fx & process

[mitchell whitelaw <mitchellw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

taylor@xxxxxxx wrote:

> track "production" has nearly 
> been eliminated...
> 
> any thoughts? why is "reverb" a bad word now?

this is interesting. identifiable "effects" are dissolving or merging
with the wider DSP toolkit. in traditional production the "sound" and
the "effect" are conceptually separate: take sound x and apply effect y.
seems in post-digital music (not sure about this label!) individual
effects are joined together in long complex chains in order to generate
extra or extra-rich sonic material... it actually doesn't matter so much
what you feed in. so the "effect" has become the "sound". in esoteric
DSP there is even less of a distinction... "effect" becomes a more
generalised "process". what's interesting here is that we are still
learning to listen to and identify these processes.. & as they stratify
/ stabilise they become "effects". time-stretching went from exotic
computer-music procedure to over-used techno-cliche of the year...

fwiw i love reverb... e.g. in porter ricks, gas & pole & on matthew
thomas' "architectures" ep... & as suggested it's being used here not so
much as an artifcial space but as a luscious sound. still my favourite
bit of spatialised electronica is the opening to that aphex twin track
on "i care because you do"... where we hear a door slam, & the track
starts as if played through the studio monitors, before jumping
"forward" to the room you're in. sounds better than it writes.

m
..
..
mitchell whitelaw
http://www.spin.net.au/~mitchellw
--Boundary_(ID_cd8nSikZgDIp9vcq5FrBzQ)
Content-Type: message/rfc822; Name="The mophology of a want list."
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit