squirrelgrease said:

the human body is a live electrical circuit. you have to go back to understanding the body as a solar battery and our connection to our primal heritage, the pulse of the heart, the throb of electrical current in our brains.

you have to go back to nature. and reconnect with the very obvious.

at a deep cellular level we respond most positively when we are stimulated by music which MATCHES our fundamental genetic code of rhythm and balance, simplicity and electricity and how all these things come together and are directly reflected in song.

a song is a microcosm of the world at any moment, taking a snapshot of a thought or a feeling. some artists focus on a particular experience, others speak for the collective consciousness of the planet in their work hence why the audience will often say "i feel like he's saying what i'm feeling".

when this kind of message is accompanied by an accurate MATCH to the emotional, mental, spiritual, electrical, rhythmical, SOLAR GUTS of our NATURAL genetic heritage, the effect on the body is a HEALING effect because at a subconscious level we are being triggered most directly to RESOLVE THE RHYTHM of our own genetic imprint.

this is how vital music is, how vital the quality of resonance is, the quality of the flow of electrical current.

the whole universe is made of vibration, it is felt/heard/sensed, not looked at and mapped out as soundwaves. it is soundwaves but nowhere except on a computer screen or some other sound-mapping man-made device will you SEE those waves.

as soon as the human eye is LOOKING at the waves, the innocence/connection is lost. your senses have become externalised. this is the problem with protools. it takes you OUTSIDE of the music by internalising the natural genetic electrical solar current so you think you have to go OUTSIDE to find it and put it all together.

please understand the modern 'commercial' music industry is dying FOR THIS VERY REASON. a MIS-USE of modern technology. because they don't understand the depth of the effect of music on the human body and HOW TO RECORD IT PROPERLY so you have the most satisfying NATURAL HEALING effect.

human INTELLECT has interrupted the NATURAL GENETIC ORDER that we are supposed to be relaying through music as it directly MATCHES .... Nature.

a computer will bring you no closer to your own heritage than a robot will say 'i love you' and mean it.

all due respect Mister Lewis.

citrus said:

Interesting that you say this, as I just found out that I have a positive nipple and a negative nipple. I jump started a car today with my teets.

squirrelgrease said:

squirrelgrease said:

And that is how you PWN a conversation.

squirrelgrease said:

funny you mention it, as i too have electrically charged teets. maybe we could get together and rub nipples and start a fireworks display.

happy new year.

squirrelgrease said:

Oh, but otherwise, citrus, it's probably a good life filosophy, but .. scientifically it's nonsense.

Cravens said:

which bit is nonsense?

citrus said:

Only some of it. Some of what you say, requires a "belief"....a "new-age faith" because there is no science to back it up.

Yes, the body runs on electricity and everything we experience is down to an electrical impulse.

Certain rhythms and sounds do have a differing effect on humans - certain frequencies, for example, have been shown to alter the brainwave state, like moving from alpha to beta state.

It also can't be denied that a song captures a feeling of the moment, just as a photograph preserves a moment of history. There is also no doubt that music can contain healing properties (as well as others).

The universe is also made of vibration - matter itself is a vibration that is slow enough for us to see it and experience it. The universe possesses it's own frequency too - the "background" noise from the big bang. Even the ancient Hindu religion acknowledges this, as the "Ohm" in Hindu represents the "sound" of the universe.

All of that is sound (pun intended) reasoning! Where you start to reach is with your accusations about modern recording techniques.

My first problem with it is that all recording techniques are essentially modern, in comparison to both human and musical history. Mankind has been playing music ever since we were banging things and singing around fires, tens of thousands of years ago. Music has ALWAYS been important to humans, because it mirrors the rhythms and order found in nature.

We have only been able to record sound for a very short period of time, just over 100 years.....any method of recording sound is a modern invention. But your theory that being able to view a soundwave means the innocence is lost is a stretch - if anything, it gives you a further insight in to the behaviour of the sound and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is no reason you can give me that analogue recording is somehow closer to nature than making a digital recording. An analogue recording involves converting electrical current to magnetic, to order the magnetic particles on a tape. So, by your same logic, you could argue that recording to tape actually transforms the wave you recorded in to a different type of energy (hence why analogue recordings are generally less faithful than a digital recording.

I don't see why you could make an exception for recording with a computer, as a computer is actually much closer in essence to how we as humans operate! It runs on electricity itself and receives all its instruction and calculates things based on electrical signals turning themselves on and off - just like the human body does.

As I said before, your argument seems to be solely with using digital technology as a recording medium and you appear to be confusing a nostalgia for the past, your belief in the all pervasive electrical information in nature with the belief that a computer, somehow, absorbs all the life out of something and makes it artificial.....but that simply isn't true.

Digital recording is new, but it is more accurate, providing a more faithful representation of the recorded sound, which is the ultimate goal. I would have thought, then, that this would be a shared goal of yours - preserving, as best as possible, the original, perhaps "Sacred" sound that you were producing. For me, it is more "natural" for the computer to digitise information in a similiar way to our brains, than taking a signal and converting it in to something else (magnetic energy) as was our only means of storage before. And the simple error of trying to equate any modern recording technique with thousands of years of producing music but being unable to capture and preserve it, it was is far-reaching for me in your arguments.

I hope you can see that I agree with a lot of what you say, but I disagree strongly with your position against computers, as it doesn't seem to follow the same logic you are applying to your argument for analogue recording.

Peace

Mindflux said:

hi there

no offense but i've said this twice now - i'm not talking about the difference between analogue and digital recording - i'm talking about HOW to record 'properly' on either, with the main focus at this point being on the difference between 'samples' instead of midi-triggered events - whether you record onto digital or analogue doesn't matter - that was my first main point in this thread.

i fully respect what you've recently written, and i don't mean to rain on your parade, but there is science to back up what i've said. just because you and others don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesnt exist lol

you may like to start here and work your way through...
http://www.goldenmean.inf...algravity/

music asks us to be blind devotees. (ask Stevie Wonder)

TrevorAyer said:

hi Trevor,

i think where the confusion in this discussion is seeping in is because of terminology.

when i say 'computers' i don't mean 'digital'. i mean when computers take over the playing.

purists might say any programming of drums or any other instrument is not a good thing but i'd disagree with them.

it only becomes 'dead' when the computer does the playing. think i mentioned this earlier. if you use midi instead of copying samples and you actually play in the parts, then no matter how many times you repeat them through the song, your original energy is still in the midi-trigger and the hits are alive because of that.

its very difficult to get this across to people who are accustomed to certain methods of recording and/or can't tell the difference.

thanks for your message Trevor.

I don't take anything he says seriously in that song especially considering he asked other artists "where's the drummer" on a song that doesn't contain one either. That song is a shitty shit hop mess and sounds the furthest thing from the Minneapolis Sound and if that's the new Minneapolis Sound, he can keep it because I sure won't be buying it.
.
.
.
[Edited 2/26/10 10:45am]

vainandy said:

yeah, yeah yeah, I know where you stand! And my response was no, he doesn't have a drummer on that song (or lots of his classics for that matter), but we all know he does know how to use real instruments, and he has real drums on the other disc in the set.

But the "new minneapolis sound" refers to the whole album, not just that song, and I think Here, Dance 4 Me, and Old School are pretty Prince-ish. You even said yourself that you'd like the music if he wasn't pandering to the hip hop crowd with the lyrics

"Dance 4 Me" is the best thing on that disc. That one and one of the slow jams is the only thing I can tolerate. The first two or three tracks, sound simply decent until he opens his mouth and that shit hop attitude spills out which totally ruins them. "No More Candy 4 U" is another one of the best ones too but lacks a little backing power behind it. He's had weak and sellout tracks on recent albums such as "Incense and Candles" and "Mr. Goodnight" but I've never seen so many multiple weak tracks on one album as "MPLShit" which makes me wonder if he's totally sold out and if he has, he'll no longer get my money or support.

vainandy said:

fair enough, I hear what you're saying.

But I have to point out you're saying you like maybe 3 songs on the whole, and the first two would be decent if only the vocal part was different. So that's like half the album where you kind of like the sound of the music (minus vocals)

That's all I'm talking about with "Minneapolis sound." Even if he sang about "ridin on dubs" the sound of the music behind it is more like Prince to me than Planet Earth.

citrus said:

I am going waaaay out of subject here, and I'll not stay in this discussion, as it really should be in General Forum (or Religion, if you ask me).

No. It is not science, at all. Science is a very, very well defined concept, that demands objectivity, peer review and testing. As soon as a theory cannot be tested it automatically becomes pseudoscience.

When you write:



.. you aren't saying anything scientific, as "science" is a game with very strict rules, but are jumping to conclusions by throwing in a myriad of new age speculations. The universe is NOT made out of waves, sorry to say it. Yes, many things in the universe can be explained in simpler turns when sometimes described as waves and at other times as particles, sometimes both at the same time. It's important to understand that the "wave" is the image created to understand and explain observed behaviour, but it is in no respect the true image, only an approxamation.

The word "innocense" is in direct violation of anything scientific. Science can not talk about morality, ethics or any culturally subjective value. The same goes for "natural healing", were "natural" suddenly has been attributed with something positive, though science can't say anything about good or bad.

To even say that humans are electrical circuts is a gross misinterpretation of what's really going on in our bodies.

And as for the site you linked to, well... It's a mess of misinformation, misinterpretations and grossly manipulating "experiments", from a guy who's simply the king of pseudoscience in this field. On his website you and everybody else will find that he by court order has been forced to state that he is in no way technically educated or hold any degree at all (he is not a phycisist, as the site claims).

It's not that I want to be rude, I just don't accept this as science, as it is not, but would agree that it makes for some good philosophy in that, it tries to find balance between the inner workings of humans and the universe. The notion is respectable.

As to the drum and the rythm of the heart, well, I agree, there's something about our attraction to a rythm and the our heartbeat; but while you believe it is something cosmic, I believe it has more to do with the fact that we all spend nine months in our mothers wound, listening to her heart beat and ever since, we've grown an attraction to the structured rythm, as it might trigger something primal in us, like the seaching for belonging, warmth and protection. (And perchance, mister Prince who'd like to know "why" we react differently to rythms, because each mother has her own heart beat, we react to certain rythms instinctively). I dare say that my theory is more earth bound than yours. Ockhams razor could be useful here.


*Stopping off topic'ing*





Erhm .. yeah .. the Linn?

Depends.

What the fuck is this thread about

Cravens said:

yes. it is. but that's to be expected so don't worry about it.

citrus said:

What? Afraid to answer? Don't make such broad statements about the universe and all of man kind and then not bsck it up with anything other than fiction and the boring "You're tainted by a system, so you won't get it the way I do". Pfffh.

It's religion, nothing more.
[Edited 2/27/10 1:18am]

Cravens said:

i enjoyed our discussion, despite the rudeness, i think it's cute

Double post, sorry.
[Edited 2/27/10 6:14am]

Cravens said:

One of the reasons why he might have sampled the LM-1 or even used stock samples for MPLSound might be that his unit is in bad condition by this point. They're really hard to find these days, although the later LinnDrum models can be found rather easily. In fact, Prince having used the LM-1 is what also drove up the prices for the LM-1 on ebay and such.

What he needs to do is use vintage synths. He might be using modern analogs and not just VAs, actually. But there's a big difference between an OB-X / OB-Xa / OB-8 and something like the Alesis Andromeda. All I know is that when Renato Neto used to play those old synth parts from "D.M.S.R." etc. on his VAs they sounded quite dull compared to the originals. I think he used the Nord Lead 2 or 3 extensively. I assume that was used on Prince's studio recordings for years as well.

novabrkr said:

He still gets his Linn's serviced by Brue Forat in LA. He has a business working with vintage drum machines and synhts.


I agree though he shoudl go back to using the actual Oberheims.

GaryMF said:

!

All the trivia you learn @ at org.

novabrkr said:

You knew 'bout Forat though right?

If I did, I'd forgotten.

I honestly do not think it is about using vintage anything or The Linn.
Prince's music was a breath of fresh air when it was first released, the structure in some ways, and yes the instruments played too, but not BECAUSE of the instruments, but because it was a fresh approach and fresh sounds, sounds we were not hearing on the radio or anywhere else.

When I hear about using "real instruments by real people" or the use of "vintage synths" "producers" "over production" or the "The Lynn" i roll my eyes because none of that was ever the appeal of his music. Nostalgia was never a part of his appeal, it was more a raw brashness and about innovation.

Sure those instruments and such are cool but there were other artists in the 80's using the same stuff, but the end product was just as tired as if they were using kazoos or banjos. Likewise if Prince was using kazoos and banjos in 83 the results would probably sound pretty innovative and cool.
Its not about using the finest oil paints and brushes or most sophisticated or expensive software its about whats inside the artist and the end result.

While I'm sure Prince's virtuosity has only grown since he was in his 20's and able to afford more time, media, and support for all his artistic whims, it still boils down to the artist and not the tools, producers or anything else.

The same artist can change too. Witness 1983's "1999" compared to his actual 1999 version. Witness 2010's Minneapolis sound to 1983's Minneapolis sound.

He has a lot more resources at his disposal at this point in his career. "Cause and Effect" is where he is at right now as an artist. To me "Cause and Effect" is what it sounds like when your art pallets are brimming with the best oil paints and finest brushes, the best canvases and best staff. But if an artist has nothing new to say, and ties mix all those individually gorgeous blues and gorgeous reds and yellows, and all those other gorgeous colors on your canvas you always get a muddy brown. To me "Cause and Effect" sounds like the muddy brown you get.
adding a Linn or live drumming, or even the whole kitchen sink and a pony will not help.
[Edited 3/2/10 6:35am]

GaryMF said:

Bruce Forat is one amazing person. I spent about 30 minutes on the phone with him, and he helped me out BIG TIME. Gave me some tips and tricks 4 tweaks on my LinnDrum. He worked 4 Linn back in the day. When Linn fell apart, Roger Linn partnered with Akai, the result being the famous MPC sequencers... He took a lot of Bruce's ideas and work on the Linn 9000, which is almost like a predecessor of the MPC sequencers.

Strangely enough though, it is not easy syncing the LinnDrum with older Linn MPCs. I found a way 2 trick them into syncing though, with a bit of Bruce's help.

.
[Edited 3/2/10 6:42am]

Giovanni777 said:

Yeah, after years of my LinnDrumm sitting in my closet I was in LA and went to his shop to meet him. Very cool guy.

He's going to be doing some mods on my LM2 to make it more like the LM1, mainly replacing the chips. Not sure if I'm going to do all the sounds or just bass and snare.

violetblues said:

Totally agree (well, other than the fact that I do enjoy Cause and Effect).

And is precisely why I was debating with the others earlier in the thread about supposedly sacred, analogue recording techniques (although, it turns out that citrus was actually talking about sequencing) and the ostensibly evil digital recording. My point being, its not how it was recorded that counts - its the results. Sure, I prefer well-recorded GREAT music over poorly recorded GREAT music.....BUT, as long as it is GREAT music, then I'll take either.