Music Snobs

I hated music when i was at school! Not music itself, i've always loved that. I hated the subject of music that i was taught at school. I hated the lessons, they were boring and i hated the teacher. He was just an old classical guy who by the tail end of the 80s had finally come to accept that The Beatles had actually contributed something good to the world, but otherwise had no time for rock, hip-hop, dance or any other contemporary styles of music.

Music snobbery exists on so many levels, we can all feel united, whether rocker or raver, in knowing that that there are old-fashioned classical music snobs who just don't get what we are about and for some reason think that they are somehow superior to us. Our uncultured music with shouty angsty lyrics and/or loud guitars and/or repetitive beats is so beneath them. Its like the class system all over again.

Its not just classical types that have this snobbery though, its everywhere. There are many musicians who look down on producers because they don't play instruments, like that is the only definition of someones musical credentials. How long did it take DJs to get recognition as performers and not just human jukeboxes? Even now you have old skool vinyl DJs looking down on MP3 DJs, claiming it to be cheating. There are still a great number of instrument-playing musicians who find it difficult to recognise that triggering loops, tweeking filters and firing off synth sounds is actually a real form of musical performance.

Still it gets worse, even in the world of electronica you've got hardware snobs that look down on software musicians, claiming some sort of superiority because at least their synths and samplers are proper pieces of equipment rather than the virtual mouse-clicking USB-controlled inferiority on a laptop screen software producers use. Mac users look down on PC users, blindly believing that Apple are great and Macs are always stable even though they crash a lot and don't have that good old ctrl-alt-del that Windows users are all too familiar with. And to top it all off, the vast majority of producers that don't use Reason look down on those that do, even though there's been some genuinely great music made in that particular program.

So where does that leave the poor producer making dubstep in Reason on a Dell PC? Surely he can respect, admire and possibly even envy the skill of a talented guitarist. No doubt he would love to have a studio full of Korg and Roland synths, but simply can't afford it. Maybe he's listened to a few old Beethoven symphonies and appreciated the depth of composition involved. Theres no snobbery there, no feeling like he has some sort of musical status against his aforementioned superiors.

Its quite a humble place to be really, and possibly one of the truest. Doesn't much of the best music come from artists in the lowest places? If a bedroom producer has no-one to lord it over and feel superior to, isn't it fair to say they are doing it for the love of the music? In many ways the attention to detail and intricate level of composition in many pieces of electronic music is far closer to classical than the simple verse-chorus-verse 3-chord songwriting of many instrumentalist musicians.

Music can be the great unifier yet so often musical differences can cause so many divisions. Understandably people want to surround themselves with people whom they share common interests, yet so many times this leads to people excluding others whom they feel don't fit with their idea of whats right. I mention this hierarchy of musicians here, but lets not forget all the music lovers out there that actually just enjoy listening to good music without feeling any desire to play an instrument or write songs themselves. Are these people any less worthy of being defined as musical? Surely not. The fans are often the best critics, it doesn't matter whether they can play or not.

Music snobbery is an unfortunate reality, but it achieves nothing. There are so many tools available to people to make the music they like, there is no right or wrong. So long as people keep making good music and we all keep enjoying it, surely that's all that matters.

Music Industry Bullshit: Its All The Same

It all sounds the bloody same!!!

How many times have we heard people say that? Whether its indie kids complaining about hip-hop, metal kids criticizing dance music, junglists dissing techno or old people moaning about more or less any form of modern music, the "it all sounds the same" argument gets thrown around quite a lot. For the most part there's some truth in it.

Lets look at the pop charts, here we have an endless stream of "artists" manufactured to some extent to fit perfectly into a particular sound and sell as many records as possible. It may be middle of the road whiny alt-pop like Coldplay making sombre depressing music for people that have never really known true misery, gangsta-pop rappers like 50 Cent knocking out the same lyrics about girls, guns and money over identikit beats, obviously manufactured all-style-no-substance pop stars like Lady Ga-Ga singing generic auto-tuned hits about how sexy they are or any one of the hundreds of NME-favoured/Kerrang!-endorsed, rock/punk/indie/emo bands churning out teen-angst anthems for kids too young to remember Kurt Cobain yet treating him like some sort of saint.

Its always the same, find a formula that works and repeat until no-one cares any more then move onto the next big thing. Record company executives take no shame in their blatant destruction of music art in the name of big business.

Of course, we're all freethinking underground people, we can laugh at how rubbish the music industry is, but are we really any better? Take any genre and you will find the same thing happening on a smaller scale. Producers knocking out formulaic tunes, using the same sample packs and software synths as each other. The beats rarely deviate from the established template, the structure is generally the same. Maybe its that 4/4 techno kick with a few sequenced arps or acid loops, that current favourite that is sidechained bass or pads, the wobbly bassline and half-step beats in the occasionally original dubstep scene, reece and amen tearouts in drum n bass, i could go on.

With vinyl sales dwindling and digital downloads hardly showing much in the way of profits its not entirely surprising that record labels, both large and small, are reluctant to invest time and money into artists that deviate too far from the tried and tested. Major labels are finding that the only stuff that sells in large quantities are those indistinguishable, glossy manufactured pop acts, or those artists already well established in their own right. Similarly, independent labels are only really interested in finding acts that fit comfortably in their genre specific roster. Dance labels want tunes that will work well on a dancefloor and hopefully sell to enough DJs for it to be worth the investment, hence the focus on stuff that sounds like the stuff thats already being played. Even many of the most experimental of dance labels have found their own particular flavour of experimentation to stick to.

So, yeah... It does all sound the same. Why is this pissing me off so much?

Honestly, i have sent copies of the new EP out to all sorts of electronic/breakbeat labels, some well established, others less so. Not one of those fuckers has bothered to get back to me, no feedback at all. I spent hours listening to practically identical breaks tunes on trackitdown.net trying to find labels that might just be interested in the Infected Minds sound. Very few... And most of those were foreign. Its all just the same old shit, it really does all sound the fucking same! Actually its depressing to hear the amount of tunes being released with the same beat, the same "Brutal Electro" synth sounds, the same old Vengeance samples. Does no-one care about innovating anymore?

Well, fuck em! I thought for a while before that i wanted to release my own shit, retain full control over my music. Kinda got talked out of that mindset, but since none of the labels i've tried want to know, then i've got no choice.

And you know what, i quite like it this way. At least i can put Deadline out at a reasonable price now. Its a bit late for the summer but better late than never. I know its gonna involve a lot more work for me but thats the way it goes. I've got a few things on for the rest of the week, but if all goes to plan Deadline will be out to download very soon for a good price. I need some decent cover art if anyone cares to donate some, but aside from that its ready to go.

Ahhh, how to end a pretty angry post on a positive note.

Peace, all. Shaun. X

New track up for free download

Just a little freebie i want to share.

The track is untitled and is the result of some college coursework during the last year, a collaboration between myself and Danny Unkut under the name of Winalot.

The idea was to engineer and produce a track in the college studio featuring other musicians, the most notable of whom is the excellent vocalist Ruth Royall whose contribution holds this track together.

Myself and Danny did the synth parts, i did some piano and Danny did most of the scratching. Other guests are Mark Fairclough on drums, Paul Quinn on piano and Peter Richardson on the turntables. It was recorded last winter.

This is the Infected Minds mix, my own take on the recording with my own arrangement and FX. Danny Unkut has his own mix which is quite deifferent and should be up on his MySpace player at some point, if not already.

I hope you enjoy it, free download from either MySpace or ReverbNation. Feel free to share it or do whatever you want with it. This is in no way related to any forthcoming Infected Minds releases so don't expect a polished version of it to arrive later. It is what it is. Enjoy!

Is Michael Jackson really dead?

The news of Jacko's death is truly sad. He was a musical genius and a true legend, as such he will be greatly missed. He leaves behind some genuinely great music and a legacy as one of the most amazing performers that ever lived. He has earned his place in the history books and deserves to be remembered for the awesome talent that he was.

That said, and with all respect to Jackson and his loved ones, i'm not entirely sure i believe he is really dead. Call me a conspiracy theorist but it all seems a bit suspicious. I've thought for a while that if anyone was going to fake their own death, Jacko would be the ideal candidate. Like a lot of people i was doubtful that he'd be able to pull off 50 nights at the O2, and i suspect he knew it himself. If he really was as ill as we have been led to believe he could surely never have thought that he could perform anywhere near the standard he used to in his heyday. I've personally been very skeptical about whether he'd even play one night for several months now.

The public persona of Michael Jackson aka Jacko aka The King of Pop was very much a character, none of us truly knew what he was really like. We only ever saw him as either the singer/dancer or the media figure. Did he really sleep in that glass tank? Was his best friend really a monkey? The Wacko Jacko image certainly added to his mystery and intrigue throughout the 80s and early 90s. It didn't do his career any harm at the time either. Of course as Wacko Jacko transformed into the troubled artist searching for his lost youth, it all started to go wrong. People will forever question whether or not the allegations about his involvement with kids were true. No-one really knows but everyone has an opinion on it. Whatever, Jackson has consistently remained a superstar and has never been out of the spotlight for long.

But what about the real man, what do we actually know about him? Very little, it seems. In my opinion, Jackson has always been a shrewd man, he wouldn't have been as successful as he was if he didn't know what he was doing. He's made some very smart business moves in his time, the sort that just don't fit with the Jacko we've seen in the media.

Faking his own death could be hugely profitable, it seems that there are going to be some considerable problems with refunds. I don't know the figures but i'm sure that a significant proportion of those 750,000 tickets have been traded through or by resellers and touts effectively voiding their warranty. Regardless, it appears that these refunds are the responsibility of the promoters and their insurance companies, not Jackson who no doubt received a large advance. Every radio station is playing his music which will earn his estate a vast sum in broadcast and publishing royalties. No doubt we will see a wave of best of albums, tributes and collectors box sets over the next few years, maybe even a Hollywood movie of his life. I wouldn't be surprised if the Michael Jackson estate re-acquires Neverland and turns it into a Jacko shrine which will inevitably attract thousands of paying visitors every day. It could be one of the greatest scams ever pulled.

He certainly went out well. Rather than fading as a broken man or fallen icon before ultimately passing away isolated and alone, Jackson's last days will be remembered as a genuine a-list star. The sort of superstar who can sell out 750,000 tickets for a residency in London. The star who pushed himself beyond his own limits because he wanted to put on the best show he could. He may not have actually performed but its easy now to remember what a great talent he really was, to remember him for his exceptional music. And that is exactly how we should, because it's the one thing we really do know about him.

If Michael Jackson, the man, is still alive then Jacko, the superstar is dead. We'll never hear from him again, he'll never record any more music, never appear infront of an audience again. If he is still alive maybe he really does just want to be left alone now, to grow old in peace. The only way he could ever achieve that would be to convince the world that he's dead. And surely, he deserves that right. Maybe its not a scam after all, maybe its Jacko's last word, his final exit, the only way he knew he could go out with any dignity.

A lot of people feel very sad today, and those grieving for the loss of their hero should grieve, this is the only way and the only time we can say goodbye to someone who has given so much pleasure to so many people, someone who has inspired and influenced many generations.

Regardless of anything i have suggested, this is the end of an era. My full respects go out to Jackson, his family, friends and fans. My apologies to anyone offended by my timing here, it truly is a sad day. Whether Jackson the man is alive or not, Jacko the superstar, the King of Pop passed away yesterday and he will be truly missed. May he rest in peace.

The legend may be dead but the legacy lives on.

Some More Thoughts on Piracy

Considering the recent verdict on the Pirate Bay trial, the subject of piracy is one of much debate currently. I'm taking a break from the Virtual Reality series to look more closely at piracy and how ridiculous this whole verdict is.

The first thing I think needs to be mentioned is that the “victory” for the music industry is not a victory for musicians, nor is it a victory for copyright protection as many of us perceive it. I seriously doubt that any artists will see a penny from this, even if the fine does get paid it will end up in the pockets of record labels and publishers, the businessmen who have been controlling the industry for too long. That's what the music industry is, a very big and until now hugely profitable business.

The whole case has been clouded in this idea of morality, that copyright needs to protected for the sake of the artists, piracy is theft and anyone who actively partakes in piracy is not only a criminal, but a hugely immoral person. No decent person wants to steal from their friends, or indeed anyone they respect, the industry has tried to convince us that we are stealing from the artists we respect and admire, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. As I demonstrated in the previous post here, piracy as a form of theft is very different to stealing a physical item from your mates.

I'm not saying that artists are not suffering as a result of file-sharing, they are. There is a lot of independent music on small labels (or even self-financed) that can be downloaded illegally. These aren't successful pop stars, or big corporate labels, these are skint people just like you or me, struggling to make a living out of something they love. But this verdict has done nothing for them, no-one has been defending their rights, or trying to seek compensation for their losses. Like I said, this is about the big corporate side of the music industry.

Artists have been getting shafted by record labels and the like for too long. You think when you go out and buy a CD you are supporting the musicians involved? The small percentage of royalties the artist is entitled to only goes toward paying off the debt that artist owes to the label who loaned them the money to record the album in the first place. That debt is re-coupable only from record sales, if no-one buys the album, the artist doesn't have to pay it back. Axl Rose's Chinese Democracy cost Geffen $13m to record, it will never sell enough to pay back that debt. But Axl has lost nothing whether you buy it or copy it. That money could have been spent on better things (although I actually do like the album), but nevertheless I have to admire Axl for turning the tables on his label like that.

Rarely do successful artists “own” their music, the label owns the recordings, the publisher owns the copyright of the songs. Artists are tied to contracts forcing them to compromise their own artistic integrity just to meet deadlines and help the big boys make money. If you ask me, its about time for the whole system to change. Radiohead and NIN have recently proved that giving away music can be good for both artist and fans. If and when this greedy capitalistic music industry does collapse I for one will shed no tears.

Its time for the artists to regain their power, advancements in technology have made it possible for high quality professional studios to be set up in bedrooms and garages, the internet has opened up many new methods for inexpensive distribution and promotion. Music is art, not business. The need for major record labels is not so great any more. Fat-Cats getting rich off the talents of others should start to worry. Nothing could liberate music and musicians more than the death of this industry.

So, was this really a victory? I don't think so. Its just Napster all over again. Nothing changes, people will continue to share information freely just like we always have done. Artists will have to think differently if they want to be successful, embrace the future and learn from the past.

Music fans should support the artists by going to more gigs, buying merchandise, donating money if they can. Request your favourite Radio Djs to play your favourite up n coming artists, not the same old manufactured rubbish. Try to pay for underground music on independent labels via their own websites when you can (digital shops often take a large cut). But most importantly love the music you download, whether you have paid for it or not. Ultimately, any genuine artist does this because they enjoy it and they want other people to enjoy it too.

Pirate Bay may be the latest scapegoat for an industry that values its shareholders pockets over its artists livelihoods, but this industry's days are numbered. Don't fall victim to these capitalist lies and dubious claims of morality. The Pirate Bay are not the villains here, record labels were ripping off artists and stealing music long before file-sharing came about, and they'll continue to if we let them.

Virtual Reality - Pt 2: Digital Thieves

Something of a late follow-on post here, due in no small part to the various real world pressures that have a great deal of control over my life.

We previously looked at some examples of the ways in which our lives have become "virtual", how much of our consumer needs are now found in digital form, as opposed to the physical existence of the past. This has a huge impact on how we value these things. Our economy is essentially based upon scarcity, we can apply a value or worth to physical items as there is always a finite amount of them. However, as the old saying goes: time is money, as workers living in a monetary system we necessarily have to apply a value to time.

Digital goods are effectively nothing more than information. Music, films, software, all of these things we consume are ultimately binary code. Information has been exchanged freely for as long as mankind has been able to. Whether that be early man using basic forms of communication to share hunting/gathering info with his kind or a group of friends discussing their various thoughts and ideas on any subject they care to talk about. Of course, we also pay for information in the form of books (physical items) or education (time-based), but no-one can deny us our right to share the information in our heads (non-physical) with anyone we see fit.

This leads us into the subject of piracy. If your MP3 collection is ultimately non-physical information then surely it is your right to share it as you see fit. On the other hand a great deal of time and money went into the recording of those MP3s, which surely should be reimbursed. And this is where the dilemma lies. Its a simple fact that most people do not see piracy as theft. But theft is not so black and white, it has many shades. No-one can deny that there is a massive difference between stealing from a big corporate shop and stealing from your friends, likewise robbing a bank is not the same thing as robbing a granny. There are many different types of theft, each with their own moral and legal status.

Piracy is a form of theft, albeit very different to the others. To put it into perspective, if i go round your house and take your new U2 CD, then the result is i will have it and you won't, even though you payed for it. On the other hand if i go round your house and copy your U2 CD, then you have lost nothing. Clearly these 2 situations are different. However, while you may own that U2 CD that you payed for, you do not own the music within it, nor do you own the right to copy it (that of course belongs to the copyright holder). Essentially all you do own is the otherwise worthless piece of plastic that the music is stored on.

Now if we remove that mostly insignificant physical element of the album, we are left with just the information. As consumers, when we "purchase" and download an MP3 we don't own anything. Even the artists rarely own their music, publishers own the copyright and record labels own the recording. Believe it or not artists make very little from the actual sales of their albums, regardless of format. Music piracy harms the music industry more than it harms the musicians, and as we have seen there is a huge difference between stealing from a corporation than stealing from a person. For unsigned artists, or those signed to independent labels, it can be a bit different, certainly as far as the morality is concerned.

By no means am i trying to advocate piracy, as a musician myself i would obviously prefer people to pay for my music which i have spent a lot of time making (my only release to date is available as free download but thats not to say future releases will be). I am certain that without the needs of the physical world and the associated costs most musicians would be happy to give their music away, but unfortunately our society is not like that. It costs money to feed ourselves, it costs money to keep a roof over our heads and musicians should be paid for their work.

Nevertheless, piracy exists. It is not a new thing, but the semi-virtual nature of our world has made file-sharing so easy and huge that piracy is no longer contained to friends taping each others music. There is in principle no difference between a legal MP3 from iTunes and an illegally-sourced MP3 from PirateBay, infact often the DRM-free tunes from the latter make for a better "product" from the consumers perspective (i know Apple have dropped DRM, but that doesn't help the millions who have paid for tunes they can't even make copies of for themselves).

Has piracy devalued music? No. Has the digital/virtual nature of our media consumption devalued music as a product? Arguably, yes. These are just my opinions, but they are based on the way i see the world around me. Piracy is a big concern for the music industry, an industry that has been ripping off artists and music fans for too long. Piracy is an issue for the artists stuck within an industry that is rapidly collapsing. The "illegal" distribution of music through file-sharing is nevertheless an example of people taking back their rights to share information freely.

The monetary system has been around for a long time, it was conceived to manage the exchange of physical goods and services. Digital goods and virtual products cannot be valued in the same way. There is potentially an infinite availability of any MP3 or digital file, while the value of money is based upon its finite quantity. Clearly this leads to an imbalance. For the sake of this argument i have focused on music, quite simply because it is the industry that is being affected the most by this new digital age. You can find pretty much anything you want online for free somewhere, but this is of course limited to virtual goods or digital information.

In part 3, i want to look further at how the principles of the monetary system cannot be applied in the digital world. For now though, i would like to hope that the collapse of the music industry is the start of something newer and better, the opportunities for artists and musicians to empower themselves have never been greater. Whatever the future holds, people will still want to listen to music and musicians will still want to create it. Until now, huge corporations have controlled music and its consumption, but digital downloading has changed everything. The future may be unclear but the potential is great.

Got it on Vinyl

As a long time music collector (and semi-retired DJ) theres something about the phrase "I've got it on vinyl" that seems to command respect. Unlike any format that has come since, the big slab of wax has a quality about it that still appeals like no other.

In this modern age of digital downloads, the concept of a record collection is practically non-existent, there is no great kudos to be earned from having an ipod full of good tunes, especially considering the ease of file-sharing and illegal downloads. Even legitimately sourced MP3s from iTunes or CDbaby lack the desirability of something you can hold, touch and look at. Legal downloads offer the listener no real advantage over illegal music, no fancy packaging, no pride of place on the shelf and none of that mystical warmth that something as basic and analog as vinyl offers.

Even CDs have a distinct advantage, sure they were (and still are) easily copied, arguably the sound quality of CDs, if played through a decent system, is superior to all other formats. But a good purchased CD comes with a nice booklet and once again sits on a shelf for all to see and admire.

Any physical format of any piece of music has an immediate advantage in that it has a finite quantity in existence, whether that be thousands or millions of copies of an album, or a limited edition picture disc or digipak, perhaps its a rare first pressing of a classic album, with a different mix or the wrong information on the packaging. All these things make a good record (and to a lesser extent) CD collection special. None of these things can be applied to digital downloads.

What would be the point of releasing a "limited edition" MP3? Its digital, it is easily replicated and has no manufacturing involved beyond that of the musical creation itself. A thousand copies of an MP3 do not exist untill it has been distributed (virtually of course) so there could be no justification in calling a digital product "limited edition". Besides which, when those thousand run out, it can almost certainly be found on PirateBay or somewhere similar. Likewise there can be no good reason to "delete" the back catalogue of an artist when it costs nothing to reproduce an album digitally and, similarly, that music would find its own illegal distribution network.

For DJs, downloading tunes from Beatport, or similar stores offers a simplicity and affordability that is great, software like Ableton Live has opened a whole world of possibilities for performance. Yet, there can be none of the coolness of having the latest tunes on white label where MP3s are concerned. Of course the flipside is that more music can be released without the limitations and costs of vinyl.

Nevertheless, owning any piece of music on vinyl continues to maintain its desirability. Even if that record is not the most convenient format for listening on. Sooner or later, CDs will dissappear from record shop shelves, especially as the quality of downloaded music will innevitably increase alongside connection speeds and storage capacities. Virtual music collections are rapidly becoming the norm, but for the genuine music collector, vinyl will continue to be held with some esteem. Limited edition 12" releases can still be sought after and treasured, and take pride of place, even with a hard drive full of tunes. Those with good record collections can still be proud to say "I've got it on vinyl".

Genres And Categories

Whenever i talk about my music, i'm forever being asked to define it in some sort of narrow bracket. I guess everyone likes to categorize things, especially where music is concerned.

In my case though i generally think its not that easy, i'm sure it has something to do with my own perception of my music and the fact that i genuinely don't want to fit into any category but i really dont think that my music fits into one. Sure, i can call it Electronica, aside from being a slightly pretentious sounding American term it probably fits my style better than anything else through simply being vague. Breakbeat is another label that kinda fits my stuff but in many ways this kinda implies that its like all the other Breakbeat/Nu Skool Breakz stuff that forms a well-defined genre in itself these days. For my third category here on MySpace i have struggled to choose between Industrial, IDM and Experimental yet none of these fit perfectly as i think they all suggest different things (and for some reason MySpace wont let me change it anyway). Other sites i have found ask for just one or two genres, which makes it even more difficult for me.

Of course i understand why these labels have to be here, it makes it a lot easier to find something if you narrow your search down to criteria such as genre, the internet is a very big place. But in day to day life it kind of annoys me the way i have to try to explain my sound instead of being able to say something simple like "i make dubstep". No disrespect to those that make music to fit one genre, but that idea just bores me now.

This whole thing with genres and categories happens everywhere in life. Kids express their "individuality" by dressing the same as their peers and idols then call themselves Emos or Chavs or whatever they wanna be known as. TV, film and literature again have categories, yet its the films or books that aren't so easy to define which (in my opinion at least) stand out from all the generic crap. Not to forget all the other categories people are (usually) born into like class, race, religion etc.

It seems that no matter how different or individual people like to perceive themselves as being, we all have a tendency to want to belong, to want some sort of order in our lives. Liking one particular genre of music over another helps us to create an identity for ourselves, its gives us a common interest with other people of similar tastes, it helps us decide the sort of clubs we want to go to or the forums we visit online, it helps us to predict whether we like an artist based on whether they make music that fits a genre we like. The problem is that it creates a sort of exclusion for anything else that doesnt fit. And that makes it harder to break away ourselves so we end up sticking to one thing.

The conclusion i've come to in myself is to be more open-minded in my tastes and to be less restricted in the music i make. I know i'm not alone in thinking like this, there are many others like me, its just there really isn't a simple label for people like us.

Moving on from Drum n Bass

Not that long ago i used to love drum n bass, i practically lived for it. Anyone that remembers Underdog will know how passionate i was about the music then. I suppose a lot of shit went on at the time that made me want to step away from that scene. It doesn't help that now as i get older i see more and more youngsters at DnB nights and increasingly less of my older friends.

I'm sure the kids that are into it now really enjoy it and i don't wanna sound like some old fart when i say "Its not as good as it used to be" but it really aint. Like all genres there are high points and low points. When i was doing Underdog from around 99-04 DnB went through quite a change. Tech-step started to get more inventive and interesting, producers started mixing their influences into the tunes and there was a lot of real creativity, the whole genre became varied and interesting.

Right now, all i hear in DnB is the same shit as the next tune. Its all so formulaic, same beats, same basslines, same sounds. Theres hardly any real innovation in DnB right now and that bores me. My tastes have always been varied, i grew up on heavy metal and i think theres so much scope within electronic music to really push back boundaries. Problem is these boundaries are so fixed in place thats its really quite hard to break em. Every genre has its own tempo and its own definitive formula for what works. DnB isn't alone here.

So where does that leave those artists that want to make something original? How can anyone really try to be different when each every scene encourages the artists to be the same? Its that which perpetuates the steady fall in quality that has become so evident within DnB. Where a few years ago, producers tried something different in their music, those ideas have become the standard and now its all the same again.

Pendulum are trying something different now, like em or hate em you have to give credit for that, but it seems like they've been cast out of the DnB scene. No surprise when you consider that the biggest names in DnB are the same DJs who were around 10-15 years ago, hardly cutting edge.

Infact, i think thats where a lot of the problem lies. The scene has been manufactured in such a way that the select few who were there at the beginning are the ones that are at the top now. Still the big names on a flyer, these are the ones getting the respect for playing tunes made by the lesser-known producers. The old boys are the ones charging top-dollar to do something anyone with a pair of decks can do (often better). The whole dubplate culture perpetuates this heirarchy even more.

No wonder then that a lot of people are moving towards dubstep now, buts thats just another genre with own set of developing rules, dubstep will have its time, there will be a commercial point and everyone will hate it and probably go back to DnB, and so the cycle continues.

The point i'm getting at is that drum n bass, like any genre is ultimately going to be restrictive. A killer tune has to fit within a given set of rules in order to work. The tempo has to be the same in order to mix it with any other DnB tune. All that really matters is the drop anyway, the rest of the tune is just filler.

All of this is why i feel so disillusioned with drum n bass right now. I still enjoy the tunes i used to love, the classics. But right now i'm far more excited by the vast wealth of good music that exists outside of that scene. In this day and age of the internet theres no need for something as closed as the DnB scene to dictate to me, you or anyone whats good and whats not.

electronic artists that just use loops.

I posted this in a forum discussion about whether people that just used loops can be called musicians, i try to avoid using them myself but a lot of artists use them extensively:

Theres a number of so-called "producers" that make tunes using predominantly loops, samples and downloaded midi data, often their tunes ultimately sound unfinished. Its clear to me why that is, those electronic musicians that put more into their compositions also put more into their production. Sculpting a tune from start to finish is not a simple task so cutting corners at any point will effect the quality of the end product.

That said tho, sampled beats are still commonplace and anyone who uses an amen break does so because they want that sound. On top of that a lot can be achieved by chopping beats up, mangling and generally fucking around with em to the point where they barely resemble the original recording. Also many genres of dance music are defined by their beat, anyone wanting to make tunes that fit that style might aswell just use a loop. Personally, i get great satisfaction out of creating my own beats but i often like to layer up some drumloops behind it. but then i dont like to make tunes to fit a genre.

As for collage artists then yes, you should give credit to their work, but a great deal of their talents come from finding the most obscure sounds/beats rather than picking up the latest time+space cd and creating a generic house/dnb/dubstep/whatever tune.

What about presets? I'm not gonna deny i've used a few of them with very little tweaking, however layering some preset pads from an obscure freeware vst or using an already perfect string sound in your sampler is different to building a tune in reason using only the factory soundbank.

Most rock/pop music tends to use the same 1-4-5 chord progressions, is that really that far different from using loops? Most dance music sounds similar to everything else within its own genre whether based on loops or not. A large number of respected musicians owe much of their sound to their (largely uncredited and therefore unrecognised) engineer, while many others simply rehash the same formula over and over and call it a new tune each time.

No disrespect to those that can make good music based around loops, personally i feel more original when i know i've made it all myself.

Mixing opinions with music...

How many great artists have avoided politics within their music, instead focusing on the fun side of life? Quite a lot. Sure theres been a fair few great political bands, but theres a lack of it within the electronic world. Dance music is ultimately disposable, its great while you are on the dancefloor, a good tune should lift your mood for five minutes or until the DJ gets bored and brings in the next tune.

At the moment the few tunes i have are still in an instrumental form, but these are really just demos, as such unfinished. Ultimately i hope to actually say something with my music. These random blog posts are really a different way of expressing what i want to say.

Problem is in saying things that might be controversial. Sure, i've got a bit of a problem with religion, but then i've also got a problem with anything that encourages prejudice and hatred and the way i see it the major religions all do that in some way. That doesn't mean i hate religious people, i take everyone on their own merits. If someone has a spiritual belief i disagree with that doesn't make them any less of a person in my book, like i said i dont like prejudice and hatred.

We all need to be prepared to have our ideas about the world challenged if our society is going to "evolve". I might not agree with you on everything, but i can respect that you have your own opinion provided it is just that, your own. Not just an idea you have been told and believe unquestioningly.

I don't really feel like typing any more today. I just hope that people aren't put off my music by the things i post here, infact i hope that when its all finally put together it will all make sense.