yes but nick music is almost always produced and consumed within a set of conventions. when i heard 65dos i immediately made the call that it was "herky jerky post rock type stuff with not very sophisticated electronic bits" which isn't a genre per-se but enough to suggest it wasn't really going to be up my street.
i guess it depends what you want. but i imagine a new hi-hat sound in certain dance records is as exciting for some as this maximal mixing is for you.
-- acrobat, Monday, 4 June 2007 08:38 (44 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

________________________________________
No no no minimal mixing! Mix quietly, with lots of space! (I know that's not quite what you mean...)
It is indeed true that music is generally made within a set of conventions, and this is fine and good and a lot of music I enjoy sits squarely in one convention or another; however, I really, REALLY like music that integrates different conventions, and I think a lot of people do; Mark Hollis, of all people, once said that the only way to really innovate is to combine things that don't seem to fit together and haven't been combined before. It's why I prefer Remain In Light to '77 (also that elephant again, songwriting).
-- Scik Mouthy, Monday, 4 June 2007 08:43 (39 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
________________________________________

oh and there was perhaps an under current in your soulseeking essays from a long while back that opening oneself up to too much music was in the end limiting. you didn't argue it yrself but one could argue that genre mining could be a fruitful way to avoid this kind of dilettante’s overload.
-- acrobat, Monday, 4 June 2007 08:45 (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
________________________________________
Aye, and arguably what Louis and I are (kind of) doing is genre-mining - wanting a music that contains elements from different genres doesn't mean dipping into al those genres, necessarily.
-- Scik Mouthy, Monday, 4 June 2007 08:50 (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
________________________________________
i find that idea attracive in some respects. i was wondering recently what Revolver would sound like if someone tried that today. The Beatles "genius" was pastiche and plagirism and on Revolver they are sort of ram-raiding every stlye available in 1966. i don't get this feeling at all from much fo the stuff you and Louis seem to be sugggest is doing something vaguely similar but maybe that's as you suggest to do with songwriting.
-- acrobat, Monday, 4 June 2007 09:00 (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
________________________________________
The thing with Revolver is that it's doing it in a very much 'pop' methodology, and very little 'pop' recently has done similar. Certainly there are people, Timbaland being an immediate example, who are doing something similar, but if it's in a 'pop' context it's probbaly flawed in one or other directions that would rule it out for the likes of Louis or I; mixing in commercial, flat, radio-hungry manner, over-emphasis on lyrics / singing / vocal performativity, etcetera, songwriting again, the lack of a 'band' where a band is a group of musicians interracting on several levels. The dynamic of group interplay is something I like a lot, for instance, and you don't get that in figurehead-led R'n'B, for instance, or in, let's say The View, either, because they're not 'playing' in the same way as The Beatles - they're not gonna suddenly start looping and editing and using other instruments and so on in a contemporaneously progressive way that's comparable to what The Beatles did. They may, and in fact almost certainly are, using studio technology in a far more advanced way than The Beatles, because more advanced technology exists, but it'll be for different ends; autotune to smooth out vocal errors, looped guitar lines cos the guitarist can't play more than 8 bars at a time, overdubs or playing to a click because the drummer can't keep time, etcetera - the studio as orthodoxy tool rather than innovation tool.
-- Scik Mouthy, Monday, 4 June 2007 09:09 (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
________________________________________
And by pop I also mean rock - Oasis, for example.
-- Scik Mouthy, Monday, 4 June 2007 09:15 (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
________________________________________
i think damon allbran would like to do this genre tourist stuff, parklife era blur and gorrilaz both seem like attempts to do just this. that he can't quite get everything in focus in the same way The Beatles did is, for me, the problem.
-- acrobat, Monday, 4 June 2007 09:16 (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
________________________________________
I'd agree with that. I think Damon's got close on occasions, I think TGTB&TQ gets close, but then it's fucking atrociously mixed and mastered, so there you go.
Paul would you mind if I hiked a load of this stuff between us onto my blog, perhaps?
-- Scik Mouthy, Monday, 4 June 2007 09:18 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
________________________________________
course not.
-- acrobat, Monday, 4 June 2007 09:20 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link