For those of you who blinked at my last post in bewilderment, this one is related but a bit more of general interest. It started mulling around in my head while making a quick dash to Coles before closing time. I began to wonder… how much do people actually want to discuss or hear how an artist’s music is made? Do you actually want to know that I may or may not be using Glitch VST in my music when you listen to a track?

You always get snippets and pieces of information about musicians and how they do their thing, and I guess that’s natural to a point. But when you’re a musician talking about your how your work is assembled and performed, is that really what you want people associating with your music? And, conversely, is it what the listeners want to know?

At its heart, I guess what I’m asking is “is it all about the music, or is it about the process that made it?” (I hope the answer to this question is obvious)

I know that for musicians I admire, I frequently am aware of how much I don’t know about what they do, and I’m kind of grateful that it’s not all out in the open as I fear it would kind of take a bit of the magic away.

Some cases in point: I’m pretty certain that Efterklang used Glitch VST on their Under Giant Trees mini-LP, and it does kind of feel different listening to the programming now. Panda Bear’s Person Pitch album artwork opens up to show his desk with a couple of samplers and a microphone – and I definitely visualise him singing into samplers as I listen to the music now, whereas before I bought the disc (illegal! illegal!) there was none of that associated with it. On some of his releases Squarepusher puts some of the functions and algorithms that he created his music with in his liner notes, and you can’t help but think about numbers and routines when you hear some of his stuff (I really dig Squarepusher, but you’ve got to admit that doing that is kind of wanky…)

In a nutshell: does what you know about a song’s creation alter how you experience it?

Some music seems to be more about the gear by nature. Take, for example, the latest string of AFX EPs which were a deliberate effort for a recording made up entirely of analogue synths. Really, when I’m listening to an album like this there is a sense that I’m almost enjoying Richard D. James’ synth-bending prowess as much as I am the music he’s actually creating. The fact that the only “interview” he conducted was a couple of posts on a synth forum kind of confirms this.

But then there’s all the music in which the actual creation process is mostly a mystery. I don’t know how The Books, or Amon Tobin, or James Holden create music, for example. That’s kind of nice – and although somewhere while listening to their stuff my brain is idly imagining how they might be making it all happen, really what I experience is more about the music and less about being aware of the processes that made it occur.

I kind of relate to what Dan Snaith (aka Caribou) was saying in this short interview clip where he said “I don’t want my albums to sound like it was made in this room or like it was made on a computer” although, sure, computers have a tremendous impact on what our stuff sounds like

(side note: talking about engineering is an entirely different matter, and I’m entirely grateful that engineers and artists talk in such a dizzying amount of detail on sites like SoundOnSound.com and GearSlutz as I find this kind of technical info immensely valuable)

What do you think? Is this my tired brain dribbling out trivialities, or do you feel a similar way?

Sound granulators/rearrangers/stutter algorithms/etc can often be love it or hate it tools for many people. Many people like to chop up and refigure their drum breaks, programs and sounds, but their methods can vary wildly. Some like to do everything manually – buried in mountains of edits and parameters and grids and inserts. Others like to use stuff like ReCycle, BBCut (and its many implementations) and SupaTrigger – to name but a few.

I’m not sure where I sit on the whole thing. Generally I tend to go for the more manual route – I think it’s because I like to have full control over the musical process, I like the musical ideas to be mine and not a variant of some algorithm that someone else created – falling into the trap of thinking like someone else. I don’t have any thought out rationale for it – and I certainly have some of the tools mentioned above installed on my computer (and their siblings) as they’re useful to have around, if only to get inspired when searching for new sounds and ideas. But generally when it comes to the sounds that find their way into my final work, I tend to go a bit manual.

But whatever you think of all that, I’ve been playing around today with a little gizmo called Glitch, which is a freeware VST tool that allows for applying various rhythm-oriented manipulations – stuff like chops, stutters, recuts. It’s pretty funky in that it’s actually quite in-depth: it’s got a lot of functionality and you have a reasonable amount of control over what it’s actually doing, rather than some programs which are almost black boxes that have a few parameters that can be played with.

This has a sequencer for the various types of manipulations, and the parameters on offer for each are pretty detailed. At the very least it’s a fun way to completely mess up sounds and breaks and some of the results are really quite interesting. I think it’s very likely to be the most impressive free package I’ve seen offering this kind of functionality.

Anyway, if you’re into going for some haywire manipulations, have a play with Glitch, it’s an interesting tool. Next time I want to do some really intense edits on a break, I’ll certainly have a good think about whether I want to be sitting in front of a grid or writing out sub-divisions and rhythms on paper. Which option I’ll choose is still unknown, but at the very least it’s the kind of thing that’s worth having there just in case. The flexibility it offers is certainly tempting.

Naturally, of course, this is worlds away from a dude like Burial (who I’ve been listening to a fair bit of the last week and really digging) who does all his beats in SoundForge. No grids or anything. Insane.

It’s been covered fairly extensively already, but in case you missed it: the Radiohead webcast was an excellent affair. I missed the opening 20 minutes thanks to me sleeping in, but it featured lots of enjoyably off-kilter moments and it looked like the band was having a really good time.

There were a couple of surprises in terms of the performances. Faust Arp recorded in the countryside was one. I should have expected more covers after Thom nonchalantly dropped a rendition of Bjork’s Unravel in a preliminary test broadcast – nonetheless I was in shock/over the moon when they covered the Smiths’ Headmaster Ritual and New Order/Joy Division’s Ceremony both of which I thought were really nicely executed.

Most of the broadcast highlights (videos and mp3s) are available on Pitchfork’s coverage of the event. Adam Buxton also wrote a great blog entry talking about the background behind some of the items and how it all came together.

It was added to the rumour mill last week, and now it’s definitely happening: Radiohead are doing a webcast this Friday.

Nigel Godrich (black swan etc remember?) posted a test link up on Atease which exhibited nearly a half an hour of various people (Thom, Nigel, Colin) throwing some records on the decks and generally making a goose of themselves. Oh, and someone played with an awful lot of video effects. You can see some of it here, thanks to Atease board member tjaredfriend:

• Video capture 1 (YouTube)
• Video capture 2 (YouTube)

Webcasts have appeared on a couple of occasions in Radiohead’s history, and they have become an integral part of Radiohead folklore. Often they’ll contain performances of songs that had never been seen before or since, and they exhibit a side of the band that we don’t get to see very often: in their natural environment, having fun.

I have no idea what time the webcast will appear on Friday, but I recommend you keep an eye on Atease’s news page and Dead Air Space!

All the cool kids are raving about Bjork and Andrew Bird and Joanna Newsom being on the Sydney Festival line-up (all of which is super cool, of course) but why is anyone neglecting to mention that Mice Parade are on there as well? I think I’m going to explode with joy.

And The National, have made their long awaited announcement for their Sydney dates with an entirely unexpected twist: they’re playing the City Recital Hall. If you’ve not hit a classical gig in the city you may not have been there, but it’s situated just off Martin Place and is entirely not where I could imagine seeing these guys play. They’re being supported by Clogs, which Guan is pretty chuffed about. I might venture to one of their other gigs as well just to see them in a standard rock venue still, despite being very intrigued by the City Recital Hall setting…

Low are also appearing, which I’d be interested in catching. Battles are returning, which is a joy (local band Pivot are also supporting)