| Author
|
Why is there less bass in Darkpsy than Fullon and Progressive?
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 16:28
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 16:37
|
Or sometimes the cook could indeed be doing a hasty job....but I think the main thing is that time spent != quality of result.
A experienced chef can chop an union very fine really fast and hence accomplish the same dish faster....but the onion should not be finely chopped for all dishes so spending that time can actually produce a worse result.
  (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Jerry
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
32
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 17:01
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 16:37, Spindrift wrote:
Or sometimes the cook could indeed be doing a hasty job....but I think the main thing is that time spent != quality of result.
A experienced chef can chop an union very fine really fast and hence accomplish the same dish faster....but the onion should not be finely chopped for all dishes so spending that time can actually produce a worse result.
|
|
You got my point! 
|
|
|
|
olivier
Side-A
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1303
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 17:03
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 16:28, Colin OOOD wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 16:14, Side-A wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 15:36, Jerry wrote:
Just because something takes less time to produce doesn't mean it is therefore crap by default.
|
|
if it takes less time then it's easier.
|
|
If it takes less time the cook's more skilled.
|
|
what if it's the same cook? ;)
|
|
|
|
Dennis the menace
DevilsDennis Sparris McHilton
Started Topics :
128
Posts :
2899
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 17:34
|
|
Jamie Oliver?
|
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 18:12
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 14:21, Inner Demon wrote:
1) How can you slate an entire subgenre saying that its got bad production while at the same time arguing that style and production quality are unrelated?
|
|
They are not inherently related. That doesn't mean that in practise producers of a certain genre are as skilled, take as much effort or go for the same kind of result.
Your argument is like people 50 years ago saying that women couldn't be managers or couldn't be top politicians simply because there were no women in these positions.
(You talk about circular reasoning lower in your post. Well that is what you just did).
Quote:
|
2) Do you honestly think there aren't ANY truly skilled producers within darkpsy? Or could there be other reasons why the production standard is ever so slightly lower (but still perfectly fine IMO) than some full-on. Which is really more plausible?
|
|
There could be some some very skilled producers that don't care or bother (because the audience doesn't care maybe). Maybe they do audiophile recordings of jazz quartets in their free time. Who knows. Or maybe they are indeed less skilled. Why is that impossible?
Quote:
|
its not just the cycle of a bass freq its the whole note and envelopes, and of course the faster the music the less definition they have, the faster envelopes need to be and so on.
|
|
I don't agree that they have less definition. You just have to be more careful and more precise.
Quote:
|
Yes Undertow I agree that darkpsy is characterized by somewhat lower production standards than full-on if we by that refer to how tight some sounds are, but I never said the standard is low in absolute terms, I think it is perfectly acceptable.
|
|
This sentence doesn't make sense. You say it is lower yet it is not lower.
Quote:
|
And if it wasn't obvious already that production quality is a matter of taste then you certainly made it so in your last post:
|
|
Not at all.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Why not? If you separate taste from the equation, it is quite easy.
|
|
If we separate taste from the equation there's nothing left.
|
|
There is loads of music that I don't like but of which I can appreciate the production quality (or musicality) just as there is music I like that I find badly produced. Maybe the real issue here is that some people can't separate the two.
Quote:
|
And there's certainly NOBODY left to do a judgement. You must see this, and you speak of inconsistencies in other's arguments. This is circular reasoning if I ever saw it.
|
|
Only if you can't separate the two.
Quote:
|
My ears prefer sounds that aren't 'strained' and compressed to the max and so for me that doesn't represent higher production standards, but I have referred to standards that way since its the way you seem interpret it.
|
|
Over compressed and over-limited stuff isn't my taste either but that is only one aspect of production.
Quote:
|
If you simply say 'I don't like darkpsy' that's fine. I don't like country, or goth. That's fine too. But accusing a whole genre of bad production quality is pretty lame...
|
|
But I'm sure you will agree there is some very well produced country. If you really can't separate taste and objective listening, well, that's your problem.
UnderTow
|
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 19:00
|
@Undertow
Do you think Greg On Earth's production is very good?
You said you where not impressed, and I assume you meant with regards to the production.
Is it just that you know better that makes it possible for you to say to people that likes his production is wrong and your opinion is objective?
Quote:
|
If you really can't separate taste and objective listening, well, that's your problem. |
|
Listening by it's very nature is not objective, so objective listening is a bit of an oxymoron.
For something to be objective it has to be measurable.
One can for example say that a good mix should have a pink noise slope in it's frequency spectrum and have an RMS value of around -12dB.
That's objective standards. Of course they will not be identical for every genre and is still somewhat subject to taste...but there is many aspects of a mix that is not even possible to measure.
You really have to suffer from hubris if you think you can call your own judgement on matters that cannot be measured for objective and thereby discounting others opinion as invalid.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 19:15
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 19:00, Spindrift wrote:
You said you where not impressed, and I assume you meant with regards to the production.
|
|
I meant the music.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Elad
Tsabeat/Sattel Battle
Started Topics :
158
Posts :
5306
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 19:47
|
is good production is measureable ? i think yes
maybe not in mathematical parameters (tho there are many of those)
but simple "better or worse" compare 2 songs , 90% of the peaple will agree on specific one that is better.
soon there will be polls in isra and we can actualy test this matters
www.sattelbattle.com
http://yoavweinberg.weebly.com/ |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 20:14
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 19:47, Elad wrote:
is good production is measureable ? i think yes
maybe not in mathematical parameters (tho there are many of those)
but simple "better or worse" compare 2 songs , 90% of the peaple will agree on specific one that is better.
|
|
Bingo!
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 20:22
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 20:47
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 19:47, Elad wrote:
is good production is measureable ? i think yes
maybe not in mathematical parameters (tho there are many of those)
but simple "better or worse" compare 2 songs , 90% of the peaple will agree on specific one that is better.
|
|
What do you measure if it's not in parameters?
Getting a bit fuzzy with the definition of what measurable means here I think.
Say you make a test and get 90% agreeing on the best production as you think....how do you know that it's not just reflecting that 90% have the same taste?
Of course if you take horse pee and a good wine and make a blind test to compare them you will get 90% agreeing that the wine taste best.
So taste is actually objective?
You can actually measure things without any kind of scale or not knowing what values you are measuring??
LOL
You guys seriously need to work on understanding what subject, subjective, object and objective actually means.
Something that cannot be measured and relies on the subject for putting a value on it can not be called objective.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 21:02
|
Spindrift: Bla bla bla.
Nothing is truely objective but we are not here for simplistic pseudo philosophy.
"When observational data arises which appears to contradict or "falsify" a given scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm have not, historically, immediately rejected the paradigm in question (as Sir Karl Popper's philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do) but have gone to considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting the paradigm, through ad hoc variations to the theory, sympathetic interpretations of the data which allow for assimilation, determination that the "conundrum" the data was obtained to explain in the first place is misconceived, or in extreme cases simply ignoring the data altogether (for example, on the basis of the lack of scientific credentials of its source)."
Just replace scientists with "Darkpsy lovers".
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 21:11
|
That nothing is truly objective is a completely different matter than claiming that something that cannot be measured and only quantified through the ears of a subject is objective.
Tell me what "data" you think is being ignored?
You sure have presented absolutely zero data yourself in this debate.
Comparing your own subjective judgements with scientific assements only makes it more obvious that you really think a bit too highly of you own opinion.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Oct 22, 2007 21:14
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-10-22 19:47, Elad wrote:
is good production is measureable ? i think yes
maybe not in mathematical parameters (tho there are many of those)
but simple "better or worse" compare 2 songs , 90% of the peaple will agree on specific one that is better.
soon there will be polls in isra and we can actualy test this matters
|
|
To decide what is better and what is worse worse you again need to decide that based on completely subjective criteria. Beside that A-B comparison is not a "measure device". It's deciding what's one is better in contrast to other... but when you want to decide between 10 tracks A-B comparison is useless.
We can get "near objective" if we make a "blind" test (without knowing whose tracks we listen) and if we try to rate tracks by few different criteria (like complexity, innovation, mix spacing and clarity, arrangement structure etc. The better criteria we define - the closer to objective we can get. It is the only way to partially avoid subjective rating because you don't have to like a particular tune but it can be very complex and interesting once you pay attention to it.
Most of us pay more attention to name of the producer and record label than to complexity, innovations, predictability etc.
I'm not a G.O.E. fan but some of his tracks have more innovations and complexity than generic full on production makes in entire year. He's not exactly my cup of tea but generic stuff has become so fucking boring that even the best production can not compensate for shallowness of the music. In my darker days I see the full on production becoming more and more closer to DJ Bennasy or Robert Miles 
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
