OT: Top 40
| Date | 2007-08-06 02:35 |
| From | Tim Mortimer |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top 40 |
I guess DSP is in some way connected to the concept of "bling?" Latest technology == prominent outwardly visible trope of consumerist culture. & that seems to be the predominant sentiment of most commercial RnB: "I'm young, & I'm fuelled by desire: to propogate & to consume." It seems to be predominantly RnB that embraces outwardly "forward thinking" & the most overtly digital stylisations. Although i don't specifically recall anything "granular" that springs to mind. "Glitchy" & heavily spliced, maybe. Most other pop genres seemed less likely to wear any overt "experimentation" on their sleeve. &, of course, the ever present Cher vocal effect. But then the old talk box did something similar back in the 70's yes? Someone may wish to correct me, but I personally say Timbaland was responsible for popularising the "more hi-tech" RnB sound sometime circa 96/97. I'm sure he didn't work in a vacuum however. Grab a copy of Destiny's Child "Writings on the Wall", it sounds like you might enjoy it. He also produced the early Missy Elliot stuff, however I always found that the mixes of the singles that appeared on the videos seemed loads more stripped back (& hence "challenging") than the versions on the albums. There is loads of great RnB out there - like all genres, you just need to have the access & be able to sift through the crap to find it. The demarcation between "rap" & RnB in my mind is also fairly clear. The former tends to be more about the DIY ethic, however i have to admit that rap interests me so little I am hardly qualified to comment. It's the "studio craft", technical flirtations, & pop accessibility of RnB that for me has made it by far & away the most interesting & enjoyable arm of popular music over the last 10 years. 2) last time i looked 808's were definately NOT cheap. If you find any cheap 808's or 909's in Romania my advice is buy up big. I'll take one off your hands. They are still beautiful drum sounds in my book (their remaining ever-prescence in RnB being something of an exception to my general observation here - but IMHO, deserved...) Chuckk Hubbard wrote: > > I'm working data entry from midnight to 8:30 am (love the hours), and my > coworkers listen to the radio all night every night. It's great! I just > graduated with a degree in music, and yet I had stopped enjoying listening > to music. I've never been a pop fan, but I'm finding it pretty > stimulating. > > Because in just about every song currently on the charts, there is a > healthy > portion of either granular synthesis or (more likely) spectral > manipulation. Either someone's vocal ornamentation is made to sound > digital, or the vocals are made to sound like baby-voice, or there's > granular synthesis over top of everything. The urban music crowd is > eating > it up, and I know how to do it! > What makes "cutting-edge" (as they see it) computer techniques so popular > in > these styles? It used to be hip to be low-tech, to have the cheapest gear > (808), or even just two guys taking turns making mouth percussion and > rapping. Then again, it used to be hip to rap about social injustice and > fighting the establishment, rather than owning lots of stuff. Supply and > demand, I guess. > > On the other hand, there's a lot about regular, gimmickless audio > production > that I don't know. At any rate, I'm glad I have Csound to guide me. I'm > moving to Romania soon, and I have a feeling my knowledge of these things > will be rare there. Whether there'll be a demand for it, I don't know. I > guess the only thing is to learn more and more and more. > > > > -Chuckk > > > -- > http://www.badmuthahubbard.com > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/OT%3A-Top-40-tf4220518.html#a12009992 Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
| Date | 2007-08-06 20:54 |
| From | mark jamerson |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top 40 |
Might you be referring to the high incidence of using
digital equipment/DSP to correct or spice up the
vocals of a singer that's not up to par. There's a lot
of this going on. But if you're talking about cool
sounds in the background, then nevermind.
> Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> >
> > I'm working data entry from midnight to 8:30 am
> (love the hours), and my
> > coworkers listen to the radio all night every
> night. It's great! I just
> > graduated with a degree in music, and yet I had
> stopped enjoying listening
> > to music. I've never been a pop fan, but I'm
> finding it pretty
> > stimulating.
> >
> > Because in just about every song currently on the
> charts, there is a
> > healthy
> > portion of either granular synthesis or (more
> likely) spectral
> > manipulation. Either someone's vocal
> ornamentation is made to sound
> > digital, or the vocals are made to sound like
> baby-voice, or there's
> > granular synthesis over top of everything. The
> urban music crowd is
> > eating
> > it up, and I know how to do it!
> > What makes "cutting-edge" (as they see it)
> computer techniques so popular
> > in
> > these styles? It used to be hip to be low-tech,
> to have the cheapest gear
> > (808), or even just two guys taking turns making
> mouth percussion and
> > rapping. Then again, it used to be hip to rap
> about social injustice and
> > fighting the establishment, rather than owning
> lots of stuff. Supply and
> > demand, I guess.
> >
> > On the other hand, there's a lot about regular,
> gimmickless audio
> > production
> > that I don't know. At any rate, I'm glad I have
> Csound to guide me. I'm
> > moving to Romania soon, and I have a feeling my
> knowledge of these things
> > will be rare there. Whether there'll be a demand
> for it, I don't know. I
> > guess the only thing is to learn more and more and
> more.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Chuckk
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://www.nabble.com/OT%3A-Top-40-tf4220518.html#a12009992
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive
> at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz |
| Date | 2007-08-07 17:13 |
| From | "Aidan Collins" |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top 40 |
| Attachments | None |
| Date | 2007-08-07 17:35 |
| From | Alexandre Fenerich |
| Subject | cecilia load file question |
| Hello I am a newbie on Cecilia and linux (ubuntu), and I would like to make a question. I am trying to load a soundfile from Cecilia in order to load to Csound. I've made the "input module" on Cecilia by TCL/TK interface (cfilein source -label "sound to process" -type audio). I've loaded the sound into the interface and it was played by. Then I've used soundin on Csound, asig, asig soundin "O_risset.aiff", but it cannot be initialized. Csound terminal was, in the end: Csound tidy up: Segmentation fault any idea to how can I fix it? (I'm using Csound 4.27) Thank you Alexandre Fenerich Alertas do Yahoo! Mail em seu celular. Saiba mais. |