The Logic Off Topic list

Hi people, 
 
this is so OT but please go out and buy 'Heathen' by David Bowie.
Absolutely astounding album- I've just had a cursory listen and it sounds fabulous. 
Not unlike 'Low' in a lot of ways.
 
David Torn is credited on the album, he posts here a bit. 
Amazing job he did too...
 
Rgds,
 
JR


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
>
>this is so OT but please go out and buy 'Heathen' by David Bowie.
>Absolutely astounding album- I've just had a cursory listen and it sounds fabulous. 
>Not unlike 'Low' in a lot of ways.
>
Thanks for the tip!
There's a lot of promotional stuff going on in Belgium for his album 
right now. I'll definitely check it out

>David Torn is credited on the album, he posts here a bit. 
>Amazing job he did too...
>
Nice to have such folks on the list!!

Bye,
Joeri

-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Would you like me to MP3 it then?
 
JR
 
:-)

-----Original Message-----
From: texture444@... [mailto:texture444@...]
Sent: 12 June 2002 14:29
To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [L-OT] David Bowie and David Torn



In a message dated 6/12/2002 6:09:49 AM, richmondj@... writes:

>Amazing job he did too...
thanks!
.....still haven't heard the completed mixes, yet.
best,
dt / splattercell

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of  <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 6/12/2002 6:09:49 AM, richmondj@... writes:

>Amazing job he did too...
thanks!
.....still haven't heard the completed mixes, yet.
best,
dt / splattercell

In a message dated 6/12/2002 9:34:02 AM, richmondj@... writes:

>Would you like me to MP3 it then?
ha!
no, that's okay..... finally, my copies are on their way here.....
best,
dt / splattercell

Thoughts from the mind of Richmond, James (James) ** CTR **, 12-06-2002:

>this is so OT but please go out and buy 'Heathen' by David Bowie.
>Absolutely astounding album- I've just had a cursory listen and it 
>sounds fabulous. Not unlike 'Low' in a lot of ways.

Okay, I did last week -- bought it without listening... and, to be 
honest, I don't see what's astounding about it.
I've been sort of a Bowie fan from day 1 -- have all his albums up to 
Let's Dance, then skipped the silly stuff, and started buying again 
when he made Outside (musically interesting, but very tiresome to 
listen to) and Earthling (less interesting and even more tiresome). 
But... this new album just doesn't do it for me.  A couple of nice 
songs, but most of it just sounds like wallpaper imo.  If I put the 
CD on while e.g. programming, it'll suddenly have ended without me 
noticing much in between...
Do I miss something essential here, or is it just a matter of taste?

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

>Okay, I did last week -- bought it without listening... and, to be
>honest, I don't see what's astounding about it.

I was quite the hard core Bowie fan 23 years ago.  Everything up 
until and including "The Lodger" totally blew my mind.  But the edge 
did seem to come of somewhere along the line between "the Lodger" and 
"Lets Dance".  Was it him or was it me.  Could it be that that level 
of creativity may be just too hard for *anyone* to sustain forever.

I saw Bowie in his Ziggy Stardust days and then his blue suit live album 
days. I think he treated Mick Ronson like crap - and when he left I never 
again liked Bowie's stuff that much - its pretenious and boring. the only 
exceptions being Modern Love and Afraid of Americans.

I thnk Oakenfeld's new CD is quite creative.

Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 01-07-2002:

>  >Okay, I did last week -- bought it without listening... and, to be
>>honest, I don't see what's astounding about it.
>
>I was quite the hard core Bowie fan 23 years ago.  Everything up
>until and including "The Lodger" totally blew my mind.  But the edge
>did seem to come of somewhere along the line between "the Lodger" and
>"Lets Dance".  Was it him or was it me.

It was him.  I lost interest at the exact same time.  "Let's dance" 
was the 1st album I didn't buy...
Then "Outside" was rather interesting again, some 15-20 years 
later... (don't recall the exact years -- that's age... :). 
"Earthling" again rather sucked in that it was a bad copy of Outside. 
And now this new album...  which sounds decent enough, pleasant 
background music, but not coming close to "blowing your mind"...

>Could it be that that level of creativity may be just too hard for 
>*anyone* to sustain forever.

Probably, yes.  I have the same sort of problem with Peter Hammill, 
whose music was (to me) even more earth-shattering than Bowie's.  Not 
so nowadays -- same story.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of TazmnianDv@..., 01-07-2002:

>I saw Bowie in his Ziggy Stardust days and then his blue suit live album
>days. I think he treated Mick Ronson like crap - and when he left I never
>again liked Bowie's stuff that much - its pretenious and boring. the only
>exceptions being Modern Love and Afraid of Americans.

Hwah.... dont quite agree there, about the pretentious bit, but, oh well...

>I thnk Oakenfeld's new CD is quite creative.

Never heard of him/her/them?  What sort of music?  Comparable to 
anything more familiar?

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

In a message dated 7/3/02 2:22:12 AM, h@... writes:
>Hwah.... dont quite agree there, about the pretentious bit, but, oh well...

   Everything I've read about Bowie until recently -he was a complete arse.  
You can also 
    see a thinly disguised movie about Bowie and Iggy Pop called "Velvet 
Goldmine" starring
    Obbie wan Kenobi.


>>I thnk Oakenfeld's new CD is quite creative.
>Never heard of him/her/them?  What sort of music?  Comparable to 
>anything more familiar?

You need to stop playing those 78 rpm records and get with the modern times 
my friend. Its Euro dance music...although he is making it more song like and 
threw a few guitars in too.

I also like Nikka Costa - she is new - but she has a fresh sound.

Thoughts from the mind of TazmnianDv@..., 04-07-2002:

>In a message dated 7/3/02 2:22:12 AM, h@... writes:
>  >Hwah.... dont quite agree there, about the pretentious bit, but, oh well...
>
>Everything I've read about Bowie until recently -he was a complete arse.

Oh... he may very well be.  But I was talking about his music, not 
his personality.

>  >>I thnk Oakenfeld's new CD is quite creative.
>>Never heard of him/her/them?  What sort of music?  Comparable to
>>anything more familiar?
>
>You need to stop playing those 78 rpm records and get with the modern times
>my friend.

:-)  Hey dude, as long as I have Kruder & Dorfmeister CDs, or 
Underworld, Everlast, Beastie Boys, Moby, Air, Lamb, Tricky, etc -- 
maybe not the most avant-garde possible, but still -- I think I'm not 
doing that all that bad for an almost 40 year old progrocker :-).

>Its Euro dance music...although he is making it more song like and
>threw a few guitars in too.

Doesn't really sound as if I would find it world-shattering, but I'll 
remember the name and check it out in due time.  Thanks for the 
pointer.

>I also like Nikka Costa - she is new - but she has a fresh sound.

Now that would be nice -- someone with a fresh sound...  It's been too long...

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

I'm even older than you, but I try to keep up in a feeble way. I thought some 
of the top Dj's were BT, Sasha, and Oakenfeld.... I'm not sure what Moby is 
exactly but he's great too. Has anyone heard DJ Irene? She is quite "long in 
the tooth? (old) but seems to be the hot thing in LA now.

Thoughts from the mind of TazmnianDv@..., 04-07-2002:

>I'm even older than you, but I try to keep up in a feeble way.

OK, touche... :-)

>I thought some
>of the top Dj's were BT, Sasha, and Oakenfeld.... I'm not sure what Moby is
>exactly but he's great too.

I liked 'Play' a lot, but think his last album is rather 
disappointing, despite the very positive press...  As for the others: 
I'm not too much into DJs -- still think a DJ isn't a real musician 
(hey, that's just giving in to age... :-).

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

> >I also like Nikka Costa - she is new - but she has a fresh sound.

      When Nikka arrived in oz first she had the misfortune to synchronize
herself with a ressurection of an old oz rock band [  very old] and somehow
I managed to be on stage with her , she was trying to get into the vibe and
be Janis [ we hailed from about that era when we were young] . She was GOOD
, she was also a very nice young lady , very organised [walkman at the
rehearsal and all that shit ] and undoubtedly much more hip than she would
old farts like us see , so I'm glad someone likes her .. nice bum  from a
bass players point of view
                                      Paul

> I'm even older than you, but I try to keep up in a feeble way. I thought
some
> of the top Dj's were BT, Sasha, and Oakenfeld

BT is an excellent musian, producer, virtuoso programmer, and some would say
genius, but definitely not known to be a  DJ (as yet!).  He is perhaps the
biggest tallent to ever hit the dance scene.   I just wish he would make
harder music.

Sasha and Oakenfold are DJ's that release recordings under their own names.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out a few things about their
music.  They have several tallented programmers/engineers/producers behind
them.  Without them I suspect the music would be fairly poor.   Even with
them, Oakenfold's recent album has been receiving poor reviews.  I have not
heard it yet myself.

The music that comes out under Sasha's name is usually of the highest
quality and as a wannabe producer I find then very inspiring.  I'm thinking
paticularly of the 'Expanda' and 'Scorchio' ep's.

DJ's records are usually only as good as:
A-   the programmers behind them
B-   The dj's musical ideas and direction.

Paul Van Dyke is another good example of a famous dj releasing top selling
music under his own name, that is _allegedly_ mostly written and programmed
by other people.  Put him in a studio on his own and see what happens.   The
recordings put out under his name are of high quality and sell well because
he has good musical taste/ideas and good programmers/producers behind him.

This music has helped make these guys seriously famous and they have
received total adulation/hype in the dance music media and subsequently from
clubbers/fans.  (Oakenfold is an exception here being more famous just as a
dj.)   I have nothing against this method of working except that all the
applause goes to the DJ rather than programmers/producers.  I was recently
asked to write trance music for a dj friend for him to put out under his own
name. I and my writing partner had to turn it down on principle.   Everybody
has their price and if there had been a lot of money on the table then maybe
our principles would have been temporarily forgotten, who knows?.

I think at least that dj's should make more prominent and clear
accreditations on their record and cd covers to the people who did the
majority of the songwriting and production.  Then the public might get the
true picture.

regards Hector.

I think of DJ's as arrangers - and they are brilliant at it. The problem is 
that most of techno/hard trance/ blah blah blah... is that its ALL 
ARRANGEMENT and NO SONG. And whats with all these genre names? house, trip 
hop, blah blah -.... its all just instrumental dance music with minor 
variation in bpm. Any album by a real artist woiuld include all of the bpm's 
on one album. The the difference between trance and triphop is 1% of the 
difference between country and heavy metal. OK, I'm showing my age. But 
clearly there have never been any "hit singles" from any of these artists, 
becasue they don't produce songs.

>I'm not too much into DJs -- still think a DJ isn't a real musician 
>(hey, that's just giving in to age... :-).
>

Good to have an eye witness view! She has some sexy pics on her website too. 
I almost went to see here in LA last month - but she made another touring 
mistake in playing backup for Britney Spears. I had this vision of 10,000 13 
year old girls screaming in 5k 120 db shrill unison in a closed area... and 
decided to pass.

At least Madonna paid some dues and worked her way up from nothing - same 
with Mariah Carey - but Britney is corporate product all the way.

>nice bum  from a
>bass players point of view

Can you please explain how these DJ's actually make music? I have seen them 
live - and they sound good - but I can only imagine creating that music with 
Logic and bunch of sequences and synths. I don't understand how they create 
that without those. 

By the way, BT's album "Movement in Still Life" is a great, great albums with 
about 5 good songs on it. It latter CD is all remix stuff - well done - but 
no new songs - and his earlier CD is pretty mediocre. I wish he would get out 
of the remix stuff, and simply write songs and produce them. I guess he has 
sold out and is producing for NSync and Britney now. Money talks.

One of the reasons I like Oakenfeld's Bunka - is because its not the usual 
dance music - which may turn off the dance fans. 

I like Van Dyk too. I also like DJ Rap ( who has songs too) and DJ Irene 
(surprisingly heavy techno).

>I think of DJ's as arrangers - and they are brilliant at it. The problem is
>that most of techno/hard trance/ blah blah blah... is that its ALL
>ARRANGEMENT and NO SONG. And whats with all these genre names? house, trip
>hop, blah blah -.... its all just instrumental dance music with minor
>variation in bpm. Any album by a real artist woiuld include all of the bpm's
>on one album. The the difference between trance and triphop is 1% of the
>difference between country and heavy metal. OK, I'm showing my age. But
>clearly there have never been any "hit singles" from any of these artists,
>becasue they don't produce songs.
>
Fine statement. I´m a bit sorry for the DJ generation. We old ones (ha ha)
listened to songs in our youth that half the world listens to still today
(because today there are only few songs of similar quality), and we can
play them on piano, on gittar on the beach or even hum when working.
Poor children who must share their favourite music with daddy...   ;-)
Or - lucky children, they can access almost every album existing at once.
Remember it took 20 years for the next Steely Dan album.

Good night,

Tobias

> I think of DJ's as arrangers - and they are brilliant at it. The problem
is
> that most of techno/hard trance/ blah blah blah... is that its ALL
> ARRANGEMENT and NO SONG. And whats with all these genre names? house, trip
> hop, blah blah -.... its all just instrumental dance music with minor
> variation in bpm.

You are clearly missing the point of trance music.  It has a very specific
audience -   crowds people who dance in front of  massive sound systems
under the influence of MDMA or occassionaly LSD.  Producers and dj's will
not admit that on the record, as they influence young people and would not
want to be accused of condoning drug taking.  But it *is* what trance is all
about and millions of people dance to it every weekend, worldwide, as a
choice of lifestyle.

Trance is tailored to make these people dance.  It has been around for 8 or
9 years now,  plenty of time to evolve.   The reason that the basic stucture
and format of trance has not changed much is that it works so well as it is.
It's hard to explain why, but if you went clubbing and did the same as
clubbers do,  it would all become clear to you in a very short space of
time.

>OK, I'm showing my age. But
> clearly there have never been any "hit singles" from any of these artists,
> becasue they don't produce songs.

I don't know about age, but you are definitely showing your ignorance. What
you say is simply not true, there have been plenty of trance hit singles
including several no.1's in the UK at least.
Including:
Ian Van Dahl - Castles In The Sky
ATB - 9pm 'til I Come
Zombie Nation - Kernkraft 400 (went to no.1 all over Europe simultaneously)
Agnelli And Nelson - Everyday.
Fragma - Toca's Miracle.

There are *many* others that have reached very high chart positions.
National radio stations all over Europe play it and here in the UK at least,
you cannot watch tv without hearing some program or commercial using it.
America has not really picked up on yet, and in a way I'm glad of that.

Trance has it's particular structure and format because clubbers like it
that way and dj's recognise this when they see their reaction on the
dancefloor.  Most records are initially released in small quantities to dj's
who play them in clubs.  The ones that get a good reaction are usually
picked up and licensed to bigger record labels.    Many recordings that
ultimately become hits are made in small home studios, a very good thing for
up-and-coming artists.

A hit single is not the goal of every trance artist.   Most would be doing
it just to get a buzz and a feeling of pride hearing it played out at club
and seeing people enjoying themselves dancing to it.  Having a commercial
hit would be seen as a bonus.

I hope this has increased your understanding of why trance _is_ the way it
is.

Regards,  Hector.

Thoughts from the mind of Hector, 06-07-2002:

>  > I think of DJ's as arrangers - and they are brilliant at it. The problem
>is
>>  that most of techno/hard trance/ blah blah blah... is that its ALL
>>  ARRANGEMENT and NO SONG. And whats with all these genre names? house, trip
>>  hop, blah blah -.... its all just instrumental dance music with minor
>>  variation in bpm.
>
>You are clearly missing the point of trance music.

I'd already expected Tazmanian's post to cause some response :-)))

>It has a very specific
>audience -   crowds people who dance in front of  massive sound systems
>under the influence of MDMA or occassionaly LSD.  Producers and dj's will
>not admit that on the record, as they influence young people and would not
>want to be accused of condoning drug taking.  But it *is* what trance is all
>about and millions of people dance to it every weekend, worldwide, as a
>choice of lifestyle.

Glad someone is wise enough to admit this.

>  >OK, I'm showing my age. But
>>  clearly there have never been any "hit singles" from any of these artists,
>>  becasue they don't produce songs.
>
>I don't know about age, but you are definitely showing your ignorance. What
>you say is simply not true, there have been plenty of trance hit singles
>including several no.1's in the UK at least.

I think what he maybe meant is that there have never been and 
probably never will be hit singles that will over time become more 
than one-day flies -- like Bowie's Space Oddity (to pull the msg back 
on the original topic :), or Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven, or a 
zillion other hits that have lost very little of their original 
impact or quality or "brilliance".

>I hope this has increased your understanding of why trance _is_ the way it
>is.

Good posting imo.  Thanks.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

In a message dated 7/5/02 5:41:55 PM, hector@... writes:

>I hope this has increased your understanding of why trance _is_ the way
>it is.

Thanks for your comments. Here in LA, I never hear any dance music played on 
mainstream radio. I can hear some dance music on KCRW - but it plays music 
from all over the world and its hard to figure out what it was you heard. So 
most of my dance CD's were bought by going to Tower Records and listening to 
the sample CD's - often after having read about the artist in some magazine. 
I've never heard of any of the top dance singles you mention -so indeed I am 
ignorant.

I understand the drug thing - but even the best dance music I've ever heard - 
does not have much true musical content. I wonder how they copyright these - 
other than copyrighing the performance. Do they actually print out 12 pages 
of eight notes.

> I think what he maybe meant is that there have never been and
> probably never will be hit singles that will over time become more
> than one-day flies -- like Bowie's Space Oddity (to pull the msg back
> on the original topic :), or Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven, or a
> zillion other hits that have lost very little of their original
> impact or quality or "brilliance".

The difference with trance is that it is the lesser known records that tend
to have the greater longevity.   For whatever reason the public like, buy
and make hits of very plastic, sacharine throw-away trance records with
dreadful vocals.   This give a bad representation of what is really being
played on the underground scene.   Just as there was prog-rock, there is
prog-trance and just as much innovation and care goes into the construction
and developement of recordings, but in very different ways.

I often think that trance records are too *good* to be hits.   They may for
example be devoid of shit vocals, which destroys their chart chances
straight away.  The record company's A+R  departments are always on the
lookout for quality instrumental trance records to destroy with bad vocals
and then launch at the charts.   Many make it unfortunately, adding to the
greater publics misconception about the quality of trance music in general.

I have loads of records that I could pull out and play and nobody would know
they were 6 or 7 years old (an eternity in the dance world).  I have many
Trance records that I consider to have a 'timeless' quality and will
definitely still want to listen to them many years from now.  You had to be
on the underground scene at the time to know they existed as they were
definitely too good to chart.

A scene has to finish before people look back at it lovingly and pull out
records from the time.   The Trance scene will never finish as it will keep
morphing into ever more subgenres of music, splitting, reconverging, maybe
even going full circle.  There are no definite timelines where one stops and
another starts. Since 1988 it has been doing so and there are countless
sub-genres (or micro-scenes?) right now.  Almost as soon as one is
documented it has evolved into something else or split up and dissappeared.
That is the beauty of it all. It happens so fast, you never know what is
going to emerge next.  Only the broader genre definitions (such as House,
Trance, Garage, Breakbeat,) stay fairly contant taking many years to evolve.

Also there are many elements that believe the dance scene should always be
forward looking and innovating.  A popular mantra to come from the Mayday
party organisation in Germany is 'Forward Ever, Backward Never'.   So
playing lots of music from the past would probably be considered uncool
anyway.   I am certain that if  a dj was to just play  records that were
over a year old, their career would not last very long.   I would often feel
uneasy if I had to play out a few records that were just 5 or 6 months old.

So you see comparing the longevity of hit trance records to Bowie and Led
Zep hits is deeply flawed.    If there were a party at the end of time and I
had to choose some trance music from years gone by, for one final night of
pleasure, I am sure that virtually none of those tracks on my playlist would
ever have been chart 'hits'.

regards Hector.

> I understand the drug thing - but even the best dance music I've ever
heard -
> does not have much true musical content.

_Your_ definition of 'musical content' that is.

>I wonder how they copyright these -
> other than copyrighing the performance. Do they actually print out 12
pages
> of eight notes.

Chances are, with you being in the states,   you have been listening to some
of the worst music Europe can offer.  See my longer posting I sent just
before this one, to get the full details why.

Even so,  I suspect you are still missing the point,  because if clubbers
wanted to hear tracks with your definition of true musical content, they
would probably ask the dj to play Steely Dan or Bowie, wouldn't they?

Regards Hector.

Thoughts from the mind of TazmnianDv@..., 06-07-2002:

>even the best dance music I've ever heard - does not have much true 
>musical content. I wonder how they copyright these - other than 
>copyrighing the performance. Do they actually print out 12 pages of 
>eight notes.

ROTFL!!!!!  No, they print out the 8 notes once, and try to copyright 
the Xerox machine %-))

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of Hector, 06-07-2002:

[ interesting stuff deleted -- thanks again Hector ]

>So you see comparing the longevity of hit trance records to Bowie and Led
>Zep hits is deeply flawed.    If there were a party at the end of time and I
>had to choose some trance music from years gone by, for one final night of
>pleasure, I am sure that virtually none of those tracks on my playlist would
>ever have been chart 'hits'.

Then the question remains: if today's "trance generation" (if such a 
thing exists) is 20 years older, which songs that still receive 
airplay will then be "nostalgia" to them?

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

i sure like the music a whole lot better than the seen(mindless except for 
the music). i can see and feel so much in the music since the early 80's... 
that the seen in
california with all the gangsta bull**** or just plain attitude or the
mindless kids with vicks and masks running around for nowhere.....
hell, you can hardly go to reggae on the river or hog farm anymore with
without the feeling there has been a link removed. been playing guitar
for 20 years and will never feel threatened by that beautiful minimal
beat. it's just a different thing. vocals ruin so much. i  understand
both sides, hear it somewhat often. the people behind the music is who
i really admire no matter what kind.....it just should make you even happier 
because without a-reference-anywhere on your scale you would
not even know how you would feel in the first place. the vehicle is
beautiful no matter where you go.. we all don't need to drive together.
darindervish


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

> >So you see comparing the longevity of hit trance records to Bowie and Led
> >Zep hits is deeply flawed.    If there were a party at the end of time
and I
> >had to choose some trance music from years gone by, for one final night
of
> >pleasure, I am sure that virtually none of those tracks on my playlist
would
> >ever have been chart 'hits'.
>
> Then the question remains: if today's "trance generation" (if such a
> thing exists) is 20 years older, which songs that still receive
> airplay will then be "nostalgia" to them?
>

I am very fussy and the only 'hit' trance records (got loads of airplay) to
bring a lump to my throat in 20 years would be 'Seven Days And One Week' by
BBE and also Robert Miles - Children ( another no.1 I forgot to mention
earlier).    All the rest of my favorites never got the airplay when they
were released.   I think for the majority of todays younger, less fussy
clubbers, almost all the trance records getting airplay now will give them a
sense of nostalgia.   They will probable remember particular classic moments
at parties with friends when the tune was played.

It is extremely unlikely, no impossible actually, that a trance tune will
get airplay for 20 years.  About 1 year is the max.   After that it will
only be on back to 199x programs or a dj dropping a old classic just bring
back a few memories.

Sometimes it really seems like chance or luck that a record gets picked up
by a major and gets a chart hit.   I remember having the both the two
records above for between 6-12 months on whitelabel before they hit the
charts.  Makes me think they might never have got picked up.

Regards Hector.

In a message dated 7/6/02 7:59:29 AM, hector@... writes:

>Even so,  I suspect you are still missing the point,  because if clubbers
>wanted to hear tracks with your definition of true musical content, they
>would probably ask the dj to play Steely Dan or Bowie, wouldn't they?

I think this is the point that someone made - there is a draught of creative 
song writing. I would agree that the whole genre of songwriting is getting 
stale and needs to evolve. But trance/dance is not an evolution of song - its 
more an evolution of instrumental soundtracks.

And before you dismiss emotional content and sophisticated musical ideas as 
being out of date - keep in mind that these concepts have been with us as 
long as we have been human. This goes back to my sugar cube comment. It seems 
that people don't want to deal with real life, real emotions, real issues, 
and so they just get high and dance. Do you think so? This is not a new 
escape by the way (ask any Grateful Dead fan over the past 30 years).

OK, can you give us about five references of really great stuff - and we can 
try to buy it ... or do you have MP3's you can share on the L-OT page - just 
for evaluation? Maybe you're right - and there is a lot of great stuff we 
simply don't know about - so we are talking about different things.

>20 years would be 'Seven Days And One Week' by
>BBE and also Robert Miles - Children ( another no.1 I forgot to mention
>earlier).

hector@... writes:

>Chances are, with you being in the states,   you have been listening to
>some
>of the worst music Europe can offer.
now, that's just plain wrong.
one can find any recording, here: anything at all.
the shame is that people in the states just like to be *told* 
what-to-listen-to..... 
best,
the guy whose name has nothing whatsover to do w/this thread,
dt / splattercell

h@... writes:

>Then the question remains: if today's "trance generation" (if such a 
>thing exists) is 20 years older, which songs that still receive 
>airplay will then be "nostalgia" to them?
i don't think there is a 'trance generation': lumpifying listeners by 
age-category seems a mildly deluded activity, at best.
*-))
my kids enjoy listening to squarepusher, oval, aphex, takemura etc, as do i 
w/them:
indeed, i turned them on to that kinda (not-trance) stuff.
they --- and their friends, and their crowd --- do not seem to specifically 
identify w/any musical 'style', which i perceive as truly open-minded: would 
that more people of *my* generation were like that!
i think that there *was* no 'beatles' generation, nor was there a 'steely 
dan' generation:
that type of thinking seems to conform w/a standard of 'media convention', 
arrived at and agreed upon via consensus for conversational convenience.
(when you were listening to the beatles, i was listening to ornette coleman, 
miles davis, al green and hari prasad chaurasia etc--- when you were 
listening to steely dan, i was listening to the early ecm recordings, magma, 
carla bley, lookout farm, the headhunters, mahavishnu, etc. 
howver..... lucky for me, i played catch-up, later on.....)
and:
fwiw:
there is truly fresh and recent music in the world, today; it's simply become 
necessary to look for it..... in trance, in hiphop, in songwriting, in new 
music, in jazz.....
best,
dt / splattercell

TazmnianDv@..., 06-07-2002:

>>even the best dance music I've ever heard - does not have much true 
>>musical content. I wonder how they copyright these - other than 
>>copyrighing the performance. Do they actually print out 12 pages of 
>>eight notes.
that's incredibly eurocentric of you.
music's value is not weighed by the density-of-notes (neither vertically nor 
horizontally) on a piece of papier, as its not weighed by commercial success:
imo, its weighed by it's ability to transform both musicians' & listeners' 
lives.
sorry, but:
john lee hooker. nusrat fateh ali khan. idja hadijjah. om khalsoum. neil 
young. my gitane family. master musicians of jajouka. kevin shields. brian 
eno. main. cluster. etc, etc, etc, etc, ad hoc infinitum.....
best,
dt / splattercell

> >Chances are, with you being in the states,   you have been listening to
> >some
> >of the worst music Europe can offer.

> now, that's just plain wrong.
> one can find any recording, here: anything at all.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I worded  it badly.  I was refering specificly to trance music and my
definition of the worst,  which was detailed in my prior posting.   I know
that there is great choice in the states of the more commercial recordings.
Choice in the more underground stuff is probably limited and would involve a
trek round several small independant record shops in major cities.  That was
my experience anyway when I last went record shopping in NY.

Regards Hector.

Thoughts from the mind of Hector, 06-07-2002:

>  > Then the question remains: if today's "trance generation" (if such a
>>  thing exists) is 20 years older, which songs that still receive
>  > airplay will then be "nostalgia" to them?
>
>It is extremely unlikely, no impossible actually, that a trance tune will
>get airplay for 20 years.  About 1 year is the max.   After that it will
>only be on back to 199x programs or a dj dropping a old classic just bring
>back a few memories.

Which, I think, sort of proves the point some tried to make.

Next question: if Bach was born today, would he ever get airplay, or 
would he be drowned out by all the dance-trance-whatever?
Or (here's a horrid thought :) would he be one of the major trance-composers???

And no, I don't expect a serious answer... :-)

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

>Next question: if Bach was born today, would he ever get airplay, or
>would he be drowned out by all the dance-trance-whatever?
>Or (here's a horrid thought :) would he be one of the major
>trance-composers???
>
>And no, I don't expect a serious answer... :-)
>
Why not?   ;-)

Bach composed by carrying "information" by the sequence and consonance of
notes. This simply means (for example) that a Cmaj after a G7  (V7 - I) is
sth. different to a Amin after a Cmaj (I - VI). Everyone can easily tell
the difference just by listening.
That kind of "information" or sense or meaning can be transformed without
losing it´s content: Play his E-Major-Partita on violin, or if you like, on
guitar, it will be the same piece. So the "sound" isn´t very important, and
running it thru a 24dB moog filter won´t ever change the beautiful
polyphony, or even add anything meaning- or useful to it.
One could compare this with handwriting. It´s of high importance *what* you
write down, but it don´t mean a thing if you use black, or let´s say pink
ink.
Building "musical" tracks on slight variations of synthetic sounds only
(not to forget the underlying 1/1 quarter beat) and almost refusing melody,
harmonic progressions, rhthym etc.  is just like smearing ink over a paper
with printed squares (that one which is used for maths in school)
This may look pretty, but - to go back to our question above, Bach was a
composer, he didn´t smear ink on paper (in fact his handwritten music
sheets look amazing!)

Yours,

Tobias

PS: All the great composers of the past had a lot of "airplay". Mozart died
poor, but he had an income comparable to Michael Jackson, if you compare
the value in relation to the historic time. He just wasted his money by
gambling.
So, Bach was more successful than the sugar cube composers of his own time.
But times have changed.

>Next question: if Bach was born today, would he ever get airplay...


         With all the new toys I don't think he'd give a flying .... about
what a radio programmer thought , Do you ?

Thoughts from the mind of Paul Wheeler&Kerry Ritson, 08-07-2002:

>  >Next question: if Bach was born today, would he ever get airplay...
>
>          With all the new toys I don't think he'd give a flying .... about
>what a radio programmer thought , Do you ?

Nope, agreed, but I just meant: would he be able to reach a large 
enough audience to be able to make a living writing music?  Call it 
airplay, call it public exposure, call it anything you like...

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of Tobias Seyb, 08-07-2002:

>  >Next question: if Bach was born today, would he ever get airplay, or
>>would he be drowned out by all the dance-trance-whatever?
>>Or (here's a horrid thought :) would he be one of the major
>>trance-composers???
>>
>  >And no, I don't expect a serious answer... :-)
>
>Why not?   ;-)

Because I don't want to stir up yet another pointless thread :-).

>Building "musical" tracks on slight variations of synthetic sounds only
>(not to forget the underlying 1/1 quarter beat) and almost refusing melody,
>harmonic progressions, rhthym etc.  is just like smearing ink over a paper
>with printed squares (that one which is used for maths in school)
>This may look pretty, but - to go back to our question above, Bach was a
>composer, he didn´t smear ink on paper (in fact his handwritten music
>sheets look amazing!)

[ Intro: This has gotten longish, but I thought that for once I 
should allow myself to speak my mind on this subject.  Maybe there 
are some out there who might find it interesting -- or maybe not.  I 
don't plan to get into a long-winded discussion on how I am wrong and 
you are right or the other way around.  I'm too busy for that, and I 
don't see the point of discussing everything to death anyway.  This 
is just my feeling or whatever.  You're free to disagree.  I'm free 
to ignore your disagreeing :-) ]

Even though I don't like most trance-ish music, I still can't fully 
agree with you here.  True, melody and harmonic progression have been 
sacrificed for soundscaping and rhythm, but somehow that _too_ is 
composing, I think -- just with other means and a different focus 
than we're used to.  Abstract painting is just as valid as landscape 
painting -- it's just focusing on something different.

Ditto in music, imo.  "Rock" (to use the broadest possible term) is 
one approach, trance is another, and "modern classical" is yet 
another.  Somehow Xenakis (to name a random example) is an accepted 
composer -- he studied music with the Masters, is firmly rooted in 
some sort of long-standing tradition, adheres to certain rules, etc, 
etc.  So, in short: a "serious guy".  Yet I find his music ultimately 
boring, ugly and impossible to listen to.  Lots of intellectual 
blabla, computer aided composition, etc, but all *I* hear is "plonk, 
skreek, piii pooo".  And yes, that may be my lack of education, but 
I've tried for decades (ever since I was 15, now being 39) to get to 
appreciate this sort of "modernism"...  And I've been exposed to 
quite some music, of all kinds, and tend not to be too prejudiced. 
Moreover, there _are_ modern composers, like Luciano Berio, whom I 
_do_ like.  So, as far as I'm concerned, Xenakis sucks bigtime.  As 
does most of Stockhausen (one of the most overrated composers of the 
20th century imo, although I fully appreciate the impact his music 
has had, esp. in the early days).  Etc.

Uhm... what's the point of all this?  The point is that it's too easy 
to think like "Beatles and Bach are okay since they make melodies, 
trance sucks since it doesn't, and Xenakis is okay since everybody 
says he is" (or: since he stands in the same tradition that 
ultimately Bach came from -- or whatever other excuse there is).  I'd 
rather play whichever trance record than whichever Xenakis record. 
So somehow trance at least is better in conveying some sort of 
meaningful message to _me_.  And so ultimately is more musical -- 
since, again to me, music is all about conveying some sort of message.
And: are many modern composers really all that different from trance? 
Quite often not a lot of melodic or harmonic progression (at least, 
not in the traditional sense), and much of it seems to be centered 
around "sound scaping".  Take Stockhausen's electronic works from the 
... 50-ies (? I think... or was it 60-ies?)

Heck, it's hip and trendy to buy records with two Africans beating a 
drum in steady 4/4 for minutes on end -- that's called "world music" 
-- and if you ever claim that this is not music, you will be toasted 
on the grill of political correctness :).  Trance doesn't seem all 
that different to me then...

However...  I still don't like trance all that much, and that has 
little to do with being exposed (or not) to whichever obscure bunch 
of "the really interesting" knob-tweakers.  My objection has to do 
with the purpose of it all, which, as Hector has explained so clearly 
multiple times, is to induce a trance in people.  In my view, the 
world already has plenty of "sleepers" and far too little people who 
are awake and sensitive and open...  And now entire generations 
(hardly limited to age btw) find it fashionable and pleasant to 
expose themselves to trance-inducing music week after week, year 
after year.  And that, to me, is Not A Good Thing.  I can't help but 
think that this society has some kind of serious problem if thousand 
and thousands of people find it necessary to "switch off" and "escape 
reality" for at least a couple of hours every week.

Besides, getting in a trance is somehow the ultimate "lack of 
emotion".  And to me music is not only about conveying some sort of 
message, but it's about conveying an _emotional_ message.  Now I'm 
very well aware that this is just a personal preference or choice, so 
everyone's free to disagree.  An African shaman would probably 
strongly disagree -- but then I'm not one who is afraid to be accused 
of political incorrectness :).  Don't get me wrong: there's nothing 
wrong with shamanistic (?) music: it serves a very specific purpose 
and does so quite well.  Just don't ask me to admire it's 
compositional structure, emotional contents, or progressive qualities.

To me the same holds not only for music, but for every sort of art. 
I've always hated and always will hate so-called "conceptual art".  A 
blob on paper, and a 10-page story to explain why this is a deep 
thought.  "F*ck you!" is all the emotion *I* feel then.  The blob on 
paper isn't what is wrong -- the right blob could send shivers down 
my spine.  It's the complete lack of emotion, the quasi intellectual 
justification of complete sh*t, that gets to me.

And, finally, what I truly resent about almost any kind of dance 
music, is that it isn't truly helping this (musical) culture progress 
anymore.  Sure, it did for some time.  It liberated us of the 
necessity to use complex melodies and harmonies, and put the focus on 
rhythm again.  It showed how you can recycle someone else's material 
and still come up with something brilliantly original.  Etcetera. 
All very worthwhile -- just as "Musique Concrete"  and Stockhausen's 
electronic experiments have paved the way for "something else than 
your plain-vanilla classical orchestra".  Extremly important and not 
be underrated.
Still you'll find that most of these electronic experiments aren't 
really worth listening to anymore (imo of course).  They've served 
their (important) purpose, and now we're done with it.  Ditto with 
action painting: usually not the sort of stuff you would want to hang 
on your wall, and not something you would still do today, but 
certainly something that liberated arists in an important way.  And 
again ditto for Schonberg's strict serialism: probably one of the 
most important events in music in the last century.  Some of it is 
even worth listening to :).  But the importance is not in the "nice 
or ugly music" -- it's in the freedom it has given composers, so that 
now we're free to write multi-modal music, change key abruptly 
without classical cadenzas, use whatever means we think is necessary 
to express that which we wish to express, without looking in the 
harmony textbooks all that much (if at all).  But... you don't 
seriously write strict dodecaphonic pieces anymore, do you? That 
would be rather silly, outdated and limiting

Trance-dance-whatever: ditto.  Important in a liberating kind of way. 
But hey, we got the message, we now all know that you can sample, 
scratch, tweak knobs and pump up the beat -- and now it's time to 
move on.  Incorporate that which trance has brought us, and go back 
(!) to making music.  And, seriously, upping the tempo from 120 bpm 
to 135 bpm is *not* innovation...

Sticking to the "strict formulae" of trance, to me is like: hey we 
got this new tool, and it's called a "saw".  And then for some time 
you skip the hammer and the screwdriver, and have loads of fun with 
just the saw.  Fine, no problem.  But if after 10 years you're still 
having fun with the saw: good for you, but a little limited in my 
view.  Why not *add* the saw to your toolbox, and start using the 
hammer and screwdriver again, whenever appropriate?  Using a saw, you 
can do things you couldn't do before, but not using a hammer and 
screwdriver you can _not_ do things you _could_ do before.  Why limit 
yourself in such a narrow-minded way?  The saw is not the ultimate 
tool.  It's one of the many.

And the tools are not the ultimate goal. The goal is music.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

among many other valuable insights, h@... writes:

>The goal is music.
ah, yeah, but.....
the goal of music is to:
"         ".

btw:
w/o  excessive judgement:
most pop music puts me into some kind of trance-state.
best,
dt / splattercell

Thoughts from the mind of texture444@..., 08-07-2002:

>among many other valuable insights, h@... writes:
>
>>The goal is music.
>ah, yeah, but.....
>the goal of music is to:
>"         ".

Exactly my point.  You just need less words to explain it :-).

>btw:
>w/o  excessive judgement:
>most pop music puts me into some kind of trance-state.

Yes, agreed.  Although I think you'd have to agree that this is 
somehow different from people dancing to a non-stop 135 bpm beat and 
being high on pills for hours on end.  The trance/house thing has a 
kind of tribal primitive aspect to it which imo mostly lacks in "pop 
music".  And this _does_ make a difference, at least to me.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html