Mellow U

Oh good lord I hope this is in my mailbox today. The suspense is killing me and listening to level 5 ain't exactly helping.

[youtubehd]I-z2i7PijSA[/youtubehd]

I just have something at 9:30, and I cant change it.

Good. Cos I have something at 9:30.

Deal. How's 9:00 AM sound?

Look, if you get some noble pleasure from being a utility of society, that's you. Takes all kinds. However, even the so-called "well paid" utilitarian jobs in our society are going to be gone sooner or later, thanks to the very crux of your Accelerationist mentality. Ever hear of something called "soft assumption"? It's a polite way of observing the fact that many areas of our culture and economy, specifically the mundane/utilitiarian/service industry positions, will be replaced by completely synthetic interfaces. Who needs a human being to talk to when you can call a VRU? Or use a website? Or if you're out and about, why not use our convenient digital kiosk? It all feels very terrifying to me, and maybe that's just me showing my own colors as something of a traditionalist. Maybe I'm just getting old? I feel like we're absolutely right around the corner from the talking medicine cabinet in THX 1138. Sure, everything will be dust eventually, but that's going beyond an Accelerationist outlook and more toward a fatalist view, esp. if you're using it as your reasoning for not wanting to buy things. I've said it earlier in the thread, and I'll say it again - if you consider something artistic important, there is no legitimate way to acquire it while also expecting it to be free or renewable. It's an impossibility that will inevitably lead to creators being treated as a disposable resource to be used and thrown away like an empty Coke can, after they have outlived their usefulness (realizing that the river only runs one way). I don't think that creative impulse will ever cease to exist, and arguably the worse things are, the more passionate the creative minds become, but that's a whole other discussion. So from my perspective, as someone living just barely on my craft, it is not about the acquisition of wealth or material goods, or even a perpetuation of consumerism and object importance, but rather that I'm more like an architect, in a utilitarian job, contributing a flow of culture to our society, which makes life more bearable and interesting for people like you. Yet, this is a utility that does not pay well, and cannot be replaced by the soft assumption I mentioned earlier. Also, I don't think you understood my comment about how making music is not the same as posting on a forum. Changing digital stations? That's an act of consumption, not creation. I was trying to point out that the creation of content is the same now as it has been since the beginning of time - i.e. someone creative makes something. This has no bearing on the methods of distribution and dissemination that content uses once it's been completed, and you cannot avoid this integral fact with the broad justification that information happens to travel faster now.

I'm sorry, I just can't buy any of that shit. The speed at which information is transferred may be getting faster, but the origination of the content behind that information is still being created the same way. I.e. you cannot really compare the physical act of me recording music to the digital act of sharing my opinion on this board. So ultimately, with this Accelerationist outlook, any long term effects of cultural fallout or completely broken systems of ever-increasing demand with ever-decreasing supply...are just completely overlooked in favor of "we want the world and we want it now". I mean, I'm sure you don't mean it like this, but "It's futile to resist" - who the fuck are we turning into, The Borg? I don't think the instant gratification aspect of current technologies is a positive thing, in a lot of situations. It clearly fosters an unrealistic attitude toward everything consumable, to the point that things which are not intended to be consumed in that way are being forced to fit into that paradigm. I.e. the reduction of art to data alone, when it's clearly much more than that, at least at the source. But a picture of a loaf of bread is not a loaf of bread, and that's the dissonance of things like Spotify. And anyway, I'm not trying to piss you off when I say this, but, the absolute LAST thing our culture needs is people to "not bother resisting" the extremely-fast changes and not bother questioning the current status quo. Just because things are a certain way, does not mean they are supposed to be. Not everything can be turned into raw data and fed to mindless consumers via proxies, hashtags and skippable ads. Sorry to the OP I guess, but I still think we're more or less on track with discussing the original intent of Wu Tang and their new album.

Relevance isn't really the point - what I often tell people when the discussion of the art/money relationship comes up, is to imagine the creators of something like Spotify going back in time to ask Brunelleschi to build the Florence Cathedral Dome out of the goodness of his heart, without any money being involved, because we're living in a modern age where things are changing and artists just can't expect to see a return, at all. The obvious answer is that Brunelleschi would have laughed his ass off, because back then, if art didn't get paid for, it simply didn't get made. Money has always been and will always be a necessary evil (if you even want to call it that) that plays a vital part in media-based art forms being conceived, created, captured, distributed and disseminated. Today is no different. Now, I'm not trying to imply that every asshole making anything is on the same level as Brunelleschi, but rather that money being a very big part of anything artistic is an absolute, unless you just want to be artistic by howling at the moon while you beat rocks together in the woods. It's a tool though, like many others, and in the cases where it counts the most, it matters the least. I.e. Jonny Greenwood did not need to buy an Ondes Martenot to be an amazing instrumentalist. The money helped though! And his work became all the more interesting for it. Saying those things happened the way they did because they happened the way they did, doesn't mean good stuff wouldn't happen if things were different. We don't know what would motivate a Brunelleschi or Greenwood in different circumstances. You were motivated to write that without any financial incentive (but probably with other incentives, rather than the goodness of your heart). We invented money but not the value it represents. We didn't so much invent geometric construction or the phenomena of sound and it's arrangement as discover them. Which is fair enough, but again - I struggle to understand the reasoning and logic behind the "great disconnect" of today? I.e. why so many people who profess to love and support music turn around and fight with the creators themselves over how even the most basic works could not happen without financial intervention. Intervention that is indeed the thing being so viciously pulled from the hands and mouths of hard working people, while they're looked at sideways when they question the act. Anyway, I get your point about "we invented money but not sound", but what exactly do you hope to achieve there? That all art should be free of a monetary system entirely? If all sound is merely a discovery or an arrangement of a discovery, then we should just put our machines down right now and start listening to the rain falling instead. No, I think, while money is indeed a great motivator, and I am not financially motivated to write this, I can still sit here as a self-employed artist and say "If you do something well, never do it for free" And THAT is where the problem is, really.

Relevance isn't really the point - what I often tell people when the discussion of the art/money relationship comes up, is to imagine the creators of something like Spotify going back in time to ask Brunelleschi to build the Florence Cathedral Dome out of the goodness of his heart, without any money being involved, because we're living in a modern age where things are changing and artists just can't expect to see a return, at all. The obvious answer is that Brunelleschi would have laughed his ass off, because back then, if art didn't get paid for, it simply didn't get made. Money has always been and will always be a necessary evil (if you even want to call it that) that plays a vital part in media-based art forms being conceived, created, captured, distributed and disseminated. Today is no different. Now, I'm not trying to imply that every asshole making anything is on the same level as Brunelleschi, but rather that money being a very big part of anything artistic is an absolute, unless you just want to be artistic by howling at the moon while you beat rocks together in the woods. It's a tool though, like many others, and in the cases where it counts the most, it matters the least. I.e. Jonny Greenwood did not need to buy an Ondes Martenot to be an amazing instrumentalist. The money helped though! And his work became all the more interesting for it.

Yeah, exactly what I was going to say there too. There's a big difference between "making music for money" and "trying to make money with your music". I.e. the point of conception for the music is much, much different in the two cases. And anyway, why there is so much infighting about this is beyond me. Musicians need money to live, people need music to live - the two are not mutually exclusive. This is, again, where I think the internet has misinformed and under-informed most people about the way things really work to bring them all the content they lust after, in the interest of the corporations willing to sell them the "keys to the kingdom" and take all the money for themselves.

You can take comfort in the fact that quality shit will persevere and gain exposure simply by the fact that it is of high quality, or 'classic', and that while the artist may or may not be rewarded immediately, the work will probably stand the test of time. Or it's probable that 'just' compensation is a thing of the past, because culture is now saturated with a shit ton of amateur media, of varying quality, and expecting any sort of substantial reward for your work is simply unrealistic. Sure, as long as the internet is around, but that's what's ultimately corrupted everything to the point it's at now. Take away the luxuries, legal or otherwise, that the internet affords you when it comes to experiencing any form of media based art - suppose it was back to a simple system of "If you cannot afford to buy something, you do not get to listen to it". If this were to come to pass, listeners would be forced once again to learn the real value of a dollar. There simply wouldn't be room in nearly anyone's budget for buying all the music and movies they might otherwise download. This would, I think, level the playing field with regard to "quality" work versus the flavor of the week gimmicky bullshit, like some guy doing a dubstep remix in Garageband, or something. In the end, some level (or levels) of quality would win out, win over consumers and their money, and the creators behind such works would be given adequate means to continue forward. Art really *would* be judged on its own terms, and not in the superficial way that it is now. People have been given a free backdoor for so long that they consider it a right, not a luxury, and they're able to rationalize theft and cultural deflation as "exposure" and "support", when instead, we've simply degenerated into a mindless, data-hoarding mass that only responds to the BRIGHTEST, LOUDEST and BIGGEST things, as perfectly evidenced by bands like The Flaming Lips doing 24 hour songs or Wu Tang releasing Once Upon A Time In Shaolin the way they are. The gimmick and PR stunt has become an attempt at survival, and so essentially, a lot of the ridiculous things people used to say were "selling out" are now par for the course, for any musician, just to get by, because a lot of people can't deal with the fact that artists need money to live and continue making good things. So anyway, if things were to change to a system that didn't parasitically leech off of the people creating the content, I think everyone would be a lot happier. There would be a standard for music again, even if it were a magazine rating system or the stupid Top 40 - something that represented an embodiment of doing a job well enough to convince lots of people to hand out hard earned money to hear it.

Lane Visitor, I don't know you, but I think I love you.

It's MU4, plus a whole lot more stuff, which is a real bargain for the price IMO. Getting it direct from the man himself only makes it more attractive to me. And anyway, not sure how it seems shady? It's like ordering anything else via a website? I.e. if you're worried, and your stuff never shows up or Aleksi runs off with your money, you can always file a dispute with PayPal...

He emailed me back today to tell me "You don't have to wait much longer", which is exciting. I also asked him if he was selling any other copies of AP stuff, since I have a couple holes in my collection, and he said "No I don't have any other stuff on sale, yet. Will keep you posted."

I'm disappointed no one responded to this, has anyone heard it? It's a full disc that came out with kafkatrax. I think it's the best thing he's done since GAS. I missed out on it when it was new, and managed to get a copy from the private stash of Mr. Voigt himself, thanks to some very generous people at Kompakt at the time. Amazing record, hopefully it gets a reissue or even a digital release so more people can enjoy it.

Sella Bay. That's all I'm going to say. Just you guys wait.

Ace, you're right - When I googled 'Hans-Joachim Roedelius; Über berg und tal' it point to this which credits the track: u sure, i can't play this for some reason, but my copy sounds nothing like the track in the OP cool u found it - its incredible - theres also a track on the album 'auf leisen sohlen' by the same name, lol patchy bastard. i have two versions of selbstportrait with the same listing and different tracks as well i thought Germans were noted for being thorough? ah, he's austrian. I was just gonna say, this seems like something Wolfgang Voigt would do...reminds me of the CD and LP differences of Konigsforst. I have been meaning to pick up all the Selbstportrait records for a while now...actually, funnily enough, I think it was that mystery track that sparked my interest in Roedelius. When I sent Leafs that track years ago, he speculated that it could have been Roedelius, but the guy has done so much stuff it seemed like we'd never find it. Then he told me a bit later about the Selbstportrait stuff and how I'd love it, and here I am again now. Going to buy all this stuff at once when I get some cash again, if I can afford it. Anyway, speaking of Voigt, are you guys into him? He's one of the few other musicians out there who, in my opinion, are just so consumed in their own musical universe to really be compared to anyone else, much like AE. I recently scored a copy of his super-rare Ruckverzauberung 4 album, directly from him too, and it's been blowing my mind lately... yeah i love his stuff, he's got mad talent imo After posting that I realized you remixed Mike Ink back in the day, so DERP! Though I guess that was a long time ago now, and lord knows a couple years of time passing for Wolfgang is like a couple universes for the rest of us. So it's cool to know you still like him now! One of the other artists I think falls into that category is Pub - do you guys know his stuff at all? He's been self-releasing most of his work via Ampoule Records in Scotland for years, and he really doesn't sound like anyone else out there. Somehow completely organic and alive, yet electronic all the same: [youtubehd]B_YqFK9f4jM[/youtubehd] [youtubehd]v2mW35D_tfw[/youtubehd]

Ace, you're right - When I googled 'Hans-Joachim Roedelius; Über berg und tal' it point to this which credits the track: u sure, i can't play this for some reason, but my copy sounds nothing like the track in the OP cool u found it - its incredible - theres also a track on the album 'auf leisen sohlen' by the same name, lol patchy bastard. i have two versions of selbstportrait with the same listing and different tracks as well i thought Germans were noted for being thorough? ah, he's austrian. I was just gonna say, this seems like something Wolfgang Voigt would do...reminds me of the CD and LP differences of Konigsforst. I have been meaning to pick up all the Selbstportrait records for a while now...actually, funnily enough, I think it was that mystery track that sparked my interest in Roedelius. When I sent Leafs that track years ago, he speculated that it could have been Roedelius, but the guy has done so much stuff it seemed like we'd never find it. Then he told me a bit later about the Selbstportrait stuff and how I'd love it, and here I am again now. Going to buy all this stuff at once when I get some cash again, if I can afford it. Anyway, speaking of Voigt, are you guys into him? He's one of the few other musicians out there who, in my opinion, are just so consumed in their own musical universe to really be compared to anyone else, much like AE. I recently scored a copy of his super-rare Ruckverzauberung 4 album, directly from him too, and it's been blowing my mind lately...

Leafs posted that it is the opening track on Flieg', Vogel, Fliege, which makes sense as that album is supposed to be one of his "selfportrait" albums... Thanks Rob for the answer though! Between all these questions and those marathon live sets, you two must be extraordinarily patient.

Okay so I haven't read the entire thread yet (but plan on it), so hopefully this hasn't been brought up yet... Can you guys identify this track please? You played it in the liveset you did for Xltronic a while ago. It's always stuck with me, and I've never figured out what or who it is... And for an actual question: Is Nuane = N-vane = Envane? As in, are the four quarters actually remixes/versions of Nuane? They seem like they could be to my ears, but I'd be interested to hear the official answer. Also, any chance of a digital release or a reissue of the Quaristice Versions material from the deluxe edition of that album? I'm an obsessed collector like many others here, and I don't listen to things unless I own them in some official form...help! ae xlt show excerpt.mp3

Hey now, I haven't read any of the stuff you're responding to here, but I happen to like this record AND I'm massively into QOTSA. I do not, however, drive a pick-up and resent the implication that QOTSA fans are in some way not intelligent enough to "understand" disco music. Anyway, that's all. Carry on.

This was, I felt, a missed opportunity with the reissue set. Especially considering there's really only one exclusive track on Oktember. The other was on the CD version of Konigsforst, but not the LP. So essentially it's just a single with a b-side. It also cost me more than any of the full lengths did.

Pretty certain I read online during the time of release that it was remastered by Voigt and Burger. The reason I remember all that so clearly is because the original opening track from the first album (GAS) was not able to be located on the original master tapes, so they replaced it with a completely new track (which is admittedly incredible). And just checking now - yes, there is a mastering credit for Burger/Voigt: http://www.discogs.com/Gas-Nah-Und-Fern/release/1363736 I tend to listen to the remasters in equal measure with my vinyl rips of the original issues, which cost me a mint to acquire. I'm sure I made mention of it elsewhere on the forum (maybe even in this thread) but the first album is even more worth getting on vinyl because nearly all the tracks are extended by several minutes, compared to the CD version. The only downside is that it's a pretty noisy pressing, despite being a 3LP. I'd love to see each of the albums get reissued on vinyl again someday just for the possibility of heavyweight vinyl. The original jackets weren't the sturdiest things either, like many of the great Mille Plateaux LPs.