Ooh nice, I keep ignoring the “download new version” prompts but i think I’ll grab it after seeing this vid.
I think I dropped this somewhere, maybe in the philosophy thread.
Victor Shklovsky:
”If we examine the general laws of perception, we see that as it becomes habitual, it also becomes automatic. So eventually all of our skills and experiences function unconsciously – automatically. […]. And so, held accountable for nothing, life fades into nothingness. Automatization eats away at things, at clothes, at furniture, at our wives, and at our fear of war. If the complex life of many people takes place entirely on the level of the unconscious, then it’s as if this life had never been” (Shklovsky [1929] 1990, 4-5).
”And so, in order to return sensation to our limbs, in order to make us feel objects, to make a stone feel stony, man has been given the tool of art. The purpose of art, then, is to lead us to a knowledge of a thing through the organ of sight instead of recognition. By ”estranging” objects and complicating form, the device of art makes perception long and ”laborious” The perceptual process in art has a purpose all its own and ought to be extended to the fullest. Art is a means of experiencing the process of creativity” (Shklovsky [1929] 1990, 6).
So you resample or fx the fuck out of something that sounds too normal - to de-automatize the listeners perception - kinda brut-y
but yeah
its funny then that in a lot of ways its become techno or electronic musics role to bring the de-coding -or re-organic-izing back into music - when music used to mimic nature its now techno-logy that mimic music mimicing nature and brings back the purest near relation to sound
4 Likes
Coming up on a year without having a DAW installed on my computer. It’s been interesting.
Def getting better at making tunes without but still a long ways to go
10 Likes
That’s partially why I like sampling so much. If you just have a synth sound, it’s easy to deconstruct it and say “oh yeah that’s just a saw with some reverb on it etc” but when you fuck up a sample, the recreation/recognition of that sound gets really obscured.
1 BigUp
Yeah, the brain is looking for patterns and things we recognize, remembering something similar for comparison. If you obfuscate this to the level of something being impossible to place/recognize, you are more attentive of what you are hearing, with patience of course being a factor, trying to interpret and de-code. People have this particular interest to varying degrees.
From what I know about how the brain and out minds work, this makes total sense to me.
2 Likes
yeah
in technical scientific language you talk about how something like sampling
‘re-mediates’ recorded history -as in its one technology imposed into another context *
and the br01n would have a relation to past recorded history and tech
its also that whole retroing, retrofitting, analogue fetisch, etc
but also the artistic decision to displace something from ‘one realm to another’ just to get fucky
i used to try to make all sounds wet like tjhey were coming from some aqua world when i used to smoke 8 spliffs a day
im ashamed i lost that fight but hey - mixes sound better now lol
*breaks innit, hardware sound references etc
1 BigUp
I also feel like there’s a sort of “fetisization” to it, for lack of a better word. For instance, if you sample a laser from star wars or something, even if the end result is unrecognizable as a star wars laser, the sound is still imbued with that original intent, to some extent
1 BigUp
yeah
Sampling kinda sucks though. What was once a new tool to repurpose capitalist mainstreamism for the underground is just the incestious norm now. Nostalgia as a marketing tool vibes.
Also on a technical side sampling is limited by resolution and there aren’t like a lot of in between moments to explore other than just the original source and the mangled result. It’s very hard to have a sampled thing properly morph and become something properly new in a track. It’s easy to mangle it but hard to create something that doesn’t sound like a mangled sample ime
I’m biased obviously because I’ve been exploring sampling so deeply for the past years or so and have sort of jumped ship on a lot of ‘underground’modalities that are increasingly built on nostalgia.
A lot more for me explore in other realms of production after so much sampling and being stuck in certain confines of structure and ideations of what the tunes ‘should be’ while on a slightly angst anti-nostalgia bent while also trying to not fall into the trap of novelty
Edit: sorry for so many typos, on my phone and it doesn’t really show me what I type until after I post
5 Likes
music is really different from other art forms in how mixed ‘media’ you can go
some ‘bad source’- or low res sounds doesn’t necessarily detract from an overall mix, but rather enhance the context by varying the whole
but i get what you mean and how deep you go and appreciate it
3 Likes
I didn’t mean resolution in that way, not as in lower fidelity or anything mix-y, but more so during the morphing of the sample. You’re always running into the issue of what data already exists in the sampled material and the missing gaps in between that you have to fill yourself by mangling it until it fits what you want from the sample.
Those gaps are where I’m exploring now I guess 
2 Likes
Apart from the whole problem with intellectual property and copyright when it comes to sampling, and the whole philosophical background that both cyclopian and hubb brings to the table here, I think that repurposing something and make it work within a new context is much more important. Now like in the 80s imo. But also, read that excerpt from that guy Fisher or who it was, libertarian and capitalist ideas affecting cultural output. No one can see the future of these ideas = everything is rehashed = culture is dying. I kinda see that train of thought.
But it goes back to where it sounds good, it is good kinda mentality imo.
1 BigUp
So much nu-rave around these days. Seems like everything has some giant stuttering break b2b 1992 synths/stabs
I love stuttering breaks.
I was never a raver though.
1 BigUp
I think I mean more chopped breaks actually.
Big clean nu-jungle breaks. Kinda shit Sherelle plays out when she does 160 sets
I’ve been chopping a lot of breaks recently.
It’s fun.
2 Likes
I’ve not chopped for ages. Been using a lot of pre-chopped stuff.
I recently gave a remix I did of one of Marsen’s tune a fresh coat of paint. One of the stems was a break he’d chopped, and I rechopped it for the remix. That was a lot of fun.
I need to chop more breaks.
2 Likes
I had the sub banging but hitting distortion so I turned it down. I think I need to turn it back up.
Ohhh man that rolling break is 
I wouldn’t turn the sub down! (I would turn down the grimy synth a touch tho)
1 BigUp
The chords? Or the grimy bass?
I was fighting this mix a bit.