Is Perfection Overemphasised?

  On 6/22/2010 at 1:22 PM, TechDiff said:

Im not a fan of lazy production, but I cannot see the point in intentionally rough production, where things are forced out of time and out of tune. Thats kinda interesting when its the result of old warn out kit and drifting oscs, but more often than not it sits with me the same way that putting fake vinyl crackle onto a track does. yukky.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Using your vinyl crackle example, you don't think that a fake vinyl crackle could add a certain atmospheric element to a track? I don't think that's so outlandish an idea personally.

If you're referencing Burial then maybe I do agree, but only because I know he puts that there out of lazy production (from his perspective I mean). I'm not really a Burial fan so perhaps that's a bad example. The way I say it, that's like saying using the sound of wind is insincere because it's not like they recorded the music outside in the wind.

Going back to the crackle example, I can think of one tune this works beautifully on: The End by Mr Oizo. It's such a crisp, digital sounding track that the obviously fake (exaggerated) crackle works really well somehow. Almost like it's there ironically.

I say if it's used as an effect, it's fine. If it's just meant to fool people into thinking they're listening to vinyl, it's probably no good.

is it real or is it memorex?

OK, I got lost and I'm confused now.

Is it: a) accidental stuff is good if it's actually accidental, and not provoked or used with the intention of deceiving or is it b) rough production is good if it's intentional as a stylistic device, but not if it's simply down to lack of attention to detail?

Or is it the other way around?

Though actually, probably the only "correct" answer is whatever suits the track, the sound, the mood that you're going for. If the song wants icy precision, then go for icy precision. If the song wants ancient analogue warmth, go for the rough warmth. If a song wants an ironic overtone of crackle laid over the top to disguise the fact you're recording on a laptop, you're probably a twat who shouldn't be making music*?

*though I'm not even sure I agree with this. Recall stuff a decade or so ago, with Portishead getting together a live band, recording it with all analogue gear, pressing it onto records, then sampling them with vinyl hiss and crackle and everything. And though that seemed like an unneccessarily complicated dick move at the time, I do have to admit that the end result created an overall feel that was highly effective and completely suited the music.

  On 6/23/2010 at 12:46 PM, Masonic Boom said:

If a song wants an ironic overtone of crackle laid over the top to disguise the fact you're recording on a laptop, you're probably a twat who shouldn't be making music*?

LOL. Way to not have a fucking clue.

  On 6/23/2010 at 3:05 PM, Obel said:

  On 6/23/2010 at 12:46 PM, Masonic Boom said:

If a song wants an ironic overtone of crackle laid over the top to disguise the fact you're recording on a laptop, you're probably a twat who shouldn't be making music*?

 

LOL. Way to not have a fucking clue.

  On 6/23/2010 at 12:46 PM, Masonic Boom said:

OK, I got lost and I'm confused now.

 

Is it: a) accidental stuff is good if it's actually accidental, and not provoked or used with the intention of deceiving or is it b) rough production is good if it's intentional as a stylistic device, but not if it's simply down to lack of attention to detail?

 

Or is it the other way around?

good is !bad.

bad is !good.

so what do either of them mean??

i recommend tackling that one after 100 micrograms or so.

perfection is absolutely subjective and therefore impossible to strive for such a thing. clean production, however, is another thing entirely. i can say me throwing a pot off my porch creates musical perfection and i'm 100% correct.

Well, like you said, all depends on what you're trying to acheive. if you're attempting to score the soundtrack to the 2046 robotic invasion then Loose timing and vinyl fuzz are probably not the way to go. If on the other hand, you're attempting to make something for someone to mong out on headphones with, then warmth and loose would certainly be in the right direction.

I guess what I think is that, you gotta be consistant in your timbre (unless you're aiming to be ironic) For example, using super crytaline soft synths and a bundle of clean plugins in a track, then putting vinyl crackle in there to make it sound old seems pretty daft. In the same way that building a track with some vintage drum machines and synths would sound weird with a mental Absynth patch over the top.

Disclaimer: no doubt someone can point out exceptions to this.

I think accidental is fairly impossible to acheive, no doubt everything in your production can be rationalised, even if you're recording some live vox and sing a bum note, you're still making the choice of keeping it in or taking it out.

And as for rough production, well that depends. Theres a lot of old stuff thats great to listen to because the music is great, even if the quality of the recording is god awful. But what I get (difficult to explain) is the feeling that a lot of the music I hear which sounds like its intentionally rough, is trying to evoke an emotion response by drawing a comparison between itself and the genuine rough stuff, but not through the quality of ideas and music, but the grittyness of recordings, and that, I think is missing the point.

Reminds me of something actually. a friends dad is a proper audiophile, amp that costs probably thousands and all the kinda stuff, speaker cables as think as your arm. Spent loads of money and loads of time trying get the lushest sounding hi fi he could manage. Put a new CD into the super CD player (cant remember what it was now) and in comes the "evocotive" vinyl crackle. Guy looked like he was gonna have a meltdown =D

My emphasis in making electronic music is never concerned with accidents happening or not, but rather that I've considered the value and purpose of that note or rhythm or whatever piece it is and decided that it works towards what I'm going for. It kinda means that I don't have accidents in my music because I consider them, contrast them with what I was going for, consider other options, and decide that I prefer either them or another option. At that point they're just an initially unexpected option.

Generally, I don't prefer them, as I write it in my head first before I put it down most of the time. I'm a more deliberate writer.

I really really like the whole "unearthing an artifact" view. I would definitely use it to describe my writing style and will definitely be keeping that in my bag of metaphors to pull out when discussing music.

Although they say it's unattainable i like the idea of perfection. I guess you could ask what perfection is but i see it as things like the perfect glide and velocity of incoming sounds, perfect fades effects and automated modulation, extremely well sounding transitions, all completely natural and smooth sounding to the ear, even if it's jarring. A perfect and exact noise creation, etc. Mixing too.

I guess that's quite a subjective view of perfection and i certainly don't achieve them myself, but it's all a personal thing anyway i reckon since the vast majority of listeners wont hear it or care for it, or just dont recognise it. They just hear music. You'll never get a casual listener saying something like 'your lead synth is weak as feck, doesn't have enough modulation, your mix sounds like mud and your melodies dont resolve'. They just like it or don't like it.

So i guess perfection in your music means nothing to the rest of the world, only you. That's my take on it anyway.