On 30/01/2010, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Right. In that case, your description is somewhat subjective, to say the least.
> BTW, Bengt comment was that it sounded like a heartbeat through a
Well, that's the problem with experimental work. It's hard to know
what's intentional glitchiness / hypnotic noise and what's a mixer
malfunction, and as a result difficult to offer any kind of
constructive criticism. It might have been better if you'd presented
some kind of source file - either a sequence or a multitrack
recording, depending on how you captured it. Then (a) we wouldn't all
have been standing round saying "is this broken?" and (b) we would
have been able to do the tweaking you requested (and at sensible
volumes; I was listening at 5am, and I doubt my neighbour would have
appreciated me jacking up 100 watts of anyone's experiment). I did try
to have a fiddle with my OGG player's graphic EQ, but it didn't make a
whole lot of difference.
Of course, if you basically recorded a stereo capture, then... sorry.
> 1: No one has bothered to tweak the levels of the raw material I have
An hour long OGG doesn't count as "raw material", however unprocessed it is.
> 2: The soundscape is overwhelmingly complex for most people to recognise
Or possibly, you're too close to the material. You've had 48 hours
(plus all the time since then) and knowledge of what you were doing to
hear all of its intricacies and really get inside it. Expecting a
stranger to do that cold from a misdescribed OGG is a bit of a reach.
There were bits at the end where I thought I could hear a little of
what you were talking about... but I have a feeling I'd also have to
spend somewhere approaching 48 hours on it to hear everything you're
hearing, and as I say, I'm well-disposed towards experimentalism
And on that subject - you mentioned doing this for 48 hours straight.
Now, for most people, that (a) will make their perceptions somewhat
unreliable anyway - mine start to get woozy after about 15; and (b)
isn't possible without some form of chemical assistance, which again
has perception altering effects. So I think we're not entirely out of
bounds calling into question the reliability of your perception -
although if you mean "48 hours divided into 10-hour sessions, with
copious sleep in between", I do apologise and retract.
> 3: The sound that has been presented is more industrial than musical
Yes, that is true; however, as I've said previously, I don't see these
qualities as being in opposition.
> 4: Everyone who has responded here thinks I am mad describing the track
You might have been on safer ground if you'd namedropped "recent
Autechre" (or something a bit more obscure, like Nurse With Wound or
something). And to clarify, I don't think you're mad describing it as
music. Music is anything which sounds like music to the listener,
after all - as far as birds are concerned, they're just bragging about
their willies; it's us who hear song. No, the problem with your
description was that it was subjective, way too close, and done from
the wrong side of the accessibility barrier - unintentionally, I'm
> BTW, I have 10 of them so I hope at least one of them will get a
Asking people to listen to an hour at a stretch is a BIG ask, even if
you're giving them an hour of Mozart. You might be better advised to
trim out some highlights first - and as I say, if you're looking for
in depth tweaking, source material might be a better offer anyway.
Linux-audio-user mailing list