 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 286 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613457 Today 3 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
saw fan from Sawland on 2001-09-24 18:39 [#00035902] | |||||||||
|
|
hello, ive been listening to saw all weekend trying to work out what equipment was used and i have to say this... its more simple than you think! most of the drum sounds are roland tr 808 with normal reverb on the main drums and SHITLOADS of reverb on the snare drum. maybe they didnt come from a real 808. roland r8 can do 808 sounds and with all the reverb it is probably an r8. Ive seen r8s for £150-300, they were probably this price or cheaper in the time around 1989 (fact fans: autechre used one too ; - ) you can get the reverb sounds off any cheap guitar effects box (£40 second hand) the synthesizer used for the bass sounds is a sh101 again with some reverb on some tracks and loads of reverb on others. on pulsewidth i think the bass sound is a tb303 emulation. on hyperreal.org they have files on how to make a 101 sound like a 303 ive seen these synths for £200-300. ive got an sh101 but it is very expensive for what it is. the parts arent worth very much its just the "roland" brand name that keeps it expensive - dont waste your money is my advice if you want a good idea of what it sounds like try the emulation in reaktor. ive heard people say that the other synth used is a yamaha dx synth. i dont own one so i cant be 100 per cent but if you look at mike ps summary of the lost caustic window album he mentions dx pads. other people have said dx too. DX 7 is the most popular and was used by kraftwerk. judging by the influence of kraftwerk on rdjs work i think its ok to say a yamaha dx synth was used. dx7 might have been a bit expensive. afx probably started making tracks when he was 16 or 17... dont believe the bullshit, that was just to help sell records. and being in college/school at the time... i think he couldnt have had enough money to get a dx7 so its probably a dx100 which can do a lot of similar things but was a lot more affordable at the time and is now. sampler: it is well known that richard used casio synths. this was because steve reich used casio synths.steve reich is a major influence on rdj music. i dont know which casio sampler he owned but it is probably the cheapest one available in the late 80s rumour: the girls vocal in xtal is rdj pitched up, listen carefully! i say this because the singing ends in the 3rd bar of the loop. just a guess though. there are some percussion sounds on saw 85 92 that dont sound like they came from a roland drum machine, maybe they were twisted with his sampler or maybe he did build percussion generating equipment to sample. the buliding sampler/synths stuff is a lie though. so here is the equipment: roland r8, roland sh-101, casio sampler, yamaha dx7/100, shit reverb oh and an atari for sequencing that stuff is worth less than £1000 and was 10 years ago. one of the most influential albums ever made for less than a grand and recorded onto a home tape recorder! Amazing dont you think? Anyone care to disagree about what ive said? I like early aphex work more than drukqs stuff |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
transmission from Netherlands on 2001-09-24 20:30 [#00035926] | |||||||||
|
|
I don't think the equipment doesn't matter THAT much...It's more what you can do with it and get out of it... :) LrZ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
transmission from Netherlands on 2001-09-24 20:31 [#00035927] | |||||||||
|
|
Not that I don't like it talking about equip...But it was just something that came up in my head ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
saw fan from Sawland on 2001-09-24 20:38 [#00035928] | |||||||||
|
|
i think thats the point i was trying to make, ideas and talent count more than expensive equipment. if the people who upload very poor "tracks" to mp3.com took the time to learn music they wouldnt need to spend £5000 on gear, they would be able to make music just with what they can afford maybe im full of shit? im just doing this cos i like talking about aphex music. i guess its the same as teachers in schools talking about composers they like and the kids dont give a shit hehe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
.. on 2001-10-02 07:11 [#00038307] | |||||||||
|
|
.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
balthus from europe on 2001-10-02 10:20 [#00038348] | |||||||||
|
|
saw fan - i listened, and it was interesting. and you made the point. it's not really about equipment, music is about talent and imagination. take piano music for example or other instruments... it's very low-tech, and still you can do something great with it. ok, my examples: phil glass' modern love waltz for piano, the etudes for piano, the screens, koyaanisqatsi, in the summer house for violin and cello, stravinsky's le sacre, histoire du soldat, the violin concerto, steve reich's variations (it's for orchestra but it does not sound as if it was written for orchestra... it's sounds more as if reich had the same equpipment like boards of canada), piano phase, different trains, erik satie's nocturnes for piano, - all pieces which are using 'low-tech' equipment, but the do not sound like what was composed for similar eqipment before. i mean it's the same with rdj 'symphonic' pieces from sawii, i care because you do, pancake lizard, girl boy... the tracks could be played by an old-fashioned symphony or chamber orchestra with no great alterations (well only notation, like phil glass did in icct hedral), and still, they sound new and like aphex. it's good to have great equipment/good musicians, but in the end you have to know what you want and you need talent to make something different. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 13:11 [#00038360] | |||||||||
|
|
Hey, if Reflex needs a lot of equipment to make decent songs, fair enough. Everyone has their own way. I'm going to turn my basement into a studio with tons of equipment - when I can bloody afford it. For now I'm using Cakewalk (i know I know, but it's just so nice to use), reaktor (to do ambient tracks etc) and tons of little software synthy programmes. I can't be fucked doing it the proper way yet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Taxi on 2001-10-02 14:11 [#00038365] | |||||||||
|
|
Altho lots of gear isn\'t necessary to make good music, hardware can really help with a rich, lush sound. Altho, for versatility in your music, software is a definate plus. Whatever. A good musician can make something amazing out of very little. A mediocre musician can make something neat out of a lot. Altho, when a musican uses heaps of programs, and puts those programs over composition, then they are a technician. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Maytag on 2001-10-02 14:18 [#00038366] | |||||||||
|
|
I think Richard's taste in samples is one of the things that makes his work so strong. A few sparse notes, or even just a noise is looped and built on untill you have this beautiful monster that goes on for 8 minutes and is still too short. Anyone can do this I would suppose no matter what the equipment, it's just a matter of what sounds cool and will appeal to people. You record a dripping pipe from the next room creating a distant echo and get a neat spacy effect and go from there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 14:19 [#00038367] | |||||||||
|
|
Well all my newest songs sound good but the sound quality isn't high. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 19:38 [#00038423] | |||||||||
|
|
You're talking about people who just take bits for the songs, don't change them, and just put them together to make a fucking mediocre song. THere's no fucking challenge in that. Software can be used well, mind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 19:50 [#00038432] | |||||||||
|
|
Don't have to take months. 2 or 3 days spending many hours can produce good results. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
plastic raver on 2001-10-02 19:57 [#00038434] | |||||||||
|
|
Where can I hear your music Reflex? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 20:08 [#00038436] | |||||||||
|
|
Maybe you're just frustrated that you had so many days of kicking your computer cos it wouldn't give the sound you wanted. Surely you don't think a song like, say, 'birdies' is as bad as all the other shit on the net? Most of the stuff i've heard was made in one of those shitty programs like Dance Ejay, with no imagination. I've got ideas, man, that's what counts. Do you want to hear this new ambient song I've made? It's rather good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 20:51 [#00038447] | |||||||||
|
|
I'm not missing the point at all. You're say software-made music sounds shitty, I agree with you. But ideas ARE the most important thing. You seem to think production and the quality of the sound is the most important thing, if that's so - go piss off and listen to Destiny's CHild, get out of good music. If I could afford amazing equipment I would buy it, but if you think my songs are shit cos I made them with software then that's not my fucking fault. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 20:53 [#00038448] | |||||||||
|
|
Anyway, Reflex, out of interest - how far did you get making music with software? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 21:00 [#00038452] | |||||||||
|
|
So, in your opinion, what constitutes a decent song? What certain things can be done which can't be done with software? And... how do you know you may not feel the same about proper equipment as you do about software, once you start using it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 21:16 [#00038458] | |||||||||
|
|
Well yes, some good points there, but the fact REMAINS I have no money for hardware. I have no-where to play live, so don't need to do that. When I move house and get enough space, I'll be buying some cheapo stuff then advancing to the more expensive equipment. At the moment... I don't want to sell CDs, play live, get huge reckognition or anything. Just improve my skills. And I also feel tense when I haven't made any music for a while, it's something I feel I must do. Do you have your equipment yet? When you make something please tell me cos it'd be interesting to see what you can come up with. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 21:25 [#00038462] | |||||||||
|
|
What DO you want to make? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-02 22:25 [#00038480] | |||||||||
|
|
Basically, making music isn't about having enough money, it's not about spending many hours reading tedious instruction manuals and learning electronics. It's about realising your thoughts and emotions, in whichever way, to music. Talent is being able to make decent music with any equipment - be it electrical equipment, software, guitars or a fucking set of pan pipes. It seems you've sort of missed the point of music creation. I'm not saying software is better than equipment, I'm saying it shouldn't matter. But yes - I would prefer proper equipment. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Geonime from United Kingdom on 2001-10-03 00:42 [#00038497] | |||||||||
|
|
What types? Ambient? Dance? Pop? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
plastic raver on 2001-10-03 00:58 [#00038498] | |||||||||
|
|
To reflex, I have plenty of 'equipment' outboard stuff, I don't understand when you're logic. With samplers and pooters you can extend the sources capabilities and vice versa. Surely it would be best to use both? Saying that, I did my first album 10 years ago with very limited equipment....what do you really think? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
plastic raver on 2001-10-03 01:31 [#00038520] | |||||||||
|
|
How do you come to this conclusion? I asked before to hear what you've done... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
plastic raver on 2001-10-03 01:37 [#00038525] | |||||||||
|
|
Okay, I agree in a way... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"roland r8, roland sh-101, casio sampler, yamaha dx7/100, shit reverb oh and an atari for sequencing" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
