Quote GTD:

---

Quote Michael Dow:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_Cl4-agjU&feature=related


Quick example of a piece of uplifting trance. You may or may not find it emotional. But it does it for me and many others!

Or of course there's the ferry corsten mix of adagio for strings by samuel barber (william orbits re-release) Awesome, and programmed.

---

Michael, please don't take offence, but this music is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

It is to my ears very, very musical, but (imho) robbed of so much potential in having conveniently repeated arp and drum loops.

If the producer were to have allowed each part, including trivial repeating parts, to have evolved or developed in subtle ways, the whole listening experience could have been much more engaging.

If the subtle changes in drums or arpeggios or whatever, are engineered into the music in a way which is sympathetic to how the music is changing and evolving, then there IS feeling, even though it is sequenced electronic trance music.

Put simply, (again imho), the less lazy the sequencing, the more involving the music will be.

Isn't the use of slow filters and modulated delay or pumped compression on repeating parts an attempt to give them more' life'?

I would love to ask a sizable number of 'trance' afficionados to compare an arpeggio or drum loop which repeats unchanging with one which changes subtly over time. Would the answer depend on whether the loops were heard in isolation or in context in the music? I don't know, but I'd bet (if their attention is drawn to it) a significant number of people would prefer something changing subtly to something static.

---

I don't really like the track in the youtube video, its pretty banal to my ears. But whoever thinks programmed music means unintelligent music is just totally ignorant.

Quote Michael Dow:

---

Quick example of a piece of uplifting trance. You may or may not find it emotional. But it does it for me and many others!

---

Yes. Nice enough.

I think that with this style of music (and the original Berlin electronica of the 70s, etc.), it's the relentless, pounding, perfectly quantized, dead on the beat, unwavering, hypnotic drive of the sequencing that appeals here. Hence, presumably, the 'trance' label.

But about that piece you highlighted (and so much of that genre)...

God, it was SOOOO bloody predictable!! I don't listen to a lot of trance (and whatever sub-genre) but I could hear it all coming in advance ... the offbeat hi-hat, the clichéd thumping kick, the snare fills doubling from 8ths to 16ths to 32nds, the inevitable fizzy 'supersaw' chordal pattern, etc.. I was sitting there going "Ah - off beat hi-hat coming in ... now" ... "Doubling snare fill coming in .... .... now" ... "And it's all going to stop in a second ... doubling snare fill, probably a doubling kick fill too, then break down to a stop, put the whole lot through an upwards filter sweep ... then the thumping kick then the off beat hi-hat coming back in now ... aaaand .... doubling snare fill aaaand .... big majestic 'supersaw' chordal finale ... now"...

And sure enough, exactly as I was predicting! I got them all pretty much spot on!

I listened to other related vids listed there ... all the bloody same ... like they were written to some formula or rule book.

It's a shame because I love a pounding, hypnotic, metronomic, sequencer driven piece and was doing it/listening to it 15 years before you were born (although we were using analogue sequencers and 'real' synths with knobs which we could interact with in real-time to provide variation) but I have to say that I find trance so/too formulaic.

I just wish the trance merchants could break away from the formula and do something different - and interesting - for a change. I am sure there are some which I don't get to hear (my clubbing days are long over!!!) and yes, you can level the same criticism at other musical styles (intro, verse, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle eight, transpose up a tone, repeat chorus through fade out) but when a 53-year-old who doesn't listen to trance can predict to the bar pretty much exactly what change is about to happen, it says something about the genre's predictability IMO!

But I don't know - maybe there's some kind of (subconscious) feeling of 'safety' in that and/or maybe it's all 'paced' for the dance floor, something I parted company with a LONG time ago!!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Michael Dow:

---

Or of course there's the ferry corsten mix of adagio for strings by samuel barber (william orbits re-release) Awesome, and programmed.

---

I have to admit, that one does bugger all for me (and I usually like most electronica, bar the dullest house). The original piece is a masterpiece, and played by real people with real string instruments, astonishing. To my ears, the remix may get the notes right, but the feeling ... just isn't there. Still, if it got a few people to go and search for the original, worth doing, but otherwise... I'm sorry. It's a travesty, a pale shadow of the original.

IMHO of course !

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Quote tomafd:

---

Quote Michael Dow:

---

Or of course there's the ferry corsten mix of adagio for strings by samuel barber (william orbits re-release) Awesome, and programmed.

---

I have to admit, that one does bugger all for me (and I usually like most electronica, bar the dullest house). The original piece is a masterpiece, and played by real people with real string instruments, astonishing. To my ears, the remix may get the notes right, but the feeling ... just isn't there. Still, if it got a few people to go and search for the original, worth doing, but otherwise... I'm sorry. It's a travesty, a pale shadow of the original.

IMHO of course !

---

Yeah its awful, really. No feeling, no emotion. Exactly what does william orbit add? A kick drum and some cheesy synth sounds? Whilst at the same time stripping out all the feeling and movement of the original...

Quote johnny h:

---

Yeah its awful, really. No feeling, no emotion. Exactly what does william orbit add? A kick drum and some cheesy synth sounds? Whilst at the same time stripping out all the feeling and movement of the original...

---

Yep. That sums it up pretty nicely. 10/10!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Michael Dow:

---

I listened to other related vids listed there ... all the bloody same ... like they were written to some formula or rule book.

---

It's all written in the dummies cook book guide to making Trance don't you know lol

I don't know how a thread about audio myths deviated into slagging other genres of music but any way I agree with you Hollow Sun...and I will come back to this but I'm at work at the moment

Quote vinyl_junkie:

---

I don't know how a thread about audio myths deviated into slagging other genres of music but any way I agree with you Hollow Sun...

---

I am most definitely not "slagging"....

Just my observations!

And a lament ... that a genre with so much potential (given the amazing technology and possibilities involved) is so 'painting by numbers' and formulaic and 'identikit'!

If you want me steer this back on topic, I am happy to do so....

All this nonsense and talk of 64-bit audio and 192kHz sample rates is, for the most part for MOST people in MOST situations given the restrictions and compromises of their recording/playback systems and environments, largely "Emperor's New Clothes" bollocks and not worth worrying about! And Joe Public simply (largely) doesn't care and 44/16 is perfectly adequate for all but the most demanding of recording and listening situations.

Several clichés can be wheeled out here...

- If it sounds good, it IS good

- If the content is shite, it doesn't matter what high-end technology you use

- If the content is good, it doesn't matter what low-end technology you use

Impeccably recorded records have bombed and disappeared into total obscurity; appallingly recorded records have been international best sellers!

The gear you use is almost irrelevant if the core musical idea is good and solid and engages the audience.

On the other hand, the 'audience' is a fickle lot ... which is why Joe Dolce's 'Shaddapayaface' kept Ultravox's 'Vienna' off the #1 slot ... or The Smurfs or 'Grandma, we love you' or whatever (ahem) musical travesty which has proved popular.

And unfortunately, at the end of the day, much of it can depend not on which boutique hardware or cheapo, freebie plug-in compressor you use but on who you know and contacts in the industry.

And all of that is kind of irrelevant given that most people don't want to pay for music any more!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Edited by hollowsun (17/02/10 05:52 PM)

Quote hollowsun:

---

God, it was SOOOO bloody predictable!! I don't listen to a lot of trance (and whatever sub-genre) but I could hear it all coming in advance ... the offbeat hi-hat, the clichéd thumping kick, the snare fills doubling from 8ths to 16ths to 32nds, the inevitable fizzy 'supersaw' chordal pattern, etc.. I was sitting there going "Ah - off beat hi-hat coming in ... now" ... "Doubling snare fill coming in .... .... now" ... "And it's all going to stop in a second ... doubling snare fill, probably a doubling kick fill too, then break down to a stop, put the whole lot through an upwards filter sweep ... then the thumping kick then the off beat hi-hat coming back in now ... aaaand .... doubling snare fill aaaand .... big majestic 'supersaw' chordal finale ... now"...

And sure enough, exactly as I was predicting! I got them all pretty much spot on!

---

I totally agree with what you said - but you're a musician, and thus you listen to music fundamentally differently to an average person without musical ability.

I'm going to generalise a little, so forgive in advance.

We creative people *thrive* on new ideas, interesting ideas, being challenged, we love hearing something new, we're amazed when a guest musician on our tracks does something we would have never thought of and lifts our track to a new level.

In short - our whole essence is that creative people *love* being challenged. We don't want endless rehashes of the same old formulas, we want invention, ingenuity and someone to channel their creative spirit in a way that's captivating and new.

But - non-creatives often *don't want to be challenged*.

Being challenged requires active effort to absorb and process something new, it forces us to re-evaluate our position and view on things, and some people simply do not want to do this. They do not want to switch on the TV and have to *work* to understand the plot, they kinda want it spoon fed in nice easy digestable, predictable lumps.

This is not *wrong* as such, it's just a very different take on things to how my whole being is shaped, and I presume most other creative people too. Creative people fundamentally wire themselves differently to "non-creatives".

(Remember, I'm generalising, and there can be an argument that nobody is actually a "non-creative", but that's not the point of my post at this time.)

I've sat and watched people process challenging material, and seen them shut down. Those people are not reached by being challenged. Their wiring does not work well with it.

Different strokes, for different folks.

And yes, I've often being driving along the motorway with this style of trance on some of my favourite tracks cranking out of the car stereo, and find the experience highly enjoyable when I'm in that mood. Uplifting indeed, when done well - driving, repetitive music *done well* can be very powerful. Like any genre, much of the material is average, with some great stuff right at the top.

For balance, I've also been driving along the motorway listening to a solo singer songwriter perform and make me cry.

Music is a powerful thing, and *all* music to a large extent has formulas and recipes - it's how music works.

The recipe is not the problem, it's the composer working within their recipe to strive to do something that connects with someone. A given piece might do nothing for person A, but for person B it becomes a highly important, and emotive piece of music to their life.

Some people blindly follow the recipe, and don't put themselves into their music. I would say that quite a bit of trance could be argued to fit into this category. There's probably plenty of other categories of music you could level the same comment towards as well...

It's all good. Find what works for you, and don't criticise others if they are not moved by what you think they *should* be moved by. There are people I know who I think have *appalling* taste in music, but hey, it's their taste, and it's what they like, so who's to say it's appalling, other than me..?

It's probably more important to *be* moved, than what's doing the actual moving, in life.

Hmm. That got more than a little philosophical, didn't it? I apologise...

Quote hollowsun:

---

- If it sounds good, it IS good

---

I have to say, this one bugs me a bit.

If someone with no experience and questionable judgement thinks something is *good*, then I would question that, because they do not have the skills necessary to make an appropriate call.

"Good" is a different meaning than whether you like something or not.

I could play a rough, really bad mix to my mum, and ask her if that sounded good, and she'd probably say, truthfully, yes, it sounded really good.

Then I would play the finished mix, which *anyone* would say comparing to the two sounded much better, and she would indeed, say it sounded better than the first one.

The point is, she didn't have to ability to understand and reference that first mix when she heard it. It sounded good to her, so it was good in her terms.

But that doesn't make it *actually* good.

So I would modify the cliche:- "if it sounds good to you, and you have enough experience and judgement to assess it properly, then it's good to you".

I admit it's not quite as catchy, but...

The slagging comment wasn't aimed at you Hollow Sun, but some other comments I have seen in this thread where's one person thinks his taste is better than another and so on..
What you said I think was spot on as well as other people who made similar comments.

Among the wide range of music I listen to a huge chunk of it is electronic music..call it what ever you want, house, trance, deep house, etc.
One thing has been bugging me recently more than ever and that is the formulaic, predictable same sounding c*ap in pretty much all the genres now especially deep house which is "too cool for skool" lol and deep mannnn and it all sounds the same now..It's become the most boring thing you have listened to in your life and this comes from a house head..Just lame 909 kick with a sampled rhodes chord pitched one up two down...
If you check out new releases on vinyl everything coming out in the deep house genre all sounds the same, what's in fasion now is bad production, 707 drums, 303 and juno...if it sounds like it was made in 88 without a computer it's a hit with the house kids...just rip off any old trax records release from Chicago and you have a hit not to mention you are cool cos you are a propper house head who used a 707..the chicago beat box of choice for many of the pioneers of house back in the day.
I could go on forever but at least trance ain't that pretentious and lame....it's just as lame as all the other stuff out there now just in different ways lol
People forgot how to be creative with all these DAW's..it's not the fault of the DAW it's us lazy humans

More and more people can make music these days, which means more music is generated and while the potential for great stuff increases, so does the noise of the mediocre, but at a faster rate.

*Hopefully* the good stuff and good people rise to the top, but I can't help thinking a lot of them are drowned along the way... but then that's probably always been the case, I guess...

Quote desmond:

---

Quote hollowsun:

---

God, it was SOOOO bloody predictable!! I don't listen to a lot of trance (and whatever sub-genre) but I could hear it all coming in advance ... the offbeat hi-hat, the clichéd thumping kick, the snare fills doubling from 8ths to 16ths to 32nds, the inevitable fizzy 'supersaw' chordal pattern, etc.. I was sitting there going "Ah - off beat hi-hat coming in ... now" ... "Doubling snare fill coming in .... .... now" ... "And it's all going to stop in a second ... doubling snare fill, probably a doubling kick fill too, then break down to a stop, put the whole lot through an upwards filter sweep ... then the thumping kick then the off beat hi-hat coming back in now ... aaaand .... doubling snare fill aaaand .... big majestic 'supersaw' chordal finale ... now"...

And sure enough, exactly as I was predicting! I got them all pretty much spot on!

---

I totally agree with what you said - but you're a musician, and thus you listen to music fundamentally differently to an average person without musical ability.

---

That is absolutely incorrect!

The assumption that being a musician makes you more sophisticated in your music tastes is a classic mistake of many producers and musicians.

Knowing how to play a few chords, in fact knowing all of them front to back, or being able to eq a snare absolutely does NOTHING to improve your understanding of music. Just think back to the 1970s with the prog rock bands believed they were pushing music forward from the dumb motown hits which the idiot general public loved. What did they know? Nothing. It was the Motown hits that stood the test of time. It was the Motown hits that had the true understanding of music and soul, something which the technically proficient and musically educated prog rockers had no knowledge of at all.

People know if they like something or not. They may not know how to express it in the same terminology but they feel it just the same. Same with dance music. They might not say, "oh I don't like the kick and snare balance or the sidechaining", but they won't dance, and they won't want to listen to it. And that's far more important.

Quote:

---

Creative people fundamentally wire themselves differently to "non-creatives".

(Remember, I'm generalising, and there can be an argument that nobody is actually a "non-creative", but that's not the point of my post at this time.)

I've sat and watched people process challenging material, and seen them shut down. Those people are not reached by being challenged. Their wiring does not work well with it.

---

Dismissing people as having rewired brains and believing you experience music in a fundamentally different way is both condescending and myopic.

There is a difference between being "challenged" and listening to "challenging" music. Why is it challenging? Is there a good reason for it? Music should be as simple as it needs to be, and no more simple. If its needlessly challenging, then while it may be technically proficient, its arguably has less musical value than the latest pop hit.

Quote:

---

Music is a powerful thing, and *all* music to a large extent has formulas and recipes - it's how music works.

The recipe is not the problem, it's the composer working within their recipe to strive to do something that connects with someone. A given piece might do nothing for person A, but for person B it becomes a highly important, and emotive piece of music to their life.

---

The recipe is based upon fundamental rules of music and rhythm and mixed with shared knowledge of genre and song structure. True musical genius is to interpret these rules in a new, but at the same time familiar way, so that it connects with people all around the world.

Quote desmond:

---

More and more people can make music these days, which means more music is generated and while the potential for great stuff increases, so does the noise of the mediocre, but at a faster rate.

*Hopefully* the good stuff and good people rise to the top, but I can't help thinking a lot of them are drowned along the way... but then that's probably always been the case, I guess...

---

That is so very true, I was going to say that too but forgot to write it down.
With this though I guess it also raises the bar of the quality the music has to be now to actually stand out.
Changing the subject slightly, has any one heard the new Gil Scott Herron album cos I think it's errrm cack, produced by that dude who runs XL records...not a wise choice imo

Just sounds like some poor rip-off of Autechre with poor ol' Scotty doing his thing over it

Edited by vinyl_junkie (17/02/10 07:58 PM)

Quote johnny h:

---

The assumption that being a musician makes you more sophisticated in your music tastes is a classic mistake of many producers and musicians.

---

You know J, there's rarely a post of mine you reply you where you don't seem to invent words that I never said, or miss my point entirely.

I said "fundamentally different", I said nothing about "sophistication" or any value judgements. I didn't say "those stupid non-muso's know nothing about music and I so incredibly superior, which is how you've interpreted my post". Perhaps I worded things badly, but that is absolutely not the intent.

It's really not incorrect. If I play a song to a non-musician, and I say "can you sing back to me the bassline" they will will not be able to do it. Non musicians (and this is not a put down, it's just a generalisation, as I already apologised for) feel the beat and the changes, and listen to the words and melody and important hooks but the rest is just part of the whole mish-mash but they don't really know how to process.

When I listen to tracks, of course I'm hearing that stuff that everyone notices, but I've trained myself to listen over many years. I'm hearing what the various parts are, how they interact. I'm hearing the vocal and how wet it is in the mix and where the vocal rides are. I'm hearing the snare and how it's been compressed, and often what it's beeing compressed with. In short, my knowledge makes me actively listen in the way that non-musicians do not know how to do. This does not get in the way of my enjoyment of the music, in fact it enhances it, because I'm also absorbing lots of things and learning from what I hear.

As an analogy, I was never particularly visually creative as such, because it was sound that grabbed me from an early age. but when I started to get into photography, it *changed the way I see*. I had to educate myself about light and the quality and direction of it, how to shape and control it. Once you actively process what you see, it fundamentally changes what and how you see. Again, this is not a put-down for people who aren't interested in photography, it just means that you see things differently.

Quote johnny h:

---

Knowing how to play a few chords, in fact knowing all of them front to back, or being able to eq a snare absolutely does NOTHING to improve your understanding of music.

---

It may well do nothing to improve my *enjoyment* of it, but it certainly does plenty to improve my understanding of it.

Quote johnny h:

---

People know if they like something or not. They may not know how to express it in the same terminology but they feel it just the same. Same with dance music. They might not say, "oh I don't like the kick and snare balance or the sidechaining", but they won't dance, and they won't want to listen to it. And that's far more important.

---

Of course. And there was nothing in my post that says this.

Quote johnny h:

---

Dismissing people as having rewired brains and believing you experience music in a fundamentally different way is both condescending and myopic.

---

Can we layoff the personal insults please, it's getting habitual around here. You are quite able to hold an opposing viewpoint and discuss it rationally without getting straight into name calling.

Quote johnny h:

---

The recipe is based upon fundamental rules of music and rhythm and mixed with shared knowledge of genre and song structure.

---

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

Quote johnny h:

---

True musical genius is to interpret these rules in a new, but at the same time familiar way, so that it connects with people all around the world.

---

I don't know that I can define exactly what "genius" is. And I don't really care - it seems to me that's more of a social label, than anything to do with music.

Quote desmond:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

The assumption that being a musician makes you more sophisticated in your music tastes is a classic mistake of many producers and musicians.

---

You know J, there's rarely a post of mine you reply you where you don't seem to invent words that I never said, or miss my point entirely.

I said "fundamentally different", I said nothing about "sophistication" or any value judgements. I didn't say "those stupid non-muso's know nothing about music and I so incredibly superior, which is how you've interpreted my post". Perhaps I worded things badly, but that is absolutely not the intent.

---

Well okay, maybe, but I'd still disagree entirely that people hear music in a fundamentally different way from "creative types"

johnny h Quote:

---

It's really not incorrect. If I play a song to a non-musician, and I say "can you sing back to me the bassline" they will will not be able to do it. Non musicians (and this is not a put down, it's just a generalisation, as I already apologised for) feel the beat and the changes, and listen to the words and melody and important hooks but the rest is just part of the whole mish-mash but they don't really know how to process.

---

Most people can sing a bit, repeat melodies and tap along to some rhythms. Tone deaf people can't (and i know a lot of tone deaf producers actually) but they aren't the majority.

johnny h Quote:

---

When I listen to tracks, of course I'm hearing that stuff that everyone notices, but I've trained myself to listen over many years. I'm hearing what the various parts are, how they interact. I'm hearing the vocal and how wet it is in the mix and where the vocal rides are. I'm hearing the snare and how it's been compressed, and often what it's beeing compressed with. In short, my knowledge makes me actively listen in the way that non-musicians do not know how to do. This does not get in the way of my enjoyment of the music, in fact it enhances it, because I'm also absorbing lots of things and learning from what I hear.

---

Okay, well I can take your word for that. But personally I would strongly disagree knowing how much reverb there is on a snare enhances enjoyment of music.

johnny h Quote:

---

As an analogy, I was never particularly visually creative as such, because it was sound that grabbed me from an early age. but when I started to get into photography, it *changed the way I see*. I had to educate myself about light and the quality and direction of it, how to shape and control it. Once you actively process what you see, it fundamentally changes what and how you see. Again, this is not a put-down for people who aren't interested in photography, it just means that you see things differently.

---

After learning about photography, I know now there a certain ways of composing shots which make photos more effective, and what tricks and techniques are used to create that sort of image. But it doesn't affect my emotional response to new images at all.

johnny h Quote:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Knowing how to play a few chords, in fact knowing all of them front to back, or being able to eq a snare absolutely does NOTHING to improve your understanding of music.

---

It may well do nothing to improve my *enjoyment* of it, but it certainly does plenty to improve my understanding of it.

---

Music is about emotion and not technique. Arguably being consciously aware of the reverb and compression of small elements of a piece of music distracts from its emotional impact.

Quote johnny h:

---

Well okay, maybe, but I'd still disagree entirely that people hear music in a fundamentally different way from "creative types"

---

Perhaps you don't like the wording. But this is a common thing - I watch someone dancing, with very little knowledge of choregraphy or dance or what makes a great dancer. I can enjoy (or not) the performance, and I can single eout things I like. And I can certainly have an emotional response to it.

But in no way would I be seeing it the same way a professional dancer would be watching it.

Quote johnny h:

---

Most people can sing a bit, repeat melodies and tap along to some rhythms.

---

Sure. Hence my OT point about there being an argument to say that perhaps there are no "non-creative" types. Music may well be an inate ability inside everyone that only some people exploit - but that's a different argument and not relevant to our discussion.

Quote johnny h:

---

Okay, well I can take your word for that. But personally I would strongly disagree knowing how much reverb there is on a snare enhances enjoyment of music.

---

Again, I never said this. I said, I *listen* in a different way. I did not originally mention anything about the enjoyment of what I'm hearing. Of course listening to engineering details is not really affecting my emotional response. But the fact is, I'm hearing these things that other, non-trained people are not, and I'm hearing actively, listening to all the parts and the details and the arrangement and the intent, and these other people are not. I'm listeneing to all those tracks in one big multitrack arrangement together, where non-trained people are listening to the mix and the focal points.

You may disagree to the semantics of my post, but I'm very sure that I'm listening to what I hear very differently to my non-musician mates. In fact, I've had plenty of conversations about it.

Quote johnny h:

---

After learning about photography, I know now there a certain ways of composing shots which make photos more effective, and what tricks and techniques are used to create that sort of image. But it doesn't affect my emotional response to new images at all.

---

Of course. Again, if you read my original post, I never said this. All I'm saying is that I *see* differently now, to before I had that knowledge. I will still largely have the same emotional response to looking at an image, but I will be able to explain what I'm seeing. Again, "understanding" and "enjoying" - the appreciation of the piece, and the emotional response - are two different concepts. In reality, it's not that clear-cut of course, there is some interaction between the two.

The fact that my engineer-ey bits are hearing and appreciateing what an awesome drum sound a particular record has could get in the way of the "artistic intent" or what's being communicated. And this is a bit of the "curse" of knowledge - it means you can't quite experience somethig in the same way as someone without that knowledge. Again, supporting my original point.

Quote johnny h:

---

Music is about emotion and not technique. Arguably being consciously aware of the reverb and compression of small elements of a piece of music distracts from its emotional impact.

---

Yes, arguably so. And once again, you've have pointed out something that also supports my initial comment.

I never said my experience of listening was "better" or "worse" than a non-musician. I simply said, I think we hear things differently. This, to me at least, seems quite obvious.

Quote desmond:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Well okay, maybe, but I'd still disagree entirely that people hear music in a fundamentally different way from "creative types"

---

Perhaps you don't like the wording. But this is a common thing - I watch someone dancing, with very little knowledge of choregraphy or dance or what makes a great dancer. I can enjoy (or not) the performance, and I can single eout things I like. And I can certainly have an emotional response to it.

But in no way would I be seeing it the same way a professional dancer would be watching it.

Quote johnny h:

---

Most people can sing a bit, repeat melodies and tap along to some rhythms.

---

Sure. Hence my OT point about there being an argument to say that perhaps there are no "non-creative" types. Music may well be an inate ability inside everyone that only some people exploit - but that's a different argument and not relevant to our discussion.

Quote johnny h:

---

Okay, well I can take your word for that. But personally I would strongly disagree knowing how much reverb there is on a snare enhances enjoyment of music.

---

Again, I never said this. I said, I *listen* in a different way. I did not originally mention anything about the enjoyment of what I'm hearing. Of course listening to engineering details is not really affecting my emotional response. But the fact is, I'm hearing these things that other, non-trained people are not, and I'm hearing actively, listening to all the parts and the details and the arrangement and the intent, and these other people are not. I'm listeneing to all those tracks in one big multitrack arrangement together, where non-trained people are listening to the mix and the focal points.

You may disagree to the semantics of my post, but I'm very sure that I'm listening to what I hear very differently to my non-musician mates. In fact, I've had plenty of conversations about it.

The fact that my engineer-ey bits are hearing and appreciateing what an awesome drum sound a particular record has could get in the way of the "artistic intent" or what's being communicated. And this is a bit of the "curse" of knowledge - it means you can't quite experience somethig in the same way as someone without that knowledge. Again, supporting my original point.

Quote johnny h:

---

Music is about emotion and not technique. Arguably being consciously aware of the reverb and compression of small elements of a piece of music distracts from its emotional impact.

---

Yes, arguably so. And once again, you've have pointed out something that also supports my initial comment.

I never said my experience of listening was "better" or "worse" than a non-musician. I simply said, I think we hear things differently. This, to me at least, seems quite obvious.

---

Sure, but listening to music from an engineering perspective is counterproductive, in my view. Certainly if I find myself wondering what kind of reverb settings are being used on a drum hit, I'm not normally particularly engrossed in the music.

The small world view of an engineer is not what the public wants. Sure, you can use all your skills and techniques to mix something which connects with other people, and of course this involves knowing what reverb to use to achieve a certain sound, and things like that. But, its important to have the ability to switch off from all that, and listen just as a casual listener.

Its very easy to lose this when you are getting more and more involved with engineering, and its a terrible thing to lose, as you are distancing yourself from the general music loving non-engineer, which is ultimately who you are making music for!

Quote johnny h:

---

Sure, but listening to music from an engineering perspective is counterproductive, in my view. Certainly if I find myself wondering what kind of reverb settings are being used on a drum hit, I'm not normally particularly engrossed in the music.

---

Sure. I was never making a value judgement on it, I'm just calling it like I see it. You can choose what to listen to to a certain extent, you focus on different things. After all, being a musician is to a certain extent about becoming a professional listener.

But you can't turn off, or unlearn knowledge, just as you can't turn off your own perspective in what you experience.

Quote johnny h:

---

But, its important to have the ability to switch off from all that, and listen just as a casual listener.

---

I'm not sure it's 100% possible. Certainly it would be up for a debate
It's certainly possible to a degree, I'm sure.

As another example, there's a reason that an important part of testing software is getting people *other* than the developers to test it. Developers cannot properly test software from the point of view of a casual, new user, because they already have too much knowledge about the program to act like a new user. This is very well researched and understood.

Perhaps, for someone reading this that isn't me (I have too much knowledge about my own opinions to make a value judgement ) they are getting the impression that I can have no enjoyment from music because I'm always analysing technical elements - that's the wrong impression and not an intentional one.

I'm captivated, moved, entranced, disappointed, entertained, depressed and uplifted by music. And I suspect it's why most of us come to forums like these...

Quote johnny h:

---

Just think back to the 1970s with the prog rock bands believed they were pushing music forward from the dumb motown hits which the idiot general public loved. What did they know? Nothing. It was the Motown hits that stood the test of time. It was the Motown hits that had the true understanding of music and soul, something which the technically proficient and musically educated prog rockers had no knowledge of at all.

---

What a load of complete arse!

Prog rockers weren't (and aren't) trying to be superior or prove some point or making out that Motown was 'dumb' (Nina Simone and Motown were Peter Gabriel's biggest influence/inspiration) - they just wanted to operate outside of the usual verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle eight, chorus repeat until fade confines of the 3 minute (typically love song orientated) pop single format and they were enormously popular in their way at the time. 'Dark Side Of The Moon' and 'Tubular Bells' (both ostensibly 'prog') topped the album charts for YEARS and whilst the musical output of Yes or Genesis or Camel, whoever, barely troubled the hit parade, they enjoyed enormous success in the album charts. And they continue to delight. When 5 old musos (average age around 60) took to the stage recently, Genesis sold out stadiums across the world and frankly, put a lot of young bright young things to shame with their tight and relentless playing.

But by wanting to operate outside of the norm, it meant by default that their music was not going to be mainstream (Tony Blackburn and Radio 1 was not going to play their epics ... although Fluff Freeman did) and they aimed for an area of the body other than just the feet. Why is danceability and 'soul' so important and the measure of what's good (in your opinion)? For some, the Teutonic precision and harmonic perfection of Bach or the languid modality of Debussy or the melodic lyricism of Ravel is what pumps up their musical goosebumps, not the ability to get up and shake yo booty! If getting people onto the dance floor is the sole measure of 'good' music, then Stock, Aitken and Waterman may well win hands down!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Edited by hollowsun (17/02/10 11:44 PM)

I should also add that proggers don't have the cultural and/or social background/heritage of the tunesters at Motown (and vice versa).

Afro-American Holland, Dozier and Holland, etc., had their roots essentially in gospel and jazz, etc., whereas the Euro-white proggers' roots were more likely to be in rock, Stockhausen, classical, free improv, psychedelia, art, surrealism, whatever. A very different perspective producing very different musical results ... obviously.

Quote:

---

It was the Motown hits that had the true understanding of music and soul, something which the technically proficient and musically educated prog rockers had no knowledge of at all.

---

That makes me wince - cringe even - on so many levels.

For a start, you imply that the writers and musos at Motown weren't technically proficient. Believe me, they were extremely technically proficient, especially the (financially exploited/abused by Berry Gordy) house band.

But is also implies that technical proficiency is a bad thing. This is just SO wrong. People with technique CAN abuse that and go off on fret wanking and extended solos (yawn - and prog rock DID have its excesses ... but not as much as some would have you believe) but having good technique actually allows you to be more expressive, more emotional because you don't have to think about what you're playing and you don't have to struggle, fumbling with a silly, simple riff or I, IV, V progression - you can just PLAY and not think about the mechanics. Like a writer or orator with a good vocabulary can express themselves more clearly and more subtley, so a muso with good technique can express themselves more fluently (and, to extrapolate to bring this vaguely on topic, an audio engineer who knows what they're doing technically can make a decent recording almost regardless of the gear used).

To say that Motown alone had the true understanding of music and soul is to dismiss and insult so much excellence and so many and just your (IMO myopic) opinion.

Personally, Genesis 'Watcher of the skies' or Vaughan-Williams' 'Variations on a theme by Thomas Tallis' or some gregorian plainchant or PFM's 'Three holes in the ground' or Tangerine Dream's 'Phaedra' or Morton Subotnik's 'Silver apples of the moon' or Prokofiev's 'Classical Symphony' or Heifetz playing Rachmaninov's 'Vocalise' or a Nelson Riddle arrangement of a Sinatra tune - whatever - will move and excite me far more than any frothy record from the Motown 'hit factory' (which - contentiously - had no more artistic merit than Stock, Aitken and Waterman's hit factory ... or Jam and Lewis's or Babyface's or Chinn and Chapman's - those records were made to make money!).

Sure, they have stood the test of time and a lot of them are terrific but to say that they had some kind of monopoly on 'music' and/or 'soul' is just absurd. IMO, Heifetz or Glenn Gould have more 'soul' in one finger and one note than most of the Motown tunesmiths and James Brown together could dream of ... as marvellous as they are in their (very different) way! And I am far more likely to be moved by the 'music' and 'soul' in a simple folk song sung and played by Martin Carthy than I am by Diana Ross And The Supremes or Marvin Gaye.

Each to their own but the notion that Motown had the exclusive on music/soul is, as I say, absurd!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Johnny and desmond are very good at cutting and pasting


A useful skill to have if you do a lot of editing

--------------------
Matt
www.krcollective.org

Quote hollowsun:

---

I should also add that proggers don't have the cultural and/or social background/heritage of the tunesters at Motown (and vice versa).

Afro-American Holland, Dozier and Holland, etc., had their roots essentially in gospel and jazz, etc., whereas the Euro-white proggers' roots were more likely to be in rock, Stockhausen, classical, free improv, psychedelia, art, surrealism, whatever. A very different perspective producing very different musical results ... obviously.

Quote:

---

It was the Motown hits that had the true understanding of music and soul, something which the technically proficient and musically educated prog rockers had no knowledge of at all.

---

That makes me wince - cringe even - on so many levels.

---

Wow, pretty fired up last night huh?

Quote:

---

For a start, you imply that the writers and musos at Motown weren't technically proficient. Believe me, they were extremely technically proficient, especially the (financially exploited/abused by Berry Gordy) house band.

---

I said they understood music to a far deeper level, I did not criticise their technical skills. Note that I was specifically comparing to the excesses of prog rock. I did not mention glenn gould or classical music. Nor did I suggest technical proficiency is a cause of lack of musicality. Some of the most musical people are also the most technically brilliant.

Quote:

---

But is also implies that technical proficiency is a bad thing. This is just SO wrong. People with technique CAN abuse that and go off on fret wanking and extended solos (yawn - and prog rock DID have its excesses ... but not as much as some would have you believe) but having good technique actually allows you to be more expressive, more emotional because you don't have to think about what you're playing and you don't have to struggle, fumbling with a silly, simple riff or I, IV, V progression - you can just PLAY and not think about the mechanics. Like a writer or orator with a good vocabulary can express themselves more clearly and more subtley, so a muso with good technique can express themselves more fluently (and, to extrapolate to bring this vaguely on topic, an audio engineer who knows what they're doing technically can make a decent recording almost regardless of the gear used).

To say that Motown alone had the true understanding of music and soul is to dismiss and insult so much excellence and so many and just your (IMO myopic) opinion.

Personally, Genesis 'Watcher of the skies' or Vaughan-Williams' 'Variations on a theme by Thomas Tallis' or some gregorian plainchant or PFM's 'Three holes in the ground' or Tangerine Dream's 'Phaedra' or Morton Subotnik's 'Silver apples of the moon' or Prokofiev's 'Classical Symphony' or Heifetz playing Rachmaninov's 'Vocalise' or a Nelson Riddle arrangement of a Sinatra tune - whatever - will move and excite me far more than any frothy record from the Motown 'hit factory' (which - contentiously - had no more artistic merit than Stock, Aitken and Waterman's hit factory ... or Jam and Lewis's or Babyface's or Chinn and Chapman's - those records were made to make money!).

Sure, they have stood the test of time and a lot of them are terrific but to say that they had some kind of monopoly on 'music' and/or 'soul' is just absurd. IMO, Heifetz or Glenn Gould have more 'soul' in one finger and one note than most of the Motown tunesmiths and James Brown together could dream of ... as marvellous as they are in their (very different) way! And I am far more likely to be moved by the 'music' and 'soul' in a simple folk song sung and played by Martin Carthy than I am by Diana Ross And The Supremes or Marvin Gaye.

Each to their own but the notion that Motown had the exclusive on music/soul is, as I say, absurd!

---

What you have done here is take one point of my argument and distort it, to make it appear I am saying something else. Then you are taking this artificially created argument and attacking it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quote hollowsun:

---

Joe Dolce's 'Shaddapayaface' kept Ultravox's 'Vienna' off the #1 slot ...

---

It must be 35 years since this bloody song came out and it is as imprinted on my mind as........ the guitar solo in Stairway to Heaven. Wassamatta me??

--------------------

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote GTD:

---

Quote Michael Dow:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_Cl4-agjU&feature=related


Quick example of a piece of uplifting trance. You may or may not find it emotional. But it does it for me and many others!

Or of course there's the ferry corsten mix of adagio for strings by samuel barber (william orbits re-release) Awesome, and programmed.

---

Michael, please don't take offence, but this music is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

It is to my ears very, very musical, but (imho) robbed of so much potential in having conveniently repeated arp and drum loops.

If the producer were to have allowed each part, including trivial repeating parts, to have evolved or developed in subtle ways, the whole listening experience could have been much more engaging.

If the subtle changes in drums or arpeggios or whatever, are engineered into the music in a way which is sympathetic to how the music is changing and evolving, then there IS feeling, even though it is sequenced electronic trance music.

Put simply, (again imho), the less lazy the sequencing, the more involving the music will be.

Isn't the use of slow filters and modulated delay or pumped compression on repeating parts an attempt to give them more' life'?

I would love to ask a sizable number of 'trance' afficionados to compare an arpeggio or drum loop which repeats unchanging with one which changes subtly over time. Would the answer depend on whether the loops were heard in isolation or in context in the music? I don't know, but I'd bet (if their attention is drawn to it) a significant number of people would prefer something changing subtly to something static.

---

I don't really like the track in the youtube video, its pretty banal to my ears. But whoever thinks programmed music means unintelligent music is just totally ignorant.

---

Johnny, your reply quotes me and yet doesn't have any bearing on what I said. Perhaps you meant to reply to another poster who discussed intelligence as a factor in music production?

Not to worry though, we are all human (pun intended)

--------------------

Quote GTD:

---

Johnny, your reply quotes me and yet doesn't have any bearing on what I said. Perhaps you meant to reply to another poster who discussed intelligence as a factor in music production?

Not to worry though, we are all human (pun intended)

---

I wasn't replying to you specifically about that point, I was indeed referring to the earlier poster who said that programmed music wasn't intelligent. Maybe I should have made two posts to make it clearer to who I was replying to.

Quote matt keen:

---

I Think high end gear chain is a cumulative thing and does make a real audible difference -- or should I say can

I am not so sure that many of us (me included) are good enough to get the best out of all the gear variables and settings.

In late 80's I was running a Fostex E16 based stidio with nice rooms, a decent Soundtracs desk and some pretty good mics. Our head engineer (I was the Studio Manager and second engineer)had 10 or 15 pro released albums to his name. So we knew what we were doing in a semi pro sort of way and a semi pro environment. Then John Leckie came in with a band he was looking to produce and ran/engineered some sessions. He got a quality of sound from that gear that was 20% above what we had achieved or thought we could achieve.

Top gear does make a difference but makes the most difference when used by those who have the skill, craftmanship and ability to get the most out of it

---

Well what you're saying is: given a particular set of equipment some people will be able to produce better results than others and on a consistent basis. I think that's a given and would be down to experience and talent.

A more interesting question would be did the quality of your recordings improve significantly when you used better equipment, through this change alone? Although equally given some of the equipment you quoted - such as the Fostex - I would expect a fairly decent improvement.

Of course these days the quality bar has been raised somewhat in many areas, certainly DAW compared to tape (unless you're after that effect). So the quality difference between prosumer and hi-end isn't going to be that marked for many items of equipment. Diminishing returns and all that - such to the extent that for some equipment people have to concentrate very very hard to actually notice any difference if it's even detectable at all double-blind.

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Michael Dow:

---

Quick example of a piece of uplifting trance. You may or may not find it emotional. But it does it for me and many others!

---

Yes. Nice enough.

I think that with this style of music (and the original Berlin electronica of the 70s, etc.), it's the relentless, pounding, perfectly quantized, dead on the beat, unwavering, hypnotic drive of the sequencing that appeals here. Hence, presumably, the 'trance' label.

But about that piece you highlighted (and so much of that genre)...

God, it was SOOOO bloody predictable!!

---

I've got to agree with Hollowsun here. I'd place that track well into the highly predictable cheese category! Even down to the bog-standard choice of sounds. Personally I was always far more into the sub-genre of trance that was labelled "progressive house".... more opportunity for people to be creative. But hey it's great everyone has different tastes and we're very off topic.

Quote johnny h:

---

Wow, pretty fired up last night huh?

---

You noticed!

Quote johnny h:

---

I said they understood music to a far deeper level

---

On what grounds do you claim that? Maybe they just knew how to write catchy pop tunes that were invariably good for dancing too. They may not even have known why - they just borrowed from their black jazz/gospel background with no deep understanding on their part and came up with a fair few hits.

Your claim is merely speculation on your part because you (presumably) favour that type of music over prog which (presumably) you don't identify with. But you can't, as a result, claim that they "understood music to a far deeper level" and imply that it is somehow 'better' music as a result ... and/or that Motown's musos were better than proggers. FYI, a notable progger has penned several tunes with Lamont Dozier for The Four Tops and others and another progger I know has written several #1s for many name artists.

Maybe I did jump to conclusions but I am a bit tired of this obsession with dance music and that if music doesn't 'groove', it has no soul - there is plenty of music out there that has 'soul' (prog being amongst it) - it's just not aimed solely at the feet but somewhere else.

As a fan of early prog (not so much of the more modern 'metal prog'), I am also tired of all the stupid, misinformed claims of its so-called 'excesses'. Sure, some were (or became) pretentious gits but that's a bit like claiming all Muslims are terrorists because a few nutters set off bombs.

And yes, they put on massive (and arguably pretentious and pompous) stage shows. On the other hand, the bands were so f'cking huge in their time, they could hardly turn up at The Dog And Duck could they? So large venues were the only option. And if you're appearing in a such a venue, you want - nay, need - to put on a spectacular show to entertain the thousands who have paid to see you and maybe expect to see a show that is equal to the imagery in your music. Some went over the top but most put on fab shows.

And interestingly, many of the techniques used in prog's so-called 'excesses' are now standard fare in today's live extravanganzas. For example, Vari-lites were developed with investment from Genesis who used Showco's new prototype in their dramatic stage productions - anyone putting on a decent stage show now uses them.

But did the writers and musos at Motown have a far deeper understanding of music than proggers? Of course not - they just had a different understanding as a result of a completely different cultural and social heritage.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

i'm losing the will to live. make music. not cut-and-paste boring [ ****** ] that's only ok if you are out of your tree on recreational pharma.

duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duf f-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.

pause, 2, 3, 4,

duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duf f-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duf f.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duf f-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.duff-duff-duff-duff.

/died

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Oh come on Guy, it's bad to generalise. We could do the same thing with brass-band music:

oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa etc.

or classical:

pompity-pompity-pompity-pom-twiddle-twiddle-pompity-pomity-pomity-pom --crescendo -- cymbal crash 2 - 3 - pomity-pompity-pompity-pom etc.


On second thoughts you might have a point somewhere.

On reflection I wonder whether modern dance, trance and so on IS actually very intelligently produced music - and I'm not joking.

There is tremendous rationality in a quick cut and past, get the job done attitude. This stuff sells in bucket loads too, doesn't it?

I think ironically it is an unintelligent approach to the arts which often produces greatness though. The PASSION which causes someone to practice a performance to the point of nausea, and then keep going is clearly NOT very clever, especially when the prospect of benefiting from this endeavor is for many driven people, quite slim.

Passion communicates but can ultimately consume the possessor - not very clever to cut off one's ear in a fit of frustration for example. Even more stupid to throw your work in a bin behind a shed because it's not quite right (to you)!

The thing is though, some artistic greats manage to balance passion and cleverness...... I guess these might be the most worth emulating.

--------------------

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Wow, pretty fired up last night huh?

---

You noticed!

---

Yep!

Look, I'm not insulting the music you love. I was making a simple point about being careful not to neglect musicality and concentrate too much on technical details. I could quite easily have compared mid to late 90s Aphex twin, which fused the two, to Venetian Snares who take similar concepts to their extreme, but are incapable of writing a good melody (think of Hendrix to his technically faster soulless 80s imitators); while it is similar in many core ideas there is no longer any "point" to it.

I could compare early squarepusher or autechre to later works which, in attempt to become more sophisticated have lost the emotion and brilliance in favour of "challenging" material. I just thought maybe not everybody would be that familiar with these artists.

I certainly did not mean to insult a whole genre of music, and I have no objection against complexity in music, just as long as there is a point to it, as long as there is an emotional need for it.

Quote GTD:

---

There is tremendous rationality in a quick cut and past, get the job done attitude. This stuff sells in bucket loads too, doesn't it?
.

---

no comment on dance music at all - but no, it doesn't. Not individually!

Quote HugoL:

---

Oh come on Guy, it's bad to generalise. We could do the same thing with brass-band music:

oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa etc.

or classical:

pompity-pompity-pompity-pom-twiddle-twiddle-pompity-pomity-pomity-pom --crescendo -- cymbal crash 2 - 3 - pomity-pompity-pompity-pom etc.


On second thoughts you might have a point somewhere.

---

THANKYOU, THANKYOU , THANKYOU, for so long I have been without inspiration and now...... I am going into the studio to combine OOMPAH with POMPITY.

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote johnny h:

---

I was making a simple point about being careful not to neglect musicality and concentrate too much on technical details.

---

Well, my daughter's just had a violin lesson and they went through a piece she's doing for her forthcoming Grade 8 exam and a competition she's in...

Her teacher is ex-Juilliard and was Assistant Professor to Sandor Vegh at the Mozarteum, Salzburg (amongst others) and they spent an hour and a half concentrating on technical details IN ORDER to make it more 'musical' - bow hold, subtle variations in bow stroke, angle and position, fingering, phrasing, etc., etc., etc., and boy, did it make a difference when she had it sussed. And that was just for half a page of it!!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

I was making a simple point about being careful not to neglect musicality and concentrate too much on technical details.

---

Well, my daughter's just had a violin lesson and they went through a piece she's doing for her forthcoming Grade 8 exam and a competition she's in...

Her teacher is ex-Juilliard and was Assistant Professor to Sandor Vegh at the Mozarteum, Salzburg (amongst others) and they spent an hour and a half concentrating on technical details IN ORDER to make it more 'musical' - bow hold, subtle variations in bow stroke, angle and position, fingering, phrasing, etc., etc., etc., and boy, did it make a difference when she had it sussed. And that was just for half a page of it!!

---

Playing the violin is one thing, writing music is a totally different skill.

Quote turbodave:

---

Quote HugoL:

---

Oh come on Guy, it's bad to generalise. We could do the same thing with brass-band music:

oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa, oompa etc.

or classical:

pompity-pompity-pompity-pom-twiddle-twiddle-pompity-pomity-pomity-pom --crescendo -- cymbal crash 2 - 3 - pomity-pompity-pompity-pom etc.


On second thoughts you might have a point somewhere.

---

THANKYOU, THANKYOU , THANKYOU, for so long I have been without inspiration and now...... I am going into the studio to combine OOMPAH with POMPITY.

---

I hold a patent for combining OOMPAH with POMPITY, but I'll wait until your song is a worldwide number 1 then hit you with a license claim

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Quote Folderol:

---

I hold a patent for combining OOMPAH with POMPITY

---

Yes but does it have 'soul'?

You're wasting your time otherwise!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote johnny h:

---

Playing the violin is one thing, writing music is a totally different skill.

---

Not sure I get your point now.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Playing the violin is one thing, writing music is a totally different skill.

---

Not sure I get your point now.

---

Dont think you ever did