[
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
was
produced. As if I'm tasting food.It's wonderful if I can improvise from
such
frame of mind. Same goes for the To synth or not to synth dilemna. How
does
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
typeset
on a ....
Gear discussion is really useful ,and fascinating to me,esp as is
often
the case on this list,when people discuss the relative strengths and
weakneses,and distinguish between studio and performance unctions