KVR Audio

the_nihilist · Post by **the_nihilist** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:01 pm

I think that gear is important, up to a point. You're always going to want quality instruments to play on, and playing on a quality instrument can really make having learned those skills very rewarding.

I mean, sure you can probably make a decent song using a crappy casio keyboard and a bit of talent, but it's a hell of a lot nicer experience to do the same thing on a steinway grand.

Also, like it or not, most of us here are electronic musicians, and our sound is going to be determined by the gear we use. VA, real analog, FM, formant, additive... all these things have some pretty distinct sounds, and if you want those sounds, you gotta buy the gear.

DHR53 · Post by **DHR53** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:11 pm

"Love the one your with"...

funkychickendance · Post by **funkychickendance** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:11 pm

Y'know, Ojuzu, you're right. It's so instructive to go back to older, simpler music and learn that lesson. I try, anyway.

Ideas beat bullshit, everytime

But of course, you gotta know a good one when you hear it!

/fcd

kara · Post by **kara** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:16 pm

the_nihilist wrote:Also, like it or not, most of us here are electronic musicians, and our sound is going to be determined by the gear we use. VA, real analog, FM, formant, additive... all these things have some pretty distinct sounds, and if you want those sounds, you gotta buy the gear.

I don't agree. Look at it the other way. Imagine a sound and then create with the tools you have, not the other way around !!

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:19 pm

i just got back from a music store where i pissed off the salesman. i told him the $3,500 acoustic sounded like my $250 yamaha

i don't understand signature series or special woods and finishes. to me, music is a primal reaction to life. my inner ape doesn't care about what steve miller signs

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:20 pm

bleh. I agree on the overall concept but disagree with the article in some ways..

for one.. it DOES matter (in some ways) what tools you have..

for instance.. photographing the delicate beauty of a flower with my little kodak easyshare camera? NOT A CHANCE. no macromode and no manual adjustments to the lens... while I'm sure some fine art could be created with it - there are distinct limitations to this tool. besides its digital and only 3.2 megapixels (with automatic compression) so the author's cheap box (film) camera is superior to my high-tech and horribly limited digital camera - try blowing up a print and I'm sure you could see the difference between them.

so apparently the author's 'junk he started with' is a lot more robust and feature laden than mine.. even his goodwill camera that cost him 5 bucks.

and its not inspiration (IMO) that creates great art but great dedication - which can be helped greatly by inspiration..

the way I see it.. if one is dedicated to something, they're going to be more patient with it and willing to take the extra time to make it just right. which I believe was part of what he was getting at in the article.. but there are limitations to this - its not a white and black argument... theres a gray area.

Jesse Gorter · Post by **Jesse Gorter** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:21 pm

Ah, I found that working with what you have can really make you try out different stuff with it.

When I got a program I just wanted to explore different sort of styles of playing that software. Like using the same software but writing something like Phillip glass, and make it your own song.

- Jesse

funkychickendance · Post by **funkychickendance** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:25 pm

androidlove wrote:i just got back from a music store where i pissed off the salesman. i told him the $3,500 acoustic sounded like my $250 yamaha

Good for you! And, except to audiophiles, I bet that's pretty true. just think of the shitty formats your music is gonna be played in...MP3s, iPods, tinny car speakers...cell phones, fer chrissake!

androidlove wrote:i don't understand signature series or special woods and finishes. to me, music is a primal reaction to life. my inner ape doesn't care about what steve miller signs

'Signed by Steve Miller' -- or many others -- is a turn-off to me. I do lust after a Gibson Hummingbird one day, but it better be just factory standard...

/fcd
"good enough for the Rev. Gary Davis, it's good enuf 4 me"

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:26 pm

the_nihilist wrote:I think that gear is important, up to a point. You're always going to want quality instruments to play on, and playing on a quality instrument can really make having learned those skills very rewarding.

I mean, sure you can probably make a decent song using a crappy casio keyboard and a bit of talent, but it's a hell of a lot nicer experience to do the same thing on a steinway grand.

Also, like it or not, most of us here are electronic musicians, and our sound is going to be determined by the gear we use. VA, real analog, FM, formant, additive... all these things have some pretty distinct sounds, and if you want those sounds, you gotta buy the gear.

exactly!

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:26 pm

VitD: It's true that Ansel Adams' famous plates couldn't have been made with a 1909 Folding Vest Pocket Kodak (like the one I restored and used in the 1970s). :-)

kara: A good idea -- if the tools you have are able to make that sound. Not every tool can make every sound, and sometimes it's more work than it's worth to use a tool that's ill-suited to the task.

A true genius can make greatness from dross... but few of us are geniuses, and even they usually do best when equipped suitably. (That line about tools "getting out of your way" I'm in complete agreement with. Inadequate tools often get in the way.)

For us mundanes, inspiring tools that are reasonably easy to use can help bridge the gap between conception and completion.

[edit] A quotation supposed to have come from Picasso (I cannot vouch for its authenticity): "When art critics get together, they discuss line and form and color and composition. When artists get together, they talk about where to find the best deal on turpentine." :-D

funkychickendance · Post by **funkychickendance** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:33 pm

VitaminD wrote:bleh. I agree on the overall concept but disagree with the article in some ways..

for one.. it DOES matter (in some ways) what tools you have..

(...)

and its not inspiration (IMO) that creates great art but great dedication - which can be helped greatly by inspiration..

the way I see it.. if one is dedicated to something, they're going to be more patient with it and willing to take the extra time to make it just right. which I believe was part of what he was getting at in the article.. but there are limitations to this - its not a white and black argument... theres a gray area.

Inspiration and genius, I imagine -- and how the heaven-sent f**k on toast would I know? I'm an idiot!

-- create great art. What dedication and craftsmanship create are merely commonplace art, which is fine, too. You need all four, but ya can't buy them ... and tools only help with No.4 in that list...and bad workmen always blame 'em, the proverb says.

A propos of nothing, I once asked an extraordinarily rich (non-music) guy what he'd prefer, luck or genius, and he said "luck, every time"

/fcd
...who seems to have neither, but says "WTF? Someday..."

funkychickendance · Post by **funkychickendance** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:40 pm

Meffy wrote:
[edit] A quotation supposed to have come from Picasso (I cannot vouch for its authenticity): "When art critics get together, they discuss line and form and color and composition. When artists get together, they talk about where to find the best deal on turpentine."

Ah, absolutely splendid! And indeed, we wannabes are happy to listen to the great and near-great dispense "turpentine price advice", and certainly don't intend to disparage those who make great instruments and gear...

...when we laugh about our obsession with 'gear', we're laughing at ourselves, remember?

the original article is still a sobering bit of thinking, whatever...

/fcd
"go do some music, chicken..."

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:45 pm

funkychickendance wrote:
VitaminD wrote:bleh. I agree on the overall concept but disagree with the article in some ways..

for one.. it DOES matter (in some ways) what tools you have..

(...)

and its not inspiration (IMO) that creates great art but great dedication - which can be helped greatly by inspiration..

the way I see it.. if one is dedicated to something, they're going to be more patient with it and willing to take the extra time to make it just right. which I believe was part of what he was getting at in the article.. but there are limitations to this - its not a white and black argument... theres a gray area.
Inspiration and genius, I imagine -- and how the heaven-sent f**k on toast would I know? I'm an idiot! -- create great art. What dedication and craftsmanship create are merely commonplace art, which is fine, too. You need all four, but ya can't buy them ... and tools only help with No.4 in that list...and bad workmen always blame 'em, the proverb says.

A propos of nothing, I once asked an extraordinarily rich (non-music) guy what he'd prefer, luck or genius, and he said "luck, every time"

/fcd
...who seems to have neither, but says "WTF? Someday..."

are you xoxos returned?

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:48 pm

kara wrote:
the_nihilist wrote:Also, like it or not, most of us here are electronic musicians, and our sound is going to be determined by the gear we use. VA, real analog, FM, formant, additive... all these things have some pretty distinct sounds, and if you want those sounds, you gotta buy the gear.
I don't agree. Look at it the other way. Imagine a sound and then create with the tools you have, not the other way around !!

ok then create a convincing acoustic guitar patch using only a tb303, mcguyver.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:50 pm

While I agree with the general thrust of the article...

Ansel Adams is a terrible example. He absolutely insisted on the best quality everything. He was meticulous about his equipment and consumables, to the extent that he even brewed his own developer and fix.
He developed the Zone System which relied on highly accurate and expensive spot meters. He would only print on certain papers using a very specific enlarger.

Interestingly, his most famous picture "Moonrise, Hernandez" was a snatched frame taken when he was without any of his his toys, and as a result the negative was grossly underexposed.

As I say, I agree with the sentiments but the example's rubbish.

tools don't matter