Listening now..Fire wrote:https://soundcloud.com/tim-nagel/haruspicina
Heavily edited piece out of various recording sessions. Would love some feedback on this!
Nice cohesiveness with the tics, lovely bass, some stretched material I'm not a big fan of, but have used myself so I can't really complain. Together with the reverb there's this wobbly quality around 1khz that really does sounds nice, except it's very process-oriented since it always occurs when you take a stretched string (I'm guessing string) and verb it. In my experience.
A great explosion to restart the theme again, I like that. Now there's some evolution with enough recycling of sounds for everything to stay together, that's very patient of you.
Oh, and the tics change, you sure do a lot of cool dynamic things with them.
Some of the transitions seem a little repetitive: take a part out of the mix, slow down pace, introduce again. Can't think of a way to do it different though.
Jump scare ending, I took your advice of listening loud. And a little ending after that- that's something I like to do, too, make little extra themes after the end, sometimes even at the beginning.
Only feedback other than that jovial run-through while listening I can think of is that you could maybe speed up the last half of it so it's more engaging. With that type of[/edit] material it could be quite exciting with a nice crescendo, but any style of build-up would be good. If you're happy with it as it is I'm fine with that, too. It's a good length.
And the last evolution of the tics was not as good as the previous ones, hope that's not too harsh to say.
Thanks for sharing!
I have to say that I really didn't think about anything resembling a crescendo, I wanted to create some kind of sonic room with a lot of changing events, still quite clearly arranged though. The piece emerged out of frustration of not being able to finish another piece I've been working on after nearly 2 months, so I gave myself 3 days to finish this one to see if I can live with the fact of not having anything sound exactly as planned and have random stuff going on too (the clicks for example are of course controlled, but their change of pace isn't). Thats why I'm eager to get feedback, especially constructive negative feedback - still got a lot to learn.
Here's my band TAB- we do chip tune noise music cross over stuff with gameboy, max/msp noise processing on drums and a bunch of no input mixing stuff. Let me know what you think!
You can listen and mp3 download from soundcloud
https://soundcloud.com/seth-cooke/sets/ ... grey-lands
This is prep work for another piece - however these rough recordings came out so nicely I thought I'd put them up in their own right.
This is 22 minutes of mono, fumbling around for an interesting sound, and I don't understand why you're sharing this. Maybe I'm missing something 'Anal Bukkake' hears and likes, but there's barely twenty seconds of usable material in the entire thing, no space, no gestures beyond oblivious knob turning and no sense of movement between any kind of reasoning.Bonehole wrote:Session snatched this morning.
With the name I'd guess it was a troll
Hi there, Moon,Moon wrote:This is 22 minutes of mono, fumbling around for an interesting sound, and I don't understand why you're sharing this. Maybe I'm missing something 'Anal Bukkake' hears and likes, but there's barely twenty seconds of usable material in the entire thing, no space, no gestures beyond oblivious knob turning and no sense of movement between any kind of reasoning.Bonehole wrote:Session snatched this morning.
With the name I'd guess it was a troll
Perhaps I should explain what it is. It's a blind dive (for me) into the unknown. It's two mixers arranged so that each mixer is feedback looping into itself with one mixer also passing into the other.
So, it was new for me and I liked it a lot. I mean, I liked it more than twenty seconds worth. I thought there might be some people here who would also like it. I've read that two mixers has been done before, but I haven't been able find any examples, say on soundcloud or youtube. So, I sort of felt posting it could be justified by the apparent lack of examples of the technique, which, by the way, if you know of any, please let me know.
It's an improvisation. The limitations I placed on it were two mixers, headphones and no fx; hit record and play for about twenty minutes. Actually, the duration was forced by me having to go to work, and the time it takes to set-up and take down the equipment.
When you say 'mono' you mean that figuratively, I think. I used two mixers. The first panned more or less 20% to the left and the second about the same to the right. I did play around somewhat with the stereo field. It's obviously possible to create variation on each loop but I found it's also possible to play with the stereo balance created through the channel which has the first mixer going into the second.
I wouldnt've said I was oblivious at all to what was going on. I mean, the point of the headphones was that they would help me listen closely and focus my attention on it.
There is knob turning in the piece, fair enough, but the gestures are not confined only to that. There is touching ranging from very slightly touching the knobs, where even just close proximity seemed to make a difference, to seconds-long pressing down. There was also tapping; short and long like morse code. As well, the fumbling was not just with the knobs. I was playing around with the cables to see if it made any difference at all. I don't think it did, but there you are. The piece has movement. In some cases, I was trying to get back to something I heard. But it was mostly impossible to do that and new moments were being created. It has space, too. Although, that may not be what you mean by spacing. I don't know. It certainly isn't one long tone at a set volume for 22 minutes, is it?
As I said, I liked the way the jam turned out; it surprised me. It made me think of morse code and static between radio stations and days long gone spent tape-loading a zx spectrum; three (sort of) dead modes. The notion of 'useable' material is what you're bring to the piece. I wasn't looking for any. To me the whole session was about having a play around. I had no artistic intention of cutting for musique concrete. If that idea had come it would have come as an afterthought. It wasn't in my mind when I sat down and pressed the record button. What was in my mind was listen and play.
In fact, I will say that this is an attempt for me to move away from musique concrete towards a set up I can use for live performance.
The title of the piece was a lucky find. I've been playing chess on-line with a friend on-line for a few months and I found the title the same morning I recorded. And it just seemed appropriate. I'll admit the piece doesn't really push the boundaries of quiet (or perhaps of anything else for that matter) but it has it's moments. I'll stand by it.
but what I said, however harsh, is still valid despite your reply, and I said it harshly because I found it arrogant.
First off, your point about it being technologically interesting would only be valid if the result offered anything beyond the general material you get out of any feedback setup.
It could be interesting to hear if it offers a different kind of control over sounds, but since you didn't have a sense of structure, either premeditated or improvised, by your own admission and apparent in the result, it's impossible to hear that there's anything different about it.
I listened to it because you have been on the forum for a while, which I assumed meant you've had a lot of exposure to relevant music and had an inspired, maybe not too formal, improvisation that I could get into. The expectation, combined with the name that suggests the length is justified by some kind of structure or plan that would be apparent after a complete listen, left me feeling kind of provoked after such a long listen of uninspired noise. I thought that if it was meant to be taken as something other than an improvisation from someone who would be able to identify what constitutes as an effort, it would have a disclaimer of some sort or maybe a question ("does this show promise for a live setup?"). You haven't even been able to identify, after I told you, that it's in mono.
I don't think I'm making baseless assumptions here because I have tons of recording of myself doing the exact same thing, getting identical sounds. So I know how little effort goes into it, both mentally and practically. And I'd never post 20 minutes of it in a thread where artists post music they've worked hard to create. It's arrogant, but I don't think you meant it that way.
Let me explain again what it is. It's not a single feedback loop. Also, I haven't recorded an fb loop, and then recorded another, and then layered one over the other. This is two mixers, each one generating a feedback loop, interacting with each other. Two strings plucked don't sound the same as one string plucked. It may not be a symphony, but it doesn't sound the same. Specifically, I am finding it not easy to locate examples of dual mixer work. If you have any recordings of this, I'll happily listen to them if you care to share them. I'm on the look out for examples, so that I can make a comparison of the sound palette, and see what's different or not. One variable I can think of is 'do different mixers produce different sounds?'
Not everything has to have a premeditated structure; detailed and elaborated. The plan was press record, play, press stop. That's it's structure; just about as Aristotlean as you could get. It also has a structure it acquired in the doing; louder to quieter. I'm not making any great claims for it, or myself. I'm not suggesting anyone should. I'm free to post whatever I like. If it breaks site rules, I'm sure someone will tell me.
I'm sorry that I seemed to have raised your expectations. I wasn't trying to imply through the title that I'd gone to any great effort. By 'Giuoco' I simply meant play. I thought that 'Session snatched this morning' would imply the whole thing was done very much on the fly. Perhaps I should have framed it much more clearly. Anyway, thanks for listening and for your comments.
It isn't in mono, unless you're using a specific definition that I'm not aware of. It was recorded in stereo. You may not wish to listen to it again, but between the 2:50 to 3:50 minute mark it pans around. If you want to look at it I'll send you the track, you can load it into whatever audio editor you like. You'll find it's a stereo wav file.
It's clear to me that we are coming from different perspectives. Perhaps you like things with a lot of stereo panning. I do too, sometimes. I'm sure a lot effort, at least in terms of time, goes into creating those wide, virtual spaces. And I'm not denigrating the work of anyone who does that. However, no matter how natural they are made to feel, they remain artificial. For a while now, I've been getting more into actions in real time and in real spaces. Actions plus sound, or sound plus actions.
I don't think I would sit all the way through something longish I wasn't enjoying unless I was writing a review or I intended to give it quite a thorough critique. The same way as I wouldn't stare at a painting I didn't like for 20 minutes. Life's too short.
I think it's difficult to say that a lot of practical (ie. physical) and mental effort equals good and a lack of it equals bad. If that was true, construction workers and logicians would be held in equally high esteem. Generally speaking, they aren't. And, I think that idea gets more complicated when someone tries to apply it to art. For example, Jackson's Pollock's paintings were, according to accounts, physically and mentally draining for the artist, but the same is not said of Marcel Duchamp's ready-mades? And, what of artists like Ai Wei Wei, who employ artisans to carry out work on their behalf? And besides, the notion always completely erases any emotional effort that goes into a work. At any rate, and I really don't mean this as a comment on anybody's work at all, I'm not sure pushing buttons on a keyboard is more effort than turning knobs on a mixer.
I may have acted quickly (that was part of it). I certainly feel like you've been making me work a bit harder on the mental effort. You are perhaps a lot more listener-centred than I am right now. I'm at the beginning of playing around with a set up. I haven't even decided in my mind if it's one instrument or two. I apologize if you were mislead. I should have given it a better description, I was perhaps a bit over-enthusiastic.
j-p wrote:just uploaded a couple of tracks onto soundcloud, never really shared my music before:
goes without saying that any honest feedback is appreciated. playback through speakers recommended.
very fine work my friend. i thought soft was quite spectacular but shore took me away even further. love how that layer of noise is introduced at around 2:50 as well as the quiet beach like passage that comes off very distant. excellent. keep it up, please continue to share these!
https://joshuaadamacosta.bandcamp.com/a ... nts-notice
this my first proper release with my real name attached. comments and criticisms are very welcome!
did you record that TSA announcement, or was it lifted off of 'Making A' ?
thank you very much for the kind words. i have not heard old punch card yet, i'll be sure to check that out. the tsa announcement i recorded, i work at an airport lol. however i cannot deny the influence of both of those incredible artists on my own music. thanks again for listening.mono tony wrote:listening to "Where Does It Go" on computer speakers, I like (what seems like) the variety of sound sources, dynamic zones, and the way new/elements appear frequently.. it's warm, active, and keeps me engaged. the tonalities, and the frequent change-ups recall the sketches of sam prekop's 'old punch card' album.
did you record that TSA announcement, or was it lifted off of 'Making A' ?
more rackmount delay nonsense, minimal edits