I have preferences when it comes to how I do things. These emerge from the belief that the ‘how’ will profoundly influence the outcome (but not the extent to which anyone should care about same).
You may have noticed that my current solo output differs somewhat from that which preceded it. Technically, these differences are easy to surmise; I’m trying to get more out of generation & synthesis and use less audio buffer manipulation to produce pieces. Oh, and it’s all done in the electronic realm, abandoning the usual electro-acoustic tropes (hopefully not merely replacing them with new ones).
Underpinning this apotheosis is an aesthetic desire to move away from appropriative practice. That I never took/sampled/used any one else’s sound in my stuff isn’t really the issue; it’s still a simulacrum. Additionally, many of the standard things you-can-do-to-a-buffer (re-triggering, pitch shifting, standard fft manipulations etc) are so prevalent that, to these ears, they’re starting to grate like chorus in eighties production.
I don’t propose a moratorium on DSP mangling, just that I (we?) don’t base entire pieces around a given effect. Effect – see, the clue’s in the name. Use like salt, improve the recipe.
I daresay that as I write this, some bright spark is writing some DSP code that’s going to profoundly change the perceptions I’ve just described.
All well and good – subverting expectation is what keeps things moving on.
Example: I just found two artists who entirely invert what I expect to encounter when I read the words ‘analogue modular synth’.
It probably isn’t even important whether it was the artists intention to subvert or alter set / established forms, more the effort expended over a period of time in establishing one’s sound, regardless of discipline and exposure.