So did he really use the techniques claimed in this book or was his stuff just not quantized? Is professor ((((Charnas)))) a liar?
So did he really use the techniques claimed in this book or was his stuff just not quantized...
((((Charnas))))
Keep this Jew-hating shit in Anon Babble.
Yes, rabbi.
Everyone hates Jews now because everything you guys do is unconscionable
dilla
Proof that death will make people will overrate even the most mediocre of artists
Fpbp
Not music
Boomers are the only people who like you guys now moshe
True, but I wouldn't consider him a real artist because this isn't music
Protip: academic elites always lie. They’re notorious for omitting info, making things up whole cloth, falsifying data, deliberately misinterpreting historical facts, mistranslations, etc.
I rather enjoyed the stuff he did with the Soulquarians.
What does the author being Jewish have to do with his thesis?
So can anyone answer OP’s original question?
It's just not quantized.
Proof?
Academic books analyzing popular music are terrible, they suck all the joy out of it
How so?
I rather enjoyed this book minus the snarky, condescending attitude of the author.
Post a quote
This. Who the fuck trusts elite intellectuals with analyzing underground hip hop culture?
or they just think it's weird how people fixate on jews and assume that anyone who calls them out on it must also be jewish
like you just did
its not even about sucking the joy out or whatever. its that guy clearly made unquantized beats that were off beat but had the taste to make them work selecting the most musical ones. and thats it. any other jewry and post-facto explanation is useless, made with the clear intention of saying "i understand this sambo, his jungle magic is not alien to me".
quantized
What the fuck does this even mean?
in the case of music production it means aligned to a grid– for example, you can open up a DAW, sloppily play or even draw a bunch of notes, drag a box around them and tell the computer to make them fit a rhythm of your choice. Pretty much everybody does it because you can get perfect timing with very little effort
Some of his beats were unquantized but others were made the way the author claims. You can't see the exactness in the waveforms in this presentation because we don't have access to the original MPC files, but you can see how uniform the subdivisions are over a long period of time that would be extremely difficult if not impossible to match by just doing it by feel academia.edu
So why should anyone care about this re: J Dilla?
because it's a very novel approach to timing which is what the book and this thread are about
How is it novel if pretty much everyone does it because it's perfect timing?
Oh, thought you were a different anon. Dilla's approach was novel because he had some tracks where he'd quantize different instruments to slightly different rhythms. Not all of them– he famously did the kicks to Runnin' live– but the ones he did quantize frequently had offset swings to give a very different feel from anything else that had been made to that point by being precise in a way that only digital music can be but also embracing the off-rhythm feel of live music.
Even if you don't like the music it's a cool idea that we don't know of anyone else doing before him.
Music speaks for itself. Wordcels are grasping at the genius and can't do it. They write out of spite.
And how is this significant at all to modern music?
it's the first time it was ever done and strongly influenced people away from strictly quantizing their music which was the predominant method of making music before Dilla. It's still very prevalent, but any sense of "looseness" you hear in digitally-made music now is almost certainly due to J Dilla's influence.
Rap isn’t music.
Sampling isn’t music.
This thread is not about music.
rounded up
mis-typed, strictly quantizing was the standard for digitally-created music.
getting filtered by the concept of hip-hop is really embarrassing
Prove sampling is music and not just glorified art theft.
The existence of Since I Left You. That was easy.
Not an adequate answer.
the entire album is composed of hundreds if not thousands of samples and it makes for an album that doesn't sound anything like the original samples do.
also youtube.com
these videos are great because all you hear without their context is the end product but what great producers do is translate these snippets of sound into entirely new contexts that resemble the originals but function fundamentally differently. being able to envision what these snippets can be by cutting, editing, filtering, speeding up/slowing down, applying effects, and whatever else before finally re-stitching it all together as new music is plainly artistic
believing in copyright
believing “art theft” is a real thing
underrated post
by that logic writing is word theft
Is professor ((((Charnas)))) a liar?
On what basis would he lie?
Academics got many reasons to lie