Otto Matta

Okay, Nemo, since this is a difficult topic for you, let me ask you two more straightforward questions: Since you make "COMPOSITIONS", would you feel it was safe to call yourself a composer? Why or why not?

Nemo, you're like that brat kid who won't go away no matter how much you slap the crap out of him. Please only post if you've got something grown-up to say. Pleeeease? There's enough stuff for brat kids who don't feel like reading before they respond in off-topic, no? Okay, so you think that "musician", "producer" or "sound engineer" is what Beethoven called himself? No. He was a composer. What has changed since then? A lot. Given that a lot has changed, what do we call ourselves? Producers? You're out on a date with a girl you don't know very well and she asks you what you enjoy doing. You say "producing"? "Engineering"? No. You're at a wedding and a stiff academic asks you what you do. You say "production"? He'll ask what kind of production. "Electronic music production"? "Really? Like John Adams?" No. That's different. He was kind of a composer, although he wrote electronic "classical" music. "I write contemporary electronic music, but it's not classical. It's made for dancing." "Contemporary Electronic Dance Music Producers"? Doesn't have the same succinctness as "composer". But we're not composers. Why? Why can't we be composers? That's an issue, I think. What's the difference between composing and what we do? What we do is manipulate graphics on a screen that merely represent the instruments. Is that like the notes that Beethoven would write on a piece of parchment? Is it? No. So?

I don't know, but it should be "Religion is for those who cannot see!" in your signature. How about some thoughts from the adults?

Re-reading my original post, it seems like I might be in favor of calling us designers, which is not the case. What I wanted to get across is that the process can seem design-like, similar to, say, a complex graphic design program or even an architectural program like CAD, when what we are in fact doing is making music. And music is always performed by instruments, by people or, in our case, machines. Of course we all more or less have a romance with machines, but the programs themselves, at least to a layperson, and to me sometimes, resemble, in aesthetics and in process, design programs. What I'm also interested in, regarding our music's relationship to design, is that for the most part we're attempting to achieve something similar, which is a "cool" and "hip" sensory experience (as opposed to, say, a "sculptural" one). In addition, the steps in the process are similar (production, post-production, etc.). In other words, it appears our kind of music making is a lot more similar to design than music making ever has been before. That's the computer's fault. We can start throwing photography and painting in there as well. When I was studying architecture, at some point I discovered that designing buildings and structures is considered an "applied" art, rather than a "fine" art. Is our music increasingly becoming an applied art? Or...? I'm thinking that this is ultimately something to walk away from, when one is ready, in order to make music the way it was meant to be made. But that's a vague statement. Anyway, it seems like a potentially interesting topic.

I think words like "engineer" and "technician" take all the art out of the equation. I know that audio engineers are somewhat creative in their own way, but not with the actual making of music. I think of them as doing the stuff that come after the music is made, mostly. "Audio technician" reminds me of someone who's messing with cables and hardware. @devious: I think electronic [music] producer is about right, personally. Nice sequencer. Total beast, that thing. When you take breaks do you play Intellivision?

I agree. What would you call the role of this sort of music maker?

Ka-Sol, Sky Input and Apsara for me.

Do you ever get the feeling when working with software that making electronic music is more like designing than composing? Has composition always been design-related in a way? I know some composers would sketch their works before filling in the notes, but is that the same thing? I definitely enjoy the process, but sometimes I feel like I'm working in Photoshop or Illustrator. Will there ever be a time when those of us who make music with software are called music designers? When you talk to someone who is unfamiliar with making music, what do you call yourself? A composer? A songwriter? A producer? A music-maker? An electronic musician? A synthesist? None of these seem to fit exactly. Has the process of making music fundamentally changed with software?

Not yet. I enjoy making my own arpeggios. But the time will come, I'm sure, when an automatic one will do the job.

Haaaaa. +1 I personally LOVE Astral Projection's kicks, especially from their earlier stuff. Totally phat.

I've heard a lot about them, and I know they've inspired a lot of psytrance artists even. I have them sorted in my brain with bands like Nitzer Ebb and Front 242, but I probably don't know what I'm talking about because I never got into the industrial thing. Maybe you could PM me what you think is a decent track on YouTube or something.

Oh, my bad. I'm not familiar with their stuff.

Dude, you can get a PHAT kick from a subtractive synth, not to mention some wicked hi-hats and snares, percussion, FX, etc. ... Stealing (borrowing/sampling) percussion can be an artform in the right hands.

Definitely, if you want a professional job done right. BUT...The gap is closing, just like it did with production, which used to require an actual studio. And since we're talking about netlabel music on a budget, it can safely be said that the age of budget in-the-box mastering is approaching, if not already here. I hate to get too far off the subject with speculation, but that's just the way our digital age works: Consumers will often choose semi-professional and cheap over professional and expensive. I haven't looked closely at mastering software, but I know it exists and is getting talked about. Also, let's not forget this creative mastering trend, where sound engineer and music-maker have become increasingly united. Combine that with mastering software "for the masses", and you're going to have some interesting results, to say the least.

Seems to me, what with the increasingly sophisticated and affordable in-the-box mastering software, combined with the relatively new idea of "creative mastering", the sound engineer is slowly but surely going the way of the producer. Electronic artists have had to produce their own stuff for a while now, and will soon be mastering their own stuff just as much. Fine with me. I'd rather spend five hundred bucks for software once than five hundred bucks every time I need some mastering done. Not only that, but I like the idea that with the help of good software I'll have creative control over the mastering aspect - that mysterious technicality - as well, rather than leave it in the hands of someone who doesn't necessarily share my vision. Not that it's entirely helpful for Basilisk's purposes now, but give it two years or so. Either way, I think it's up to the artist to find a way to get it accomplished, at least in the world of small labels.

It's interesting, as always. I find I'm too distracted by the overly lo-fi-ness, though. That generic hi-hat doesn't work, in my opinion. Make the rhythmic elements a bit more subtle and I think it would be much improved.

Mmm...I gotta catch up on Jarre. The music in that clip is so beautiful. I was into his stuff briefly in '97, then again in '02 or so. But there's a lot I haven't heard. And that DVD is a must-see. Thanks.

Sounds good, man. I'm enjoying the Aku Aku tracks, BTW.

Cool! Good to know. Do you specialize in trance, or are you capable with other electronic genres as well? Do you have an example of your work?

I highly doubt that will happen. I don't think they have the motivation like they once did. As soon as they found/made their opening from the underground to the mainstream, they took it. And I don't think there's any coming back.

True. The best albums almost have to sneak up on you, take you by surprise. I wonder what I would think if I heard IFO for the first time today. It definitely wouldn't mean as much, emotionally, since it came into my experience early on and, along with a handful of other releases, defined my taste and expectations, not to mention my general identity and relationship to psytrance. It celebrated its 10th anniversary this year, by the way. Happy Birthday, IFO! :clapping:

Just a quick thought: Converting Vegetarians was surprisingly good, I think. Remember that when it came out, no one had heard a full disc of psy electronica like disc 2 had. It was impressive, so much so that the trance disc was largely ignored, yet it also had some pretty good music on it that was outshined by the other disc.

Very nice pictures, Janet!

I generally like the aesthetic of this album, the concise, funky and crunchy get-in-and-get-out-ness. It's also a lesson on interesting sound usage and phat production. But it ends up sounding formulaic after a few tracks, and they can only do the same thing so many times before it gets old. I also don't like Germans trying to sound ultra-stylish with English (the German language and a German accent make me cringe); so, minus points for the dialogue and singing, even if it does break up the monotony here and there. Take the best four tracks, make it an EP, and I'd give it a 9 or 10. As an album it doesn't quite hold up. Great DJ and dancefloor material, though, I'm sure. 6.75/10.

Heeeee hee.