woops
is not like other people
saucony are wierd cos i never see them on sale anywhere
Dematerialisation.
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abolish the production of weed are we going to a fucking ashram or what are we still in the music forum? ashram flashcore will be cool tho. autotune inna jonestown barty is actually the cult leader barty saved the day barty we miss you please come back bliss blog with the big knob build the escape craft already captain tactful chemsex gabba corpsey gets the bullies on board corpsey's law dirty old rotter dissnesis do not answer the machine external nervous system gaslighting get a room he always does how did you get radicalised? it's a trap joe muggs defends diplo. justice4luka koranic law luka's a crypto-christian marshall 'testicle' mcluhan marxist speedcore tiny cockism muhammad narcissism will never be dematerialised old men. rewind reynolds' wanking habits shut it off si's wanking himself to death skunk leads you to hegel. south east london bum club spunk on his long johns stains on his old man slippers the military industrial bongplex this is what happens without women view tag cloud what are you working for? who are you working for? who's agent are you?
Just do it.
ghost
Well-known member
being against frictionlessness is weird because mostly people don't actually like the friction
they actually just don't like what's frictionless
in an actual world without friction you run into walls constantly, slip sliding away
making things frictionless is a sort of warfare and you should choose something you think needs to be frictionless and get it there, dig?
they actually just don't like what's frictionless
in an actual world without friction you run into walls constantly, slip sliding away
making things frictionless is a sort of warfare and you should choose something you think needs to be frictionless and get it there, dig?
sufi
lala
luka
Well-known member
i'd come out of the monument and wanting to sit down and gather my thoughts and everything seemed to be some kind of brightly lit booth for processing office workers. you pay at a computer screen with a card and sit in your wipe clean niche for the time it takes to ingest your food pellet. under the circumstances it seemed nightmarish.
germaphobian
Well-known member
Back in the day sound engineers spent most of their time trying to get rid of the tape hiss. That was actually the most time consuming part of the recording process; all the knob fiddling - also known as producing - was just an afterthought. And then - when digital came along - everyone was really excited about the fact that tape hiss will no longer be a problem. And now - couple of decades later - people buy very expensive plugins to imitate the once hated tape hiss artificially. Point being, we have gotten everything we wanted, but it just kind of sucks and everyone is too proud to admit that they had such a bad foresight.
Also, lowering barrier of entry was kind of disatrous in the long run, because you end up being drowned in a sea of shite, which far outweighs the few meager benefits.
Also, lowering barrier of entry was kind of disatrous in the long run, because you end up being drowned in a sea of shite, which far outweighs the few meager benefits.
germaphobian
Well-known member
I haven't worked it out yet, but I've been thinking that the compression issue may hold the key to some deeper insights. Each monad reflecting all the others and that. The word that comes to my mind is "suffocation" - all the sounds squished together like sardines in a can, no dynamic range, no transiets, no subtlety.
I know fuck all about video, but I get exact same feeling when watching the new films (to say nothing about music videos), the exagarated quality, the oversaturation, bringing out of every tiny detail. That kind of complete depthlessness.
And there is nothing you can do WITH it, in a sense that there isn't any way of making things better while staying within that framework. Example could be all the remastered albums which, after the compression treatment, all sound like shit no matter how good they were originally. Or Twin Peaks 3 being such an ugly disappointment purley for technical reasons (being shot digitally). Because there is no way you can creat depth or any kind of atmosphere in that way.
As I said, I haven't worked it out yet, but all of this seems to apply to lived reality as such these days. All ugly and squished.
sufi
lala
i searched this quote up - the first 9 results were shakespeare and teh 10th was orwell
This all comes back around to a point McLuhan makes in his Burroughs notes mentioned earlier in the thread. The old environment being elevated into an artform once it's pushed aside by the new.
The same's happening, or happened, with early digital filmmaking. What was once considered cheap and ugly has become an aesthetic with a fair few admirers. Mann's Miami Vice just looked weird to a lot of people at the time, myself included, and now a lot more people are into what shooting digital at night does to light and colour, how smeared and grainy it can look.
If you're consciously going for heavy compression as a stylistic choice, it can work. Actress comes to mind. He sculpted this very compressed, monochrome sound for himself.
The key seems to be to lean into the gear for what it is rather than use it to try to emulate the previous tech. That's why this digital stuff of Mann's is being reevaluated. He was excited by what digital could do and made use of its idiosyncrasies, like the 303 being a lousy emulation of a bass guitar but brilliant once someone realised what else you could do with it.
sufi
lala
germaphobian
Well-known member
Valid points. I haven't seen Miami Vice, but - sticking with David Lynch examples- I had a similar feeling when Inland Empire came out. It looked ugly as hell. Now, fast forward almost twenty years, it looks just fine, great even.
But you have to travel backwards in time in a sense, because the early digital only starts to look good and acceptable when all the mega-uber-billion-pixel-10K comes along, which, if I understand correctly, is exactly the point you made.
But even then, the early digital did (and does) feel more like a gimmick and, as I said, it looks good compared to the thing that followed it, but not so much if you compare it to the thing that preceded it. Inland Empire looks much better than the over-saturated awfulness of Twin Peaks 3, sure, but still much inferior to the films he shot using tape. A niche thing, good for some sort of experiment, similar to Dogma 95 or people shooting full lenght movies using VHS camera, but not something you would want to see becoming the one and only mandatory way of making movies in the way that the modern digital has taken over in its ubiquity.
But even if someone is set to follow this anti-nostalgic position - which may be a healthy one - you still end up in a sort of conundrum, because these days there is nothing to contrast the over-compressed audio-visual sludge with, everything's been maxed out and has reached some sort of technological breaking point. Or so it seems. It's hard to imagine that you will get another Miami Vice which will be made by using a new technology and will look kind of strange and ugly and alien compared to what we have now and then it will take root and develop and eventually take over and make all the digital 4K stuff look good in hindsight. No such thing on the horizon. Maybe a Musk chip in the brain, but I don't think anyone wants that. That's why most everyone is working backwards, with their VHS video filters and VST. tape emulators and similar ersatz, because there is really nowhere elso to go. Even the Actress song is wrapped in old timey AM radio static.