Aphex Twin Failure Is an Option: Why Music Students Are Jealous of Aphex Twin

  On 6/17/2010 at 5:22 AM, marf said:

the trick with this kind of music is how you get midi, cv, din sync, and many others. All these different proprietary syncing mechanisms to keep time together. Its not easy to control these beasts.

Yeah, that's why I sold my TB-303 a long time ago. ReBirth may or may not sound as good, but it can definitely export a lossless audio file that stays exactly in BPM.

Mulitracking to a DAW and tweaking the timing manually for each track isn't really hocus pocus, now is it?

Shall we maybe take this discussion to the languishing Analords Week thread?

I'm certainly willing to accept that Analords were sequenced and created on all analogue gear, and recorded (and maybe tweaked slightly) in a digital recording environment. But the idea that they were just recorded in bits and randomly assembled in chunks in Ableton or something - just seems so counter intuitive both to what they are, and how they sound.

My comment was directed to the "this kind of music" statement, which regards Aphex Twin music in general. I do not think it is a general truth that the challenge of making his music is synching problems.

The specific case of the Analords, which allegedly are recorded straight to tape, is another question.

i think if more folk realised the hands on workflow of powerful top end hardware pattern sequencers like the P3, Future Retro, Notron's ect they would understand more where I'm comming from

If RDJ had everything sequenced together at the same time making analord you would have thought he'd attempted to do some live show like Orbital or Ceephax do

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:17 AM, Masonic Boom said:

I'm certainly willing to accept that Analords were sequenced and created on all analogue gear, and recorded (and maybe tweaked slightly) in a digital recording environment.

I like to imagine that the Analords were made using softsynths, just so RDJ could secretly laugh at all the people saying how much better analogue synths sound and how they can tell the difference. I doubt that's what happened, but he does have a knack of lying, and the Analord title makes me suspicious. :)

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:41 AM, ZoeB said:

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:17 AM, Masonic Boom said:

I'm certainly willing to accept that Analords were sequenced and created on all analogue gear, and recorded (and maybe tweaked slightly) in a digital recording environment.

 

I like to imagine that the Analords were made using softsynths, just so RDJ could secretly laugh at all the people saying how much better analogue synths sound and how they can tell the difference. I doubt that's what happened, but he does have a knack of lying, and the Analord title makes me suspicious. :)

Apart from...

1) one of the very few examples of actual documented Richard going spare on someone on a web forum, talking about the perils and joys of working with analogue instruments

2) the noise, the hiss, the non-graininess of the sound. I've got the kind of cloth ears that can't tell 128s from 320s in MP3 (10 years with your head in a bass cabinet will do that) but either that is the sound of actual old equipment, or he's spent a lot of effort recreating that sound quality. Occam's razor suspects the former.

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:47 AM, Masonic Boom said:

one of the very few examples of actual documented Richard going spare on someone on a web forum, talking about the perils and joys of working with analogue instruments

Ooh, link?

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:47 AM, Masonic Boom said:

the noise, the hiss, the non-graininess of the sound. I've got the kind of cloth ears that can't tell 128s from 320s in MP3 (10 years with your head in a bass cabinet will do that) but either that is the sound of actual old equipment, or he's spent a lot of effort recreating that sound quality. Occam's razor suspects the former.

Yes, as I say, it probably is at least mostly analogue, but I still like to imagine that. It wouldn't be too difficult to fake that sort of thing. The only reason would be to keep the street cred of using analogue gear while having the convenience of software. And to laugh at people being snobby behind their backs.

Web smack-down here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070224101811/http://forums.planet-mu.com/communicate/read.php?f=1&i=166092&t=165057

"interview" here:

http://rodstanley.blogspot.com/2009/03/synths-and-biscuits-aborted-interview.html

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:59 AM, Masonic Boom said:

Web smack-down here:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070224101811/http://forums.planet-mu.com/communicate/read.php?f=1&i=166092&t=165057

 

"interview" here:

 

http://rodstanley.blogspot.com/2009/03/synths-and-biscuits-aborted-interview.html

Thanks for the links! I hadn't heard of that interview, only the smackdown one. I'd take anything he says in public with a truckload of salt, mind. Yeah, the stuff he says about "what tuning is that in?" made me think he was trying to steer people into the direction of discussing the way the synths are detuned and played rather than what kind of equipment he uses, which seems like a better talking point... but I'm still not convinced that synths' tuning drifting on their own accord is a good thing. I much prefer being able to set rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty in the digital realm, where I can emulate something going wrong to a precise level rather than putting up with it actually drifting off.

Then again, I liked the SIDStation I used to have, which was great for sounding quirky, and the Analords often sound really neat because their sound is so primitive, simple and noisy.

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:41 AM, ZoeB said:

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:17 AM, Masonic Boom said:

I'm certainly willing to accept that Analords were sequenced and created on all analogue gear, and recorded (and maybe tweaked slightly) in a digital recording environment.

 

I like to imagine that the Analords were made using softsynths, just so RDJ could secretly laugh at all the people saying how much better analogue synths sound and how they can tell the difference. I doubt that's what happened, but he does have a knack of lying, and the Analord title makes me suspicious. :)

as i've mentioned before a certain Mr A Funk has already done a mock of analord as Last Step using vst's and i can take the pepsi challange with that one but i am a synth geek

have you ever used an analogue synth miss B?

Yeah, Last Step sounds too clean and rigid.

  On 6/17/2010 at 12:33 PM, soundwave said:

have you ever used an analogue synth miss B?

Yeah, I had a brief period where I used a TB-303, SH-101, SIDStation, and various other synths, some of which were analogue. The main differences I found between analogue vs. digital were the analogue ones had nice, strong filters but were often out of tune and involved long winded routing to get talking to MIDI. The main differences I found between tangible and virtual were that tangible synths encourage experimentation with their tactile feedback (which is the reason I miss the SH-101 and would love to have a modular synth one day, room permitting), but again are fiddly to get talking to each other and involve so much hassle that by the time everything's all ready to go (this is probably mainly the fault of a digital sampler I used, that had to boot up from a floppy disk) it's taken out a lot of the spontaneity.

Don't get me wrong, if you get a lot out of analogue synths, that's great. I just personally don't find them very conducive to getting on with making music in my current setup, in a small flat where my mess is already sprawling too close to my girlfriend's home office.

I find the analogue vs digital debates often very reductive because what it usually boils down to is this:

You might not always be able to tell the difference *listening* to them.

But you can certainly tell the difference *using* them.

It's up to the individual to weigh up the limitations vs. strengths of each and decide to use accordingly, though debate usually descends into fetishy god-vs-atheism BS fairly quickly.

(I do however just have to state that it's straight-up adorable the way Mr D.James refers to his synths as his "boyfriends" - that makes me do a little tiny "aw" every time I read it.)

  On 6/17/2010 at 12:57 PM, Masonic Boom said:

I find the analogue vs digital debates often very reductive because what it usually boils down to is this:

 

You might not always be able to tell the difference *listening* to them.

 

But you can certainly tell the difference *using* them.

That sounds more like tangible vs. virtual rather than analogue vs. digital -- the difference is whether you've got access to everything at your fingertips right now or not, which I concede is currently a big advantage to tangible synths, until better controllers are made. It's also why I got much more interesting sounds out of the SH-101 than anything with a 16x2 LCD to access all the parameters. Everything's right there in front of you at all times, ready for tweaking.

  On 6/17/2010 at 12:57 PM, Masonic Boom said:

It's up to the individual to weigh up the limitations vs. strengths of each and decide to use accordingly, though debate usually descends into fetishy god-vs-atheism BS fairly quickly.

I still have to remind myself that people actually believe in a god... Really, all these debates are like C64s vs. Spectrums... whichever you had as a kid is clearly the best. Most people usually like nostalgia and fear change.

  On 6/17/2010 at 12:57 PM, Masonic Boom said:

(I do however just have to state that it's straight-up adorable the way Mr D.James refers to his synths as his "boyfriends" - that makes me do a little tiny "aw" every time I read it.)

Yes, he touches them in a special way to get them to make those nice sounds... :)

  On 6/17/2010 at 11:32 AM, soundwave said:

If RDJ had everything sequenced together at the same time making analord you would have thought he'd attempted to do some live show like Orbital or Ceephax do

alright, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. send me your synths so they don't go to waste.

sometimes you'll be noodling around with those fussy, irregular synths, and something magic will happen -- something amazing and unexpected and awesome. if you don't record it -- bottle the lightning -- it's gone forever. not only is it impossible to recreate such moments live, it is impossible to recreate them at all!! it's like the nature of the universe only allows that bit of magic to exist at one particular point in time. if you're live, in front of an audience, best you can hope for is some equally awesome bit of happenstance... which might never come, to your embarrassment. then you'll get pissed/frustrated/etc and decrease the chance of a lightning strike even further... no, i can totally understand showing up with bottled lightning instead of a lightning rod (and praying for rain).

i believe ceephax just jams around live, rather than trying to re-create album versions. his live performances have a good measure of those magic moments, but his albums have many more. i wager he PRACTICES his live shit a lot, too... whereas aphex is just looking for that one perfect take, at which point he resets shit and starts a new track.

edit: and orbital would rent out a studio to do their shit. they'd say to the producer: "load up the sampler with an amen and program me a bass noise before i get to the studio." then they'd churn it out in a week or a month or whatever. totally different situation.

  On 6/15/2010 at 10:31 PM, xox said:

  On 6/13/2010 at 12:03 AM, Masonic Boom said:

the best music comes not from thinking about it and over-intellectualising it, but from instinct and memory and the subconscious.

 

 

motherfucking TRUTH.

  On 6/17/2010 at 1:11 PM, ZoeB said:

That sounds more like tangible vs. virtual rather than analogue vs. digital -- the difference is whether you've got access to everything at your fingertips right now or not, which I concede is currently a big advantage to tangible synths, until better controllers are made. It's also why I got much more interesting sounds out of the SH-101 than anything with a 16x2 LCD to access all the parameters. Everything's right there in front of you at all times, ready for tweaking.

Well, I dunno... my dad has some ancient analogue computers with vaccuum tubes and everything in a lockup in Cupertino, but I wouldn't try to run a softsynth on them! ;) But OK, fine, tangible vs virtual is fair terminology.

However, my beef with Mr D.James in those posts isn't that analogue and virtual are different, but more the way that he says "virtual synths should be called pretend synths."

Because that reminds me of the kind of lunchroom arguments at school where the classical students toting their violins around would come up to the electronic music students and say "oh. don't you play any *real* instruments?" and the electronic music students would reply "oh no, I do my composing on this *imaginary* Kurzweil here..."

A virtual synth isn't a "pretend" synth any more than an 808 is a "pretend" drum kit. It's a different way of doing things with different strengths and weaknesses. (Which I do think he goes on to say, but I've not got the whole conversation memorised.)

  On 6/17/2010 at 1:11 PM, ZoeB said:

  On 6/17/2010 at 12:57 PM, Masonic Boom said:

It's up to the individual to weigh up the limitations vs. strengths of each and decide to use accordingly, though debate usually descends into fetishy god-vs-atheism BS fairly quickly.

 

I still have to remind myself that people actually believe in a god... Really, all these debates are like C64s vs. Spectrums... whichever you had as a kid is clearly the best. Most people usually like nostalgia and fear change.

I think you've missed the point of my analogy.

That it's really reductive to turn those kinds of discussions into "oh, you just like that better because that's what you did as a kid and you fear change." For a few people, maybe. For many people, it's also a question of which particular strength or weakness they wish to priviledge or avoid, what their worldview is, what their priorities are.

For some, issues of accuracy/precision, size, cost, replicability are more important.

For others, issues of responsiveness, the creative inspiration of chaos/unpredictability, the handmade/individual (as opposed to mass produced) quality (of the instrument or the sound) take precedence over the ease of use of virtual gear.

These are valid issues, and choices made from them are individual preferences. However, it's a total dick-move to translate *either* choice into notions of moral or intellectual superiority

  On 6/17/2010 at 1:56 PM, Macca said:

  On 6/15/2010 at 10:31 PM, xox said:

  On 6/13/2010 at 12:03 AM, Masonic Boom said:

the best music comes not from thinking about it and over-intellectualising it, but from instinct and memory and the subconscious.

 

 

 

motherfucking TRUTH.

In terms of MAKING it, yes. Absolutely.

But in terms of wasting a boring afternoon in the office talking bout our favourite records, give me thinking and overintellectualising any day, any day, any daaaaayyyyyy...

  On 6/17/2010 at 2:14 PM, Masonic Boom said:

For many people, it's also a question of which particular strength or weakness they wish to priviledge or avoid, what their worldview is, what their priorities are.

 

For some, issues of accuracy/precision, size, cost, replicability are more important.

For others, issues of responsiveness, the creative inspiration of chaos/unpredictability, the handmade/individual (as opposed to mass produced) quality (of the instrument or the sound) take precedence over the ease of use of virtual gear.

 

These are valid issues, and choices made from them are individual preferences. However, it's a total dick-move to translate *either* choice into notions of moral or intellectual superiority

Put that way, I agree with you. Different people have different priorities, and we can agree fairly objectively which types of equipment are better for any given set of priorities, and that no given set of priorities is better than any other, it's just about what suits a particular person's objectives when it comes to music making. It only gets bad when people act like one type of equipment (be it analogue, tangible, whatever) is absolutely better than everything else in every possible regard, which is blatantly false.

  On 6/17/2010 at 12:46 PM, psn said:

Yeah, Last Step sounds too clean and rigid.

yup

  On 6/17/2010 at 2:14 PM, Masonic Boom said:

However, my beef with Mr D.James in those posts isn't that analogue and virtual are different, but more the way that he says "virtual synths should be called pretend synths."

nobody's perfect i guess. and us eccentric electronic musicians are well known for our strong personalities and overinflated opinions.

  On 6/17/2010 at 2:55 PM, TwiddleBot said:

  On 6/17/2010 at 2:14 PM, Masonic Boom said:

However, my beef with Mr D.James in those posts isn't that analogue and virtual are different, but more the way that he says "virtual synths should be called pretend synths."

 

nobody's perfect i guess. and us eccentric electronic musicians are well known for our strong personalities and overinflated opinions.

Aaaaah, I forgive him on account of his pretty, pretty hair and the way he touches his "boyfriends" to get those special amazing sounds...

  On 6/17/2010 at 3:11 PM, Masonic Boom said:

I forgive him on account of his pretty, pretty hair and the way he touches his "boyfriends" to get those special amazing sounds...

Does that mean he's growing it again? :D

Maybe I should start mine own little "Richard's Hair Thread" so I don't upset everyone who just wants to talk about synths and sequencers and stuff. I do apologise.

in fact I shall