this is his feeling & this feeling is valid no matter what you feel about schaeffer . your feeling about schaeffer is just as valid no matter what his feeling is.
Matmos doesn't always use referential bits of sound in their own compositions. If you are familiar with their albums, you will notice sometimes there is a theme for the songs. There's one album, A Chance to Cut is a Chance to Cure, where there are many medical related samplings in the songs, which you'll find hard to recognize what the sounds are without them stating what was used during the recording.
I think a more interesting point would be actually taking notice to how each individual sound was altered in comparison to the others, as well as comparing the newly manipulated to the original sound. That is where Schaeffer truly shone.
He's making an important point referring to Vertov and Eisenstein (Vertov was conducting sound experiments in the late 10's!!) but dismissing Schaeffer as being boring and not "true" to his sound sources is simply missing the whole point, i suppose he has listened to Schaeffer, but I do actually doubt a litte as well having heard his point...
i wish he wasn't so hasty in dismissing schaeffer altogether because he thinks it's "boring". although sound can be "referential" i think new, unheard of sounds can be even more exciting no matter what their origin.
this is his feeling & this feeling is valid no matter what you feel about schaeffer . your feeling about schaeffer is just as valid no matter what his feeling is.
shcocky 3 years ago
Matmos doesn't always use referential bits of sound in their own compositions. If you are familiar with their albums, you will notice sometimes there is a theme for the songs. There's one album, A Chance to Cut is a Chance to Cure, where there are many medical related samplings in the songs, which you'll find hard to recognize what the sounds are without them stating what was used during the recording.
spinach43 4 years ago 2
I think a more interesting point would be actually taking notice to how each individual sound was altered in comparison to the others, as well as comparing the newly manipulated to the original sound. That is where Schaeffer truly shone.
jibblegit 4 years ago
this guy has nothing on shaeffer.
Anamorphosis 4 years ago 2
He's making an important point referring to Vertov and Eisenstein (Vertov was conducting sound experiments in the late 10's!!) but dismissing Schaeffer as being boring and not "true" to his sound sources is simply missing the whole point, i suppose he has listened to Schaeffer, but I do actually doubt a litte as well having heard his point...
kristallo48 4 years ago
i wish he wasn't so hasty in dismissing schaeffer altogether because he thinks it's "boring". although sound can be "referential" i think new, unheard of sounds can be even more exciting no matter what their origin.
sandflyfever 4 years ago