<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: XKCD Does It Again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/</link>
	<description>Piano Geek Rock</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:44:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zimmie</title>
		<link>http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-446</link>
		<dc:creator>Zimmie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 19:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-446</guid>
		<description>Huh.  For some reason, I didn&#039;t get subscribed to comments on this post.  I thought I checked the box, but maybe I didn&#039;t.

Anyway, yes, quite a lot of techno (and electronica in general) is very, *very* bad because it&#039;s so *easy* to just throw a bunch of loops together.  This is the same reason so many ads just use a loop or two from GarageBand now.  It&#039;s easier, faster, and cheaper than hiring someone to write music for said ad, and most people won&#039;t know the difference.

There are also several rock artists who put out incredibly repetitive music.  A lot of modern pop music is a single hook repeated over and over with changing vocals.  I don&#039;t like pop music, myself, and it&#039;s mostly because so much of it is uninspiring and simply gets tiresome after two or three plays (read: twenty minutes of listening to a single radio station).  ClearChannel&#039;s playlists are completely randomized!  Whenever any song ends, every other song on the rotation has a 50% chance of coming next.

When I listen to instrumental electronica, it&#039;s mostly to help cut down on distractions.  It gives my ears something to do while I&#039;m trying to concentrate on building out a customer&#039;s firewalls or whatever.  I can do this with practically any music, but it takes the least concentration to do it with something that maintains a relatively consistent sound.

I get the feeling that we agree in general about what I classify as &quot;bad electronica&quot; (perhaps &quot;lazy&quot; would be a better word), I&#039;m just wondering why you seem to have generalized this to *all* electronica.

Finally, no, I haven&#039;t heard that particular song.  I&#039;ll have to find a copy and give it a listen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Huh.  For some reason, I didn&#8217;t get subscribed to comments on this post.  I thought I checked the box, but maybe I didn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Anyway, yes, quite a lot of techno (and electronica in general) is very, *very* bad because it&#8217;s so *easy* to just throw a bunch of loops together.  This is the same reason so many ads just use a loop or two from GarageBand now.  It&#8217;s easier, faster, and cheaper than hiring someone to write music for said ad, and most people won&#8217;t know the difference.</p>
<p>There are also several rock artists who put out incredibly repetitive music.  A lot of modern pop music is a single hook repeated over and over with changing vocals.  I don&#8217;t like pop music, myself, and it&#8217;s mostly because so much of it is uninspiring and simply gets tiresome after two or three plays (read: twenty minutes of listening to a single radio station).  ClearChannel&#8217;s playlists are completely randomized!  Whenever any song ends, every other song on the rotation has a 50% chance of coming next.</p>
<p>When I listen to instrumental electronica, it&#8217;s mostly to help cut down on distractions.  It gives my ears something to do while I&#8217;m trying to concentrate on building out a customer&#8217;s firewalls or whatever.  I can do this with practically any music, but it takes the least concentration to do it with something that maintains a relatively consistent sound.</p>
<p>I get the feeling that we agree in general about what I classify as &#8220;bad electronica&#8221; (perhaps &#8220;lazy&#8221; would be a better word), I&#8217;m just wondering why you seem to have generalized this to *all* electronica.</p>
<p>Finally, no, I haven&#8217;t heard that particular song.  I&#8217;ll have to find a copy and give it a listen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Ebel</title>
		<link>http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-445</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Ebel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:23:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-445</guid>
		<description>Zimmie-

Honestly, the majority of techno that I&#039;ve heard is repetitive to the point of absurdity.  I understand that all dance music really needs is a beat that stays consistent for about 90 minutes, but I never understood how people can listen to that kind of thing in their car or office.

It&#039;d be like watching the same episode of a TV show again and again and...  After the first 64 bars of the same riff and the same 3 chords, I&#039;m ready to move on to the next genre.

As for pop and rock (and even some techno artists), they focus on a melody and a direction.  I&#039;m certainly not above using loops and sequences (have you heard &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://matthewebel.com/music/a-cautionary-tail&quot; TARGET=&quot;_top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Cautionary Tail&lt;/A&gt;?), but too many &quot;artists&quot; think they can string out an 8-bar progression into a 10-minute &quot;song&quot; and call it a creation.

It&#039;s more of an idea that never got a chance to be fleshed out, a painting that never made it past the sketch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zimmie-</p>
<p>Honestly, the majority of techno that I&#8217;ve heard is repetitive to the point of absurdity.  I understand that all dance music really needs is a beat that stays consistent for about 90 minutes, but I never understood how people can listen to that kind of thing in their car or office.</p>
<p>It&#8217;d be like watching the same episode of a TV show again and again and&#8230;  After the first 64 bars of the same riff and the same 3 chords, I&#8217;m ready to move on to the next genre.</p>
<p>As for pop and rock (and even some techno artists), they focus on a melody and a direction.  I&#8217;m certainly not above using loops and sequences (have you heard <a HREF="http://matthewebel.com/music/a-cautionary-tail" TARGET="_top" rel="nofollow">A Cautionary Tail</a>?), but too many &#8220;artists&#8221; think they can string out an 8-bar progression into a 10-minute &#8220;song&#8221; and call it a creation.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s more of an idea that never got a chance to be fleshed out, a painting that never made it past the sketch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zimmie</title>
		<link>http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-444</link>
		<dc:creator>Zimmie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-444</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Bad&lt;/i&gt; techno, sure.  And yes, the overwhelming majority of it is bad.

I&#039;m curious about why you don&#039;t like electronica and how you define &quot;electronica&quot;.  For example, is Matthew Herbert&#039;s music electronica?  It&#039;s heavily loop-based and normally done in the style of house music, but it mostly involves actual recorded audio.  He doesn&#039;t use pre-recorded samples.

How about modern pop music, most of which makes heavy use of synthesizers and computer-provided effects?

What about Nine-Inch Nails?  Trent uses tons of synthesizers and fairly frequently has dance-like bass and drums, but his music in general is closer to rock than techno or trance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Bad</i> techno, sure.  And yes, the overwhelming majority of it is bad.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m curious about why you don&#8217;t like electronica and how you define &#8220;electronica&#8221;.  For example, is Matthew Herbert&#8217;s music electronica?  It&#8217;s heavily loop-based and normally done in the style of house music, but it mostly involves actual recorded audio.  He doesn&#8217;t use pre-recorded samples.</p>
<p>How about modern pop music, most of which makes heavy use of synthesizers and computer-provided effects?</p>
<p>What about Nine-Inch Nails?  Trent uses tons of synthesizers and fairly frequently has dance-like bass and drums, but his music in general is closer to rock than techno or trance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Carl</title>
		<link>http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-443</link>
		<dc:creator>The Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:24:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-443</guid>
		<description>I love electronica, but even I have to agree...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love electronica, but even I have to agree&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan C.</title>
		<link>http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-442</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-442</guid>
		<description>I couldn&#039;t agree more. =)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I couldn&#8217;t agree more. =)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Ebel</title>
		<link>http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-441</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Ebel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:46:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-441</guid>
		<description>Brian-

Well, thank XKCD.  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian-</p>
<p>Well, thank XKCD.  <img src='http://matthewebel.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Polensky</title>
		<link>http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-440</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Polensky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://matthewebel.com/2008/04/16/xkcd-does-it-again/#comment-440</guid>
		<description>Classic.  So true!  Thanks for the laugh M.E.!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Classic.  So true!  Thanks for the laugh M.E.!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

