randomize?

[piscaries]

i just picked up the latest xlr8r magazine, and i found an article about some of the cycle 74 (i think) plugins. i guess they had one of the guys from mille plateux doing some reviews on them, and wow did it piss me off. the one thing that stuck out in a big yellow quote bubble was something like: when i need inspiration i just keep clicking 'randomize' until i get an idea for a track.

does this whole 'randomize' thing piss anyone else off? i mean really, are you that lazy where you need a computer to make your sounds for you?

[Peezee]

If you've ever heard Brian Eno talking about Koan and other "generative" sotfware tools, you'll see that some people are really into the concept of allowing uncontrolled variables into music- where you decide which parameters and elements are controlled and which are random. I think its somewhat interesting conceptually and sometimes interesting musically, with possibilities that continue to expand with technology, but I also see how this can be abused by all the lazy f@cks who would rather edit the roland demo patterns than push their creative potential..

[alex cortex]

to me it´s okay to use randomize, as long as this material is treated afterwards. i guess most musicians had their best results by plain chance, accidently hitting some key or recording the midi-test or whatever. there´s this balance between man and machine that makes the whole process interisting. the random factor can come in at any stage of it. cristian, what do you think? didn´t your supremat record deal with this topic?

[Reichert]

I´m no roducer. But this whole randomize thing doesn´t make any sense to me. I don´t think that that´s the concept of producing.

[alex cortex]

then what is it in your opinion?

[Sheridan]

there is a line between man and machine.
but I look at it like this.
man has the idea. he/she comes up with a vision that they
want to create. they use the machines to make that happen.
I dont think that using randomize again and again is really
producing. you are stuck in a rut so you just hit randomize to get a sound.
I don't think that is a good way to go about things.
for me it is trying new things. like what if I put a kick here and then put a
high hat here. mixing it up that way. of course "happy accidents" occur
when you aren't sure what hitting 2 buttons will do,
but for the most part you know what randomize will do.
but everytime I have ever used it my beats sounded like shit
and then by that time I've done it too much to go back to the original.

[alex cortex]

anyway, i don´t know what all this mentioned software really does, i don´t use it. i was writing generally about random influences in making music. to "make" beats with a randomize button seems also silly to me (as long it is a groove you are looking for). but quite often it is a sound i didn´t come up with myself that inspires me how to go on. every record i released is based on this principle. i can´t think of a good song i "designed" from scratch. sheridan, you mentioned the vision. i´m not sure if one needs a vision to make honest and deep music. a few times i´ve used the phrase "to make inspired music" in this context on the board. but how long does it take to have a vision or to be inspired. can it only be an overall attitude towards making music or does it occur here and there in the process?

[phdbob]

the point is not to get a sound through great expertise or by just fiddlin´arround with randomized whatever produce by computers themselves but!!! in SELECTING what´s good and what not...i see+hear quite often the missing SELECTION ability!!! taste, knowledge...you need...no concept no concept!

[Peezee]

I'm not opposed to using the randomize too much.

I agree that theres a complex relationship with man and machine in electronic music- but using random elements is just an extension of the tool set that machines have to offer.

Granted, I don't think that people should write a max patch that randomly plays itself and then call this a composition- a concept piece, maybe- but you did not compose the actual music- the computer did.

But I don't think many artists are doing this- most are working within a composition looking for new sounds- they use randomize as a quick way to generate new choices for sounds to work with. Because the artist is eventually choosing a particular sound from these choices that best represents their idea, I think you can still say its a process of creation by the artist- a different kind of creation that was not possible 10 years ago. There will always be artists who go the extra step in technical skill and innovation, and they usually get proper respect for doing so. But good music is good music, and music fans don't always care how it came into existence.

[Sheridan]

when I said vision I didn't mean in a total literal term. for me it is more of the desire to create. the feeling you have when you want to create something. everytime I sit down to work on tracks sometimes I have a drum pattern in my head. sometimes not. sometimes I will play with sounds until I find one that I like and then I get an idea of how to put it in a song. it is also differnet for every person. I mean how long does it take you Alex to get inspired to make a track? I think it is all in where your head is at. I used to write stories and the such when I was younger and I was very prolific. I have a box filled with notebooks that spanned only a couple of years. now I hardly ever write. it is a rare occasion when I ever write anything but those times are when inspiration/vision hits me. I think it applies to anything creative.
one doesn't neccesarily need a vision to create anything, some of my best work has been me just messing around and things falling into place, but I think when you do have a concept or vision you know what you want to do, and then you look at your tools and try to figure out the best way to get from A to point B.

[alex cortex]

Originally posted by Sheridan
I think when you do have a concept or vision you know what you want to do, and then you look at your tools and try to figure out the best way to get from A to point B.

well said, altough between A and B may also occur unexpected sounds etc. that lead to a not intended result. i doubt there will ever be a definition of what is vision or what is the concept behind producing. as phdbob said, it´s all about the selection (=style?).

[mr_chombee]

hehe...nice topic! a lot of the early acid tracks have been created like that. people simply took the batteries out of the 303, put them in again and with some good luck the result was a phuture acidhouse classic =)

I mean clicking the randomize button again and again until a track is "ready" is totally boring and pisses me off for sure, but....damn...let the machines live! electronic music is made by machines, not by human. I've had some old records where the guys put a complete list of any used machine on the cover. lol

crazy world

[marcel]

i think what alex means is using the failures and trying to discover something. or not?
but i think what piscaries means is something different:
once i made some music with a friend of me, and he always used vst-plugins with pushing on the randomizebutton, thats so boring, really, and after a while it made me really angry because that doesn't lead to a result. especially not when you do it all the time, and do not try something different(f.e. the other buttons..)
- when i make music i want to learn something and i want to increase my knowledge, i always want to know more and more,

if you want to make good music you need to know how your equip works, you wont learn it with only randomizing

hmm,im tired i need some sleep now

[piscaries]

okay, i actually have the mag. in front of me now and the exact quote is: "if i'm bored with a sound i can just keep clicking 'randomize' until something bizarre happens. what a great way to kickstart the creative process!"

i don't know. i'm in now way against computer involvement in the creative process, but a randomize function is not even really putting a computer to work. to me, it seems like if you've got the power, use it. don't just hope to get something out of it. at least for me, when i make a track i want to have control over all the sounds, know where they came from, know how they got to be how they are. if you really want a new sound, why not take maybe 10 more minutes with your sound and chop it up, rearrange the waveform, throw in some effects, compress it, reverse it, play it though a megaphone then put a nice reverb on it? yes, it's an absurd example... but i think that if you can put that effort intp your sound then at least the sound will have more character to it, more depth. if you can be more involved in the creative process, the results will show your final product. maybe it just seems like 'randomize' is just too simple, to easy for me to give it much creative process. i know everyone has their own views, and i respect that, but i guess i feel like point-and-click solutions just take the passion out of the music.

[alex cortex]

Originally posted by marcel
i think what alex means is using the failures and trying to discover something

exactely. one of my principles in making music is to build an aesthetic out of limitations, errors and random events. i.e. to use the equipment i have to its limits before i spend money on new one or to make for example a background noise part of the track rather than wasting time on trying to make it vanish (not recommended if you are working in a mastering studio or have to treat expensive vocal recording material... :) ) of course there are some things i cannot tolerate in my tracks, i.e. serious reduction of the desired overall sound quality etc.

well, i´ll offer a conclusion. the names say it all: randomize brings unintended events and using presets may make you sound like someone using presets... i made my choice what to spend my time on.

[dick head]

i think what technique you use to make a track is irrelevant. what is important is how good it is. if you make a great dancefloor track, it doesn't matter to the people on the dancefloor how you did it, or at least not to the people that matter. some presets are cool . sometimes really uncool crap sounds are really cool. that's how we got techno in the first place - people playing randomly with really 'crap' cheap equipment like 303s and 909s. they didn't sit down with a plan for world domination and say 'lets use a 303 and do THIS with the filter' etc, they were just fuckin about randomly, until they went - AHA! that is fuckin MENTAL.

fucking about randomly is a way to discover NEW sounds that you would never think of using, or new combinations.

there does need to be some kind of plan when it comes to arranging and mastering tho obviously. but when it comes to making weird noises and patterns, randomness ROCKS. imho.

[Sheridan]

quote well, i´ll offer a conclusion. the names say it all: randomize brings unintended events and using presets may make you sound like someone using presets[list=a]

it kinda sounds like the dada art period of the early 1900's. the whole art is dead thing. using random events to make art. like painting in the dark, or cutting out colored squares and placing them on canvas in random positions.

[Sheridan]

god damn it.
why can't I ever quote properly!
what am I doing wrong?!
blah.

[piscaries]

Originally posted by dick head
...that's how we got techno in the first place - people playing randomly with really 'crap' cheap equipment like 303s and 909s. they didn't sit down with a plan for world domination and say 'lets use a 303 and do THIS with the filter' etc, they were just fuckin about randomly, until they went - AHA! that is fuckin MENTAL.

see, i can deal with that though. these people were messing around and doing things that weren't 'supposed' to be done and getting really cool results. what i have a problem with is using a freakin randomize preset to do just exactly what it was intended for: randomization. even though those guys were doing random things, they weren't just clicking a button. they figured out that A led to B, and B led to C, and C sounded really freakin cool if you ran it back through A and B combined and run through some effects. That's a hell of a lot cooler than just clicking a button. It's the difference between creativity and monotony. and yes, these sounds still have to be arranged and produced.. but that topic could be a whole new thread on this board.

[mattp]

I think sometimes I must miss the point to these type of discussions.

Surly if you like the music the artist creates then the method is irrelevant. If you don’t like it .. Don’t listen to it.

It’s similar to the presents vrs making you own sounds that rage from time to time on various synth sites. Again if someone uses all present sounds and loops and produces something dull and uninspiring then so what .. your not forced to listen to it. But sometime people can use preset sounds and loops as a base for something very interesting.

If this artist uses some random element as his muse then fair enough I would have thought. If the output is good then listen to it, if not then don’t

And my final point is … Now you know that he used this method does it make you like his music less.

Sorry if I’ve missed the point. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

[marcel]

@mattp: for me as a consumer you are right, its only about the result. you like it or you don't

but for me as an artist its simply boring pushing only(!) the randomizebutton. and it doesn't help my development and it won't make me becoming better

thats all