The bedroom producers abridged manifesto.

[the_nihilist]

Why?

Why do these people so vitriolically hate technology that can usher in new forms of music previously unheard? New sounds never imagined? Things that can make anyone a creator of meaningful music if they want to learn how?

It annoys me that someone can be so emotional about these things... holding meaningless phrases like "phatness" and "warmth" above their head like they're the gospel itself, divine truth that only they are fit to dispense, comparing someone who just wants to create against some faded old legend, the picture dog-eared and yellowed.

Even when you show them the new beautiful, increadible things that people make using this technology, the things that we couldn't have done before, they scream and shudder and put their hands over their ears, moaning that the harsh frequencies of the soul-dead digital machines were damaging their delicate ears. Never once trying to hear the art beneath, the passion and handiwork of someone who did it for the same reason anyone should -- "I just wanted to make music."

Because the best music isn't in the past. It's in the future, to be made by anyone who wants to make it, wholly new, something we've never heard before that gives us goosebumps as we hear it for the first time, as every note resonates with who we are... all this happening regardless of the medium or distribution.

We are the future. Us bedroom producers, with our simple creed. We only want to be heard, to be listened to, to be known! All we have ever wanted was for our songs to mean a damn to just one single person, and that would be enough!

We have to take this world. We have to grab it by the balls, and shove our wares down its throat, giving it the originality and imagination it needs after being fed nothing but so much sugar and fat. If even one person decides to turn off the TV and turn on the computer because making music is more interesting, than we have done something that has meaning. One should no longer have to satisfy themselves with passive entertainment anymore.

We have better alternatives.

[Van Greco]

Right on brother.

[Amberience]

Preach your dogma man! Preach it!

[herodotus]

I like your sentiments, but they belie your name.

[jmh]

Somehow it sounds like reflecting a firm disagreement about the technical side of things discussed of so often here on an assumption that people who care about the technical parts aren't even able to listen to music and appreciate anything about the musical side of things... or something like that

It's a good beginning, but needs some refining IMHO. Separating the two issues (technical bits and musical bits) or at least rewriting it so that these two related yet still different issues aren't bundled into one, put on the opposite sides and placed so as if they're the ultimate arguments against each other - dare I say taking the "negative" bits from one and object it to the "positive" bits from the other - might lead into a good manifesto indeed...

If this is about making music, why not rewrite it accordingly? In its current state it's more like "the artist" (which in itself is a term people are eager to apply too soon to themselves or their peers) versus "the engineer", yet revolving around a single topic and opposing these two in order to deliver a message - a message which gets clouded because of positioning two different issues against each other...

Sorry, just woke up and haven't had my morning tea yet

Regards,

JMH

[bobbyblank]

I was going to say something about Steve Albini, and some of his manifestos and how great he is. something about how he's the post-punk phillip glass or Ayn Rand as a musician. but that's silly. point is, like genesis p-orrige, or the k.l.f.; he views music as a magickal science. sure his views are very stylized, and his methods are considered draconian by some- it's a very important concept, i think.

music doesn't have to be relevant or meaningful.
but when we bestow meaning onto our tools and impose our will onto our music, we enter into our own magickal process.
byron gysin had his cut-ups. brian eno has his oblique strategies. fripp has his delay pedal, and bowie had his cocaine. we, too have [or desperately need] our own magickal process as musicians. i think we must arm ourselves with ideas before we can truly make the most of the latest and greatest software. sometimes, it might be hard for the computer musician to step away from updating our tools long enough to update ourselves.

i agree nihilist, but theres an old african saying,"we stand so high because we ride on the shoulders of our ancestors." i like that. what would hiphop samples sound like if motown/stax records were ignored because of it's age? the past is rife with symbolism, as we all know. every time we sample a turntable we feel that on some level. we can't be musical futurists until we acknowledge the past and learn to manipulate it; as engineers and artists.


self-work is a constant struggle,so we also have to remember to get OUT of our bedrooms once in a while.
nothing enriches an artist or her/his surroundings like performing live. thats where the real magick happens.



here's a video of a 90 minute lecture by Steve Albini and his techniques. enjoy.
http://www.mtsu.edu/~nadam/downloads/SteveAlbiniweb.mov

[Landphil]

Give it 20 or 30 more years. Chances are you'll be on the flip side of the coin then.
The music of that era just won't make sense, and you'll be waxing nostalgic for the music that once meant something to you.

Don't worry. It happens to all of us.
We just tend to gravitate towards what we grew up with.

-

[ross g]

hey man,

it's good you have such conviction, it shows you give a shit, and that can never be bad...
i think people just want music that sounds good, i don't think they care how or where it's made...i think that history has shown that there have been only a handful of people who made completely independently produced music that was GOOD...i mean as in how it was played, recorded, written... i know of a few but not too many, but i will always cheer for anyone who does it..."phat" and "warm" will always be better than "thin" and "muddy", these are simply descriptive terms that exist if you do it at home or in a studio...i just think that it really boils down to whether it's just plain good or bad.. who's to judge? those who buy it?...does that mean if no one buys it it sucks? most likely if people at least don't even like it then yes, and that's the cold hard facts...it doesn't mean that the music has no value, just don't whine if nobody is buying/likeing your stuff you did on your home studio setup...just keep doing it, idiots like me will give it a listen and i'll tell you if i think it rocks, i can only hope for the same from you...

i think someone can produce 20 songs that suck, #21 might just be the one that shines, nothing wrong there...keep doing it...


sincerly,
rg

[bobbyblank]

yep, phil- when we walk, we keep one foot behind us.

[Stupid American Pig]

Anyone who owns a My Bloody Valentine Album(esp "loveless") will know that the sound quality is utter SHITE but the music is just downright amazing.

[Amberience]

Utter toss. Utter utter complete utter toss.

[the_nihilist]

I'm not really a nihilist.

And suggestions are noted... I guess I'll actually refine this into an actual manifesto.

[hao nao]

We should militate for clean sheets!

Or at least stimulatingly fragrant ones!

[pHz]

manifestos restrict ...

... do what you do ... do what you want to do ... who CARES whether youve previously declared that was what you were going to do ???

pfff ... im with mr vernon on this one ...

slainte rob

[mandolarian]

manifestos restrict ...

yeah, but they make for interesting liner notes!

Oh, wait, liner notes are not permitted in the new medium.

Ah, manifestos are cool. Everyone should have one. And then tear them up.