writing, fair enough. But i make a living doing what I specialize in and what you seem to be most passionate about. You do neither music or writing. So where the does your pompous attitude come from. So please can your ing bull. Stop being an when people dissent and i think this place will be a little more merrier.
A small sample considering doing 1 year in the production forum gave way too may pages. And when you found out oohhh i dropped out of music school to go to another school then to go work in the ing industry, every single person in the production forum bar none said whether i lied or not, you could not argue the fact that he was the forums biggest contributor. You have no ing idea how many PMs i get asking for help. There seems to be a consensus among people that know a load more than you that i know what i am talking about. Not in some pedantic way but in a practical , i can give you every ing detail if I had to.
But as a black guy that eventually goes blind, don't take my word for it you sad pathetic twit.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTEEY6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTEfY6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTEp46mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTE-o6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTE4I6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTE5Y6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTFoo6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTFyo6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTF5I6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTF-Y6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTGFI6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTGxY6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTGR46mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTHPY6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTIOI6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTIZY6mC-8
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...48#.UQTIeY6mC-8 |
|
|
|
|
