[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Radiophonics and

  In terms of critique , asking what the artist attempted and whether they 
accomplished it, I find very useful. Most of the reviews I see , of all 
sorts  ,lack this approach. It's pretty much useless to me when someone 
says: this is great ,or this is awful etc.
  I too can be unintersted in work that seems to be less developed than my 
own technical ability,but I consider this to be a potential mistake.I find 
it very useful to listen as if I don't know anything about how the sound 
produced. As if I'm tasting food.It's wonderful if I can improvise from 
frame of mind. Same goes for the  To synth or not to synth dilemna. How 
it feel as pure sound,without refence to the source? Sometimes banks of 
effects don't seem at all qualitatively,different than synths 
subjectively.Sometimes it's hard to tell the differenc.Sometimes we 
musicians get into this technical orientation that if applied to writers 
would be something like. Wow he used 357 adjectives and he was typing at 
350wpm on a vintage ibm keyboard from back in the day.His placement of 
commas is much more developed than so n so's. or X's latest book was 
on a ....
     Gear discussion is really useful ,and fascinating to me,esp as is 
the case on this list,when people discuss the relative strengths and 
weakneses,and distinguish between studio and performance  unctions