Re: granular applications

[kyle jones <kyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all, on this subject I would like to ask a question that I have been 
grappling with.  Do any of you (composers) worry about tying your sound too 
closely to granular synthesis?  I love the myriad sounds that come from this 
technology, but I hesitate to make that my compositional basis.  I don't 
think that throwing samples into crusher x, reaktor, audio mulch (or any 
other granular app)ultimately gives the timbral palette the technology 
promises.  I hear a lot of music coming out that uses this as its main 
compositional device and rather than finding it intriguing and listening to 
minute details, it seems conventional and boring simply because it sounds 
like the composition didn't move beyond scanning a sample.  I know that 
maybe this is a huge generalization given that different source samples give 
you different results, but really it doesn't sound terribly different from 
anything else that relies solely on granular synthesis.  A good example of 
this is the pimmon album on Kraak that got rave reviews by list members 
recently, this sounded very conventional to me and not at all inspired in 
comparison to say, Fennesz' endless summer (or even better "plays"), music 
that used granular technology (I think) but not as the only compositional 
technique. I love the sound of certain technologies, like granular synthesis 
or Buffer Override, but after a while, it sounds tired when it is used to 
the point of exclusion.   Please let me know what you think about this.


Thank You,
Kyle