SE R1 Ribbon Test

19 05 2011

The SE R1s have been around for a little while. They came out at a similar time to the Sontronics Sigmas and together they present a more affordable option to studios wanting the ribbon sound in their armoury.  The Sigmas are pretty good, I used them on several projects a year or more ago. But now my current studio, Silver Street Studios have invested in the SE R1s so I thought I’d give them a quick test run for the blog.

SE make two Ribbon microphones, the R1 (now VR1) and the RNR1, The RNR1 is designed by Rupert Neve, costs around £1000 and represented SE’s ambition to move on from budget microphone manufacturer to a serious player in the field.  It’s been some time since that move was made and I’m beginning to feel more and more like it was a great success.   The hope is that the SE have taken what they learn’t in manufacturing the RNR1s and used it in the cheaper R1s.  Still not too cheap, the original RRP for one was about £500. But now thanks to SE’s new VR1, the R1 can be picked up at a fantastic price.

First Impressions
The R1 is presented in a rock-steady flight case with reinforced corners and metal hinges and catches. It’s so easy for microphone companies to overlook the importance of a good box (yes, I’m looking at you EV and your RE20)!  The SE box here would protect the microphone through the nuclear apocalypse as well as stacking well in storage and providing strong handles for carrying. Little things, I know, but, for me at least, it all adds up!

The cradle is also superbly crafted. It’s a snug fit and the mic locks in using a bolt around it’s XLR jack that when screwed up appears to be part of the design seamlessly.   The elastic is quite ridged and hooked in well. The moveable joints are also firm. This all means that the cradle is very strong and keeps the mic where you want it without flopping.

Sound Test

Test 1 is a recording of a pair of Rode NT5s, set up as a coincident X-Y pair directly above the kit. The NT5s are a good example of standard small diaphragm condensers. They are cardioid and produce a tight, close overhead recording.  They work well as a control for our experiments.

The R1s where placed as a Blumlein pair as close as possible to the NT5s.

Test 2 is the raw mic capture. You can immediately here the classic ribbon roll off above 5-10kHz.  There is a strong prominence of snare and the kick drum is clearer than that of the NT5s.  The R1s sound warm, analogue and they have more ambiance.  The live room at Silver Street Studios has hard wood and stone flooring and creates a lively space that can clearly be heard throught the R1s.

Next I added a high shelf EQ of 5dB above 8k (Test 3) using a Waves Renaissance EQ.  I did this to bring back some of the highs lost by using the Ribbons.  You’ll notice that rather than creating a more typical condenser sound when you boost the highs on these ribbon microphones there is a space and liveliness that brings back the shimmer to the cymbals and keeps weight in the drums. The drums seem well balanced in this recording and I would say that with a bit of compression we’d almost have a complete drum sound from our overheads.  So that’s what I did in Test 4. Be warned the average level is higher on this clip so you might wish to adjust your master volume.

We also tested the R1s on an electric guitar and vocals. On guitar the roll off softened an aggressive tone and worked well on less gainy amp settings.  It sounded very affected close mic’d and more realistic but ambient at a distance.

On vocals the Ribbons were lovely! Especially once a high shelf was applied. The recording was smooth, warm and analogue sounding.  Potentially harsh peaks seemed to be rounded over and the mic coped well with dynamic changes.

I am so pleased to have these in our armoury at Silver Street. They are fantastic. I don’t think I’ll rush to them for electric guitar, but they will be sure favourites for an awful lot! They’ll obviously suit certain genres better than others. They should work well on vocals in nearly any mix and for a natural sounding recording with acoustic space and warmth these will be my new number ones.

By Graeme Rawson, with help during testing from Chris Morrow.

Music consumption in the context of entertainment media

3 05 2011

Image from tumblr blog: "Salad Fork"

A great deal of speculation still surrounds the Internet in terms of its potential impact on more traditional media such as television and radio as well as music.  Now that the streaming of audio and video has become more and more viable for consumers through the introduction of broadband Internet access, the issue becomes far more important.  While some experts said that streaming would never be a significant factor, others said that it may completely alter the media landscape as it exists.  To some extent this is true, however I believe a parallel movement is taking place.

While some aspects of the traditional music industry’s position within the media industry have changed completely, other aspects have merely been reformed, and many others have remained untouched.  In other words, the consumers’ need for traditional media will has and will remain strong for many years to come.  Now the problems of bandwidth, lack of awareness and difficulty loading media players is solved, consumer usage has accelerated exponentially.  This revolution in usage has not and will not take over in the medium and long term.  The evolution of music on the Internet has occured alongside – rather than instead of – the more established mediums of music propagation.

The first indication that traditional media will not be displaced totally is based on historical evidence.  Communications technologies tend to have repeated patterns.  New media technology does not replace its predecessor because it cannot reproduce the exact experience or benefit.  The photograph did not replace the drawing, radio did not replace the newspaper and television did not replace radio.  New technology will not replace its predecessor because it cannot reproduce the exact experience or benefit.  The music cassette did not replace the vinyl LP, and neither did the CD; the minidisk did not replace the CD, and it is most likely that flash memory or cloud based streaming will not replace any of these physical formats.  Another important factor that goes in favour of the traditional music formats is consumer behaviour.  The changes occurring within the music environment are not merely technological, people use new technology only if it answers real desires and needs.  Not all people have the same needs.

Some consumers may embrace the opportunity to control their media experience, such as selecting only the music that they wish to listen to, watching only pre-selected programming structured around their own timetable.  Consumers creating their own experiences can be described as not following the traditional methods of consuming music and other forms of entertainment.  However, as the availability of music over the Internet has grown, it has become increasingly evident that this new form of consumption does not suit everyone, and has definitely not been for everyone all the time.  Many consumers have and will probably continue to prefer the more comfortable and uncomplicated ways of passive consumption of audio entertainment.  For this reason, there will always be opportunities to provide passively consumed music that even the most demanding consumers will use.  The crucial part is to understand the context of the consumer and the role of audio entertainment music in the lives of consumers.

It is also very probable that the lines between traditional and interactive music on the Internet will continue to grow more nebulous.  The distribution of music to consumers has traditionally relied on mediums of delivery, broadcasting via radio and the direct purchase of recordings.  As technology has advanced, however, these delivery mediums have moved toward a central point between them.  For example, the broadcasting method of delivery over the Internet began with the introduction of audio streaming, made popular by RealAudio.  Now, the evolution of highly specialised music formats and the ability of many services to allow listeners to skip songs, create playlists and share music with others, streaming has incorporated elements of purchasing or extracting what is wanted.  The spread of technology which can aided purchasing or extracting what is wanted was pushed forward by the development of MP3.  This represented the extreme end of user control, as music selection was entirely determined by the consumer’s decision regarding which music to convert from their CDs to MP3 format.

Of course, the use of MP3s exploded with the introduction of peer-to-peer software, most influentially, Napster.  As with streaming, this software eventually moved MP3 technology closer to the centre of the two types of delivery medium, as users searching for music on Napster they were often exposed to similar songs, different mixes of a song, or other songs by a requested artist.  Yet, even with this trend toward a middle ground though iTunes, LastFM, etc., total convergence is unlikely to happen.  Consumers will continue to desire each method for different reasons, and there will be situations where both mediums of delivery will be wanted.

All of these point to the conclusion that traditional media will not disappear.  Rather, all content providers, regardless of the medium, are now beginning to grab the huge opportunity of developing an ideal combination of services that offer both broadcast and content delivery online in a way that covers a broader range of consumer needs and expectations.

by Nino Auricchio

Musikmesse 2011

21 04 2011

Two weekends ago the MT-Base crew were all in Frankfurt for our annual festival of gear and Weiss Bier.  Now I can’t possibly review every bit of the Messe as it’s just too huge, but I’m going to mention here some things that caught my eye and some overall trends.

Generally this year seemed more about hardware, a number of large plug in manufacturers that usually have a stand were missing, namely Sonnox and Celemony and companies that do both like SSL and SPL seemed to have scaled down on the computers too.

And speaking of SPL, they seem as good a place as any to start talking about specific items.  I absolutly loved their passive mastering EQ Passeq. They had it set on a stand working MS next to the plug-in version that held up really well against it’s real life brother.  The Passeq was very clear and unaffected, the cuts never felt forced and the unwanted frequencies just slipped away. I don’t think I’m wording it very well, but you know how some EQs seem harsh, like they wrestle the sound into a new shape? Well, that’s not the case with the Passeq. It also looks very attractive and elegant in it’s 4U case.

Avid had a stand and were showing their Eleven Rack (Max Woodhams is much better placed to tell you about this than me),the  C|24 (we all know what that does) and the Venom synthesizer.  I went to the Venom first and I found it to be very awkward to use. The variable controllers and selectors on the left made enough sense, but the rest of it was a bit confusing to work out without a manual.  I see now that it has software to make customization easier (there was no computer with it at the Messe), but that, for me, defies the point.  It made a good enough sound, ranging from meaty analogue basses to jingly FM style pads. But nothing too interesting.  I think it’s trying to do too much with too few controls.

Now to a synth I really did love: The Elektrokosmos Kosmonaut. Boy, what a beauty!  The Kosmonaut was presented with a transparent sheet layed over the controls that provided labels and divided the rows of knobs into sections.  I played for a couple minutes slowly deciding what mods to feed into where and crafting my sound very carefully.  However, once the sheet was removed and I was presented with 60 perfectly identical dials in rows of 10 and, even though i had just seen it with the dials, I had no idea what did what.  This is like some amazing release of creative freedom! I immediately forgot about crafting my sound and pre-planning it to just manically twisting dials. The sounds I created were much more dynamic and interesting than my earlier attempts. The thing also looks great unlabelled and if you master it you will officially look like a genius! The Kosmonaut is pure analogue circuitry and it sounds great! No price has been announced yet, but you can expect thousands, and it’d be very very worth it.

And to round off the synthesis talk I’ll mention the Korg Monotribe. It’s a slightly up-scaled version of the Monotron, which was great for it’s tiny stylophone like shape and playability.  The Monotribe is slightly larger and has basically added a couple of features to the monotron, like a step sequencer and some drums sounds. With these features I believed that Korg were trying to push this device from the fun toy and sound maker (Monotron) to a more mature and usable instrument. However it still lacks MIDI in, a feature that should be easy to package in it’s small frame (look at the Nanozwerge for inspiration) and just seems not there to push Korgs higher end products.  So disappointing from Korg… I’d definitely buy the Nanozwerge if you want an analogue synth under £200.  It’s got all the features you’d expect, makes a big analogue sound, is very small and tough and is controllable via MIDI.

Non-synth stuff now; I didn’t see much in the way of new microphones this year, however they’re very hard to test in such a noisy environment. It was better when DJs were downstairs with pianos, but now, alas, they’ve been put in the same hall as the music tech gear. The same goes for monitors, however the new Neumann near-field monitors, the KH120, managed to cut through the Prosound hall noise with remarkable clarity. Neumann had set them up for 5.1 monitoring, but the sofa in the middle was chock-a-block, so I had to deal with ambient stereo.  However, the fact that they appeared crystal clear in the highs and tight in the lows in such an environment can only be considered a testament to them.  But then again, what else would we expect from Neumann?!

Some of my favorates were back again:

I love Toft Audio desks, they’re attractive and different with perfect fader weight and usability. They are also very compact, no wasted space on them at all.  The 24 and 32 channel models really are the type of desk I’d love in my studio. Quality and feature heavy, but small enough to fit in!

I always enjoy listening to the Unitiy Audio’s The Rock monitors., we heard them first as a prototype 3 years ago. Since then they’ve had a slight facelift and been released at the £1800 mark for two. Very good top-end nearfields.  They have ribbon tweeters and an enclosed design.

Elysia are still pushing their mental compressors with negative ratios. They’re so much fun! I’m not quite sure when I’d want that feature during the recording process though. It’s possible to almost remove the close-mics from a stereo drum stem, which is a fascinating trick and maybe one that you might want to use as an effect.  Every year Elysia are growing the plug-in side of their company.  The M-pressor plug-ins give the same negative ratio trick as the hardware models, but somehow it’s just less fun.

Lastly, I’ll mention the Reaktable, that has always drawn a large crowd to it’s corner of the hall. The table itself hasn’t changed, and as amazing as it it, it’s still not useful in a studio and it’s just priced far to high for most places they say it’ll be good for (schools, colleges, audio therapy units, etc).  However the iPad/iPhone app is great.  As it can import any wav and save the table so that you can recall patches you’ve made.  I would love to see them produce a standard plug-in version for computers and DAWs. I think they might be surprised what it can do as a serious instrument if they did that.

Anyway, I’m typed out.  There’s things I’ve not mentioned, hundreds of compressors I used and thought “yup, very nice…” to.  I hope I’ve given you a taster of what was about in this years Musikmesse.

By Graeme Rawson

The rise of disposability in popular music

5 04 2011

There is a fundamental issues that has been brought about by the rapid development in technology over the last 15 years.  The one core instigator of the revolution and strife that is currently in the music industry and consumer market is ‘disposability‘.  Disposability is based around the idea that either technology or any type of media can be easily discarded due to the fact it has lost its value and is no longer wanted by the consumer.  The phenomenal progress of technology has not only made music depreciate more quickly, but has also made the technology itself very disposable as it is replaced by new developments on an almost monthly basis.

The roots of disposability in music today can be discovered in two different areas of development.  The first is the Internet and the second is the development of music production technology.  The Internet has facilitated the increase of fast downloading of music to people’s computers and as a consequence, because still the majority of music downloaded is not paid for, it appears to have less value to the consumer.  With this decrease in value, comes the mentality that music can be discarded as easily as yesterday’s newspaper.  The contents of the physical formats of music have changed little, however, while the explosion of content on the Internet has been its driving force.  People have come to expect more from their consumable media, music has consequently lost a lot of its inherent value.

It can be argued that regardless of the apparent loss of content in music compared to other forms of media, what is music apart from a collection of acoustic vibrations?  Therefore, what else should music provide apart from its constituent elements?  Since, the conception of music many thousands of years ago, people have enjoyed music in its pure live form and in the 20th Century, it could be enjoyed in recorded forms.  Music has had no need to complement itself with other practices apart from other legitimate art forms.  So, it can be argued that music has become disposable not because of the Internet but because of the reduced quality of the music itself, especially mass market contemporary popular music.  The relative merits of which will not be discussed further here.

In many ways, progress can be considered to be a vital part of the natural evolution of music.  Originally music would be recorded onto tape, and all studios were equipped with a similar type of equipment which meant that operation in whatever studio was relatively generic.  The rise of computing power opened up a whole new world in music production and recording.  The huge advances in digital audio and MIDI sequencing capabilities have made professional and amateur music making easier, more flexible and cheaper than ever before.  However, progress in this sector is accelerating at such a pace that music makers are in danger of being caught up in the shock waves caused by it.  Not a week goes by without a new piece of software being released that has yet another new development.  By the time a composer, producer or engineer has mastered one operating system, it is obsolete.  The recording media which is used for sound itself changes at such a rate that it is uncertain that there will be hardware players in a few decade’s time to playback the music of today’s formats.

Technology is not being exploited to its full potential before progressing, so the real needs of musicians can be clearly identified before the technology evolves to its next logical level.  When a piece of technology it being exploited to its full potential the musician is maximising the music potential in it and not just skimming the surface.   The Beatles, for example, were forced to improvise with the studio equipment in Abbey Road, forcing the maximum potential of their technology.  The Beatles’ producer George Martin was known to rewire a Farfisa organ to create new sounds and rewind echo tapes during a recording pass due to there not being enough tape in the echo machine.

There is little chance to consolidate music making.  Everybody is pushing to create something new, as with the Internet and forms of new media.  however, it seems few people want to maintain what is worthwhile.  So, it is no surprise that the music of today is as disposable as the technology it is created on.

By Nino Auricchio

Mixing By Numbers (Part 2)

31 03 2011

Yesterday I ranted about the dumbing down of mixing. Today I hope to provide a more balanced view on the new One Knob series from Waves.

Whilst writing my post yesterday I had the idea to do a One Knob mix to see how versatile these plug ins can be.  The One Knob mix took about 35 minutes to do.  Here’s a quick outline of what was used where and roughly how much the dial was turned to in brackets.

Overheads – Pressure (3)
Kick D112 – Phatter (7), Pressure (5)
Kick NS10 – Pressure (6)
Snare Top – Phatter (6), Pressure (6), Wetter (3)
Snare Under – Pressure (3)
2x Toms – Phatter (6), Pressure (6)
Drum Bus – Pressure (2), Wetter (2)
Bass – Phatter (3)
2x Acoustics – Brighter (7), Wetter (1)
2x Crunch Guitars – Wetter (1)
L Dist. Guitar – Brighter (8), Wetter (1)
R Dist. Guitar – Wetter (1)
Solo Guitar – Driver (4), Wetter (2.5)
Lead Vocal – Driver (1.5), Brighter (7), Pressure (4), Wetter (3)
Backing Vocal – Driver (1.5), Filter (8), Pressure (3) Wetter (3)
Master Bus – Louder (4)

Please don’t go judging my general working practices on this…

So as you can see I used all the plug ins and tried to do what I would normally do in a mix.  The first weakness I’d like to address is that Wetter is designed to work as an Insert, not as a send, meaning I had to drop loads in on the session.  By dialling up Wetter you’re not only increasing the mix of the reverb but the size and length of it too.  So in my mix, where I have several different reverb settings it has become a mess.

Pressure is much better used as a bus compressor, it really didn’t work on the close microphones on the drums. At lower settings the compression is quite subtle but it soon gets out of hand and when I dialed the master bus Pressure up to 10 something very strange happened… I actually felt physically sick! It was the same kind of weird sickness I get when I hear serious phase problems.  I had to dial it down pronto.

Phatter makes things bassier… not much to say there. I think it might do some low end compression too. Not sure so I won’t guarantee that.

Brighter is a really nice clean and transparent high boost. But I recommend getting a good parametric EQ and using that.

Filter is really for use on Dance tracks. Like Brighter and Phatter it does sound nice, but it does nothing that many other quality filters and EQs do already.  I’d also like to point out that Filter has a resonance selection button! I wanted One Knob, not One Knob And A Button.

Driver. This is the one I liked the most. The very low settings worked nicely as a lo-fi effect.  Higher gains were pretty good a boost to guitars but it’s not good enough to be the whole guitar tone.

Louder is the ultimate nemesis of Dynamic Range Day, Turn It and friends.  It’s a limiter that sounded like it was limiting very quickly and didn’t actually stop my master output from clipping anyway… so… why?

So in conclusion; I don’t get it. I don’t think you can deny the quality behind each one of these little things, individually they sound good. But with multiple instances of these plug ins they seem to clash with themselves, especially Wetter. So as a one off effect for one channel in your mix, a couple of these plug ins would work well. Namely Driver and Filter.  The EQ two Phatter and Brighter are really nice, but if you own any good parametric EQ plug ins already they’re pointless. I would seriously stay away from the compression ones and I can’t see the use in a one-trick reverb.

By Graeme Rawson

Mixing By Numbers

30 03 2011

As a semi-professional sound engineer I hope that people will see my work as something worth paying for.  I need the income I make from my recording business and I love doing it.  Over the past few years more and more people are cracking Cubase and hundreds of plug ins and joining the industry as hobbiests or “bedroom producers”.  I don’t want to sound like I’m moaning about the development of the subject, as a teacher of Music Technology I’m glad there is increasing interest. But I can’t help but think there is a certain amount of dumbing down going on. New plug-ins like the Waves One Knob series are removing skill and therefore value out of the industry.

On the base level of the industry, where I currently ply my trade, artists are usually funding recordings out of their own  pocket and are seemingly more reluctant than ever to pay for quality.  The studio I work in prices a day’s recording competitively with other similar level studios in the area, this figure is a good chunk under £200 a day.  The same price (I’m reliable informed by the owner) that it was around 20 years ago! Showing no signs of inflation and not representing the technical improvements of that last two decades.  This reluctance to pay, I believe, is coming from the view that a good record can be done on the cheap using software, however it was obtained, in a bedroom. I’ve heard some passable demos come out of this environment, but never a marketable professional recording. What’s missing is not the quality of software but quality hardware and crucially the touch of an experienced and skilled ear.

This ear is easily purchased but for some reason it’s not seen as a skill worth paying for. You wouldn’t find a plumber willing to work 10+ hour days for barely minimum wage, but in our industry if someone want to make in into the higher echelons of professional recording they must work almost endlessly for nothing at all.  Is this because our trade is viewed as a luxury to do? I love being a sound engineer and therefore am willing to work for perhaps less. But I could not afford the time working unpaid to make a move into the truly professional sector, so I made the choice to work, paid such as it is, at the entry level.

So I’m hoping to make a living using my skills as a mix engineer, but is this advantage being taken away slowly two? Can you now make good mixes without any understanding of the science behind it?

I’ve not tried, but it’d be interesting to see how good I can get a mix by just using preset settings on plug-ins. This would be easy enough and I’m fairly sure it’d sound okay too, but if everyone did this, wouldn’t we get a lot of records sounding the same? We’re already hearing Apple loops in charts, I cite Usher – Love In This Club and Rhianna – Umbrella.  So now, thanks to Waves we can all sound the same in new, uncharted ways. If we all just used One Knob plugs we’d be  able to do everything a mix engineer could possibly want… A dial for more reverb please, just turn up the compression to “on more”.  Tweak the bass up to a phatness level of 8.  Make it louder despite clipping every bus in sight with the One Knob Louder plug.  And do you know what’s most annoying? They’ll probably sound great.

I’ve downloaded the One Knob demos and will soon provide you with a glimpse of the future… the One Knob mix!  I promise to do my best with it, as much as I might want it to sound bad. Stay tuned…

By Graeme Rawson

Losing our innocence

22 03 2011

Electronic music is a mere pup when lined up against other forms of western popular music.

For decades it seemed electronic music just wasn’t considered kosher by the general public, often being likened to the sound of a vacuum clearer set to blow.  To many people it still brings on this knee jerk reaction.  Soundtracks for films such as Blade Runner, Forbidden Planet, The Day The Earth Stood Still, and A Clockwork Orange would often slip past them unnoticed however.

Back in the 70s acts like Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schultz, Vangelis, and Tomita were trailblazing the great movement of progressive electronic albums becoming a standard addition to Mr. and Mr. Joe Taxpayer’s front room stereo cabinet.  This movement perhaps represented the greatest period for electronic music as an art form which millions of people accepted and invested in, providing that all important inspiration for those young innocent ears who would become the new age, synth pop performers and producers of the 1980s.  You ask anyone between the ages of 30 and 40 who currently makes electronic music where they got their inspiration, they will respond with something along the lines of, “I used to listen to Man Machine on my dad’s stereo with my headphones on every night.  I knew from the first time I heard it I wanted to make music which sounded like that”.

Electronic music from the mid 80s onwards fragmented beyond the New Romanticism of Ultravox and the Synth Pop of Depeche Mode, into the veritable smorgasbord of derivative genres that became the world of dance music.  The so called death of dance music in the 90s following the cosure of so many clubs, super clubs and even the removal of the best dance act award from the Brit Awards, showed that over commercialization and dumbing down had taken its toll.  The spontaneity and unrestrained nature of electronic music had been lost in the mainstream, replaced by the 4-to-the-floor mindless pumping of a drum machine and Esoniq synths.  A few acts and labels continued to fly the flag such as Orbital, Warp Records and Wall of Sound, however sales of Orbital’s InSides or Boards of Canada’s Music Has the Right to Children failed to shift in sufficient numbers to make their respective artists  household names.

Back in those heady days when Krafterk were being robots and Jean Michel Jarre was flicking his dark Gallic hair, electronic music was approached with the ears of a child.  No preconceptions, no cultural baggage, no conventions on instrumentation or arrangement.  The sound made during this period had an inventive and original approach to the creation of electronic music which, oddly enough perhaps, resulted in albums the public were more than happy to accept, buy and enjoy.  Tangerine Dream’s Phaedra and Vangelis’ China enjoyed commercial success, not only because they presented electronic music in contemporary pop or rock song context, but because they offered something different and exciting.  People often forget that in the 1970s the future was still bright and offered a route out of post war austerity and economic stagnation.  Today we worry more about just how we are going to survive in the future, let alone when we’ll be flying around in glass cars or having robot servants.  This optimism encapsulated by this new form of music has now all but gone.  Our innocence has been lost.

The never ending derivatives from what started out in the late 60s with a few teenagers messing with synthesizers has almost returned with electronic music seemingly returning to an underground form of music.  Synthetic sound has obviously permeated RnB and pop a huge degree and I am not in dispute with this, but stylistically and musically they cannot be classed as forms of electronic music.  They are RnB and pop which use electronic sounds.  Artists like Apparat, Ulrich Schnauss and SBTRKT would have seen far greater commercial success had they been releasing records in the 70s.  The great democratization of music creation with a single laptop with a smattering of cheap or free software tools being all you need has led to so much more electronic music being made by more people, but any significant commercial success in the medium has long since faded.

By Nino Auricchio