Pumper&Dumper wrote:

There's no way some of the piano riffs were being played live. Too tight

I think those orchestra dudes know how to play in time.

Homegrove wrote:

This looks pretty amazing. Filmed using only natural light. Normally I'd say that there is no reason to do that, except for the director to show off, but I guess there are exceptions.

Looks good. DiCaprio has grown to become a brilliant actor imo.


Still enjoy watching that. Look at how he has the whole crowd eating out of his hand at 6min in already. Great energy all around from band as well as the crowd.

Preview up on SOUNDCLOUD

It's gonna be a 3 CD release. Some great tracks in there!


(412 replies, posted in General Bedrock Discussion)

BedRob wrote:

I...ahem...worked from home and spent most of the day sipping pimms in the garden playing with my beautiful kids who i love very much

Sounds like a day well spent then. The 'job' has taken up such a huge part of our lives. Somewhere the universe is hugely LOL-ing at us.

Most of the have absolute shit key-bed. The most decent key-beds for a midi keyboard will have Fatar keys like the Novation SL range or the Studiologic SL range (which now unfortunately don't get produced anymore in anything under 88 keys)

I have the Novation SL 61 myself. It's pricy if you just want it for a decent key-bed. I certainly don't need any of the extra controls on it, but it seems now none of the manufacturers can get it right. They all focus on the midi controller side of it and cheap out horrible on the key-bed. Even though my SL 61 has a decent enough key bed for synth playing, I'd prefer a separate, decent, rubberised pitch and mod-wheel instead of the plastic all-in-one joystick thingy.

The Studiologic SL series get's it both right; key-bed and mod-wheel & pitch-wheel, but not getting them anymore unless you are very lucky in the second hand market.

joeyp wrote:

Tiesto, whose very early stuff was pretty good in my book.

I loved those first In Search of Sunrise CD's.

chromosome_junction wrote:


Deal with it imo

Thanks for the link. Was a good read.

The last paragraph sums it up nicely:

"As Matt Ridley puts it in The Red Queen:

There has been no genetic change since we were hunter-gatherers, but deep in the mind of modern man is a simple hunter-gatherer rule: strive to acquire power and use it to lure women who will bear heirs; strive to acquire wealth and use it to buy affairs with other men’s wives who will bear bastards . . . Wealth and power are means to women; women are means to genetic eternity.

Likewise, deep in the mind of modern woman is the same hunter-gatherer calculator, too recently evolved to have changed much: strive to acquire a provider husband who will invest food and care in your children; strive to find a lover who can give those children first-class genes. Only if she is very lucky will they both be the same man . . . Men are to be exploited as providers of parental care, wealth and genes.

However, Ridley tells us that we need not interpret any of these arguments in a deterministic way; none of this denies our free will. To say that a tendency is in our nature is not to say that we cannot overcome that tendency. What is more, the fact that we are so versatile and plastic in terms of behaviour actually depends on us having more instincts, not fewer; the language instinct being a prime example. The vocabulary of language may be infinitely plastic, but our ability to learn languages depends heavily on our hard-wired ability to form generalised rules based on what we hear; to infer the rules of grammar."

Just to be clear. Like I said, I do agree with some points in this point of view (but like furry said, this can be applied to some men as well) but I do not, in any way, support the over generalisation that is going on and find the need to actually form a 'movement' around it (like MGTOW in this case, but it can also be applied to feminist movements for that matter) to be somewhat stigmatising and close minded.

I don't have to be ALL for or ALL against. I can agree with some points and dispute others.

loopdokter wrote:

After looking into this a bit more, I'm convinced these guys are your standard 'I've been wronged by the opposite sex, therefore I'm going to forever carry a chip on my shoulder and find excuses to perpetuate that belief' types that exist the world over for both sexes. These guys just sound like dickheads and are perpetuating gender stereotypes to the nth degree. Good luck getting laid with attitudes such as these!

There certainly are some truths to these spoutings, but stereotyping and/or generalising to such an extend is dangerous and closes ones mind and leaves only cynicism imo. The battle of the sexes has been going on for as long as there has been reproduction. We are in a place now that we can choose to take part in it or not, but it's a large part of the way the world works and has done so for a long long time. Cultural changes take very little time compared to evolutionary changes.

Sure, sometimes things are fucked up and there are some devilish minxes out there. And sure, a lot of our current culture has the 'selling sex' to us men-element embedded in it. After all, by nature, sex is often traded for resources. In the animal kingdom those recourses are the strongest genes being passed on by the alpha-male etc. In our culture nowadays it can be about that as well, but recourses like income, status and good father qualities have become more important (at least in the long-term commitment plan). This is talking from a point of view where we take into account the pure evolution in biology and cultural developments that has brought us here into these times.

Now, since this all has been going on for such a long long time, we are sometimes ignorant to the actual psychology and behaviours on both sides when it comes to this. When one comes to a certain point that one is no longer ignorant of this, one can nag and complain about how the world works or one can find a way to use it to ones advantage. The latter approach, I believe, has more in common with the survival strategies of the human race.

This might seem like a little cold analysis, leaving love out of the equation etc.

loopdokter wrote:

I want to execute this guy for the cadence of his speaking voice in the vid above.

He's trying to sound smart.  He's not.

Hahah, that annoyed the hell out of me too.

A real groover this set, but not in that lazy, bland nu-deep house sound that I keep hearing all over. Like this.

chromosome_junction wrote:

Listened to this a couple of times now. That's really excellent.

If you ever need detailed feedback PM me for my email

Cheers mate, I appreciate that. Always can use a second pair of ears on my music projects.

Cheers fellas!

poirot wrote:

You pair of nerds have scared Damo out of his own thread.

Nah, he's not scared of that easily. Nothing wrong with a bit of geek talk eh?

Squidgy wrote:

Got u-he Zebralette, Tyrell N6 and AAS on the synth front. Plenty there to keep me busy for the mo and pretty reasonable freebies. Used to have Omnisphere yonks ago before my pc died a death and I temporarily gave up on it all. Massive.

Good work btw.

The free synths from U-he are definitely top notch. Could have saved me some money when I was just starting out. I though I needed 'better' synths to get me better sounds when  in reality I just needed better programming skills.

Podolski from U-he is great as well. And also free. https://www.u-he.com/cms/podolski

I don't know how you are with these type of things, but since I am staring at a computer screen all the time working with plugins, I also want them to look nice (besides also sounding nice of course). The free ones from U-he can be a bit of an eyesore, but luckily there is a whole community out there that does skin mods etc. For instance, you can have Tyrell N^ look like this:

There's more. Just go to: http://www.u-he.com/PatchLib/skins.html

The same community that also makes the skins also builds a whole U-he patch library for all their synths: http://www.u-he.com/PatchLib/

Cheers for the kind words fellas.

Damien, it really is a big synth. I only have 4 synths in my arsenal: u-he Diva, u-he Zebra, Virus Ti and this one, but that allready gives me more possibilities than I could ever need.

Such a shame tho thaT Spectrasonics do not offer any demo licenses, which requires you to take a leap of faith especially since they are not to likely to do license transfers in the second hand market. That's one of the main reasons that held me back so long in purchasing it. Untill now version 2 has come out.

Omnisphere 2 came out a couple of weeks ago and decided to get a copy for myself last week. It's a great synth and great fun playing around with. Been playing around with it for a bit and this track is all Omnisphere 2.

It's basically my own rendition of Thomas Newman's track Ghosts from the movie Road To Perdition. That was later on sampled by Reflekt for their track 'Need to Feel Loved'


Presto wrote:

"MGTOW is basically the statement of self-ownership and saying that only you have the right to decide what your goals in life should be.

Wasn't that just known as being a bloke?

Hahah, I know. That's what I mean by why does everything have to be labeled, categorised, new-ified, hipsterized etc.?

Whilst listening to one of the Stefan Molyneux podcasts I heard one of the guest callers talk about a movement called MGTOW which stands for Men Going Their Own Way. Which is (big surprise) something that is taking off in the U.S. (why the hell does everything need to be named and categorised ffs?)

"MGTOW is basically the statement of self-ownership and saying that only you have the right to decide what your goals in life should be.

It is saying that, as a man I will not surrender my will to the social expectations of women and society, because both have become hostile against masculinity."

Sure, there is something to be said about the manipulative role of women in society whether consciously or unconsciously, but....I don't know...

Have a listen, this is just a small example of what can be found on this on youtube:


To me, any kind of over generalisation clouds and limits ones mind.

zackster wrote:

ean golden is such a fucking tool

Correction; he's a DJ-TechTool

I don't like his style as a DJ, but that doesn't mean to say he's not a good DJ in his own right. And there is no denying that he played a big part in forwarding the DJ'ing with controllers we see so much more of today.

Presto wrote:

Never solely used studio monitors for solely purposes (I did sometimes use a pair of Alesis, but they were bought for production stuff. They just got plugged in to the decks now and then). Don't really see the point. Studio monitors are supposed to give a flat response, in order to try and pick up on issues with the sound. It's so a producer/engineer can spot where things are going wrong - why would you need this for DJing? The tracks have already had this done, and you can't change much anyway even if they haven't.

I think it is a mistake to think a critical monitoring setup is only useful for people in the studio working on producing and mixing. In a studio setup you have to be able to trust what you are hearing volume balance wise and frequency domain wise will still hold up once you take your produced track and play it on another system. It is one of the great challenges of a studio setup. The ones that do not have an ideal setup in a ideal acoustic space have learned over the years how their monitor setup translates to other systems. But as soon as you throw a different pair of monitors in his studio he'd have to bloody adapt to that all over again and cross reference to other systems etc. before learning how it translates to other systems.

The same holds true for DJ setups because, although the tracks you play have been produces and mixed already, you are also mixing, adjusting levels and applying FX and EQ. So in that regard; do you want something that just sounds awesome and impressive all the time or do you want something that gives you an honest gauge on when levels are out of whack or when mud is building up in the low end because you're EQ-ing wrong?

I know in a lot of clubs the monitoring environment is shit, but the DJ's who have been doing it for years have learned to work with it and you will see that mostly they have their trusty pair of headphones with them that they have used for years and thus are very very familiar with their sound in relation to other sound systems. That gives you an extra reference.

I'm not talking about what is workable. I am talking about what would be best and an ideal situation. Wether a monitor sounds 'good' or not (which is totally subjective) is besides the point. I'd want a pair of monitors that tells me where the problems are in the sounds as accurately as possible. In any monitoring setup.

Not just directed at you Presto, but in general to the responses where I read wanting to have a pair of speakers that sound good. 'Sound good' is for the listener/consumer at the other end. Making critical decisions about the sound and being able to do so is at the DJ's and Producer's and Mix engineers etc. etc.'s end.

Unbroken1 wrote:

...and there is a reason behind this btw, I'm not being boring just for the sake of it wink


Damien, you have a killer setup now with a DB4 and 2 Kontrol D2's. Why cheap out now on monitors? (talking about the suggestion of coputer speakers or hifi stuff)

The reasons a lot of guys get studio monitors as their monitors for their home booth is the fact that it makes it clearer to evaluate levels and eq decisions when doing a mix. Even better if they also happen to be monitors that translate well to bigger sound systems. ergo; what you are used to doing mixing at home and sounding good there will not sound shit and fall apart once you're mixing on a club system.