vkxwz

Yeah I'm just nitpicking about the word choice, It is an extremely common response nowadays it seems. Going around calling your own music taste eclectic when people ask what you listen to is not it though, conjures images of neckbeards and trenchcoats etc, for me at least

This is cool, cool rhythms and combinations of sound, had me interested from the first few seconds. Was expecting some pads and melodies to come in earlier but it still held my attention without that, unpredictable enough but not so much that it sounds disorganised.

Whenever people say "I listen to everything" I imagine playing them some noise or pretty much any ae from the last 20 years, because inevitably "everything" is a pretty small subset of music available today.

Some short thoughts that I wanted to talk about with some people that are actually deeply interested in music, since I know very few of those in my own life. 1. Do you believe that there is one most "correct" interpretation of a peice of music, that is closest to the artists intentions and own view of that music? I see a fair amount of people that seem to think that this sort of perspective is wrong, but I think that their view is missing the point of music in a way, like receiving an email and deciding that you can interpret it however you want and all the interpretations are the best. I still think there is a lot of room for differences in interpretations that are all still "getting it" but they are more akin to how 2 people may feel differently about a colour scheme. 2. I've been curious about consistency between different peoples feeling about what music in conveying, I've found some very strange youtube comments but the most interesting things I've seen are from personally surveying people I know, playing them something and asking them what emotion is being conveyed. One thing I found was a lot of what I would call projection, where they just gave an emotion that consistent with how they already felt / how i would expect them to feel regardless of the track, this surprised me a lot, and made me wonder if they paid attention at all. Another thing that was common was that they would hear anything electronic and call it "video game music" or "background music", or even referenced something specific that had some common sound, but didnt match the vibe at all. this type of things seems like "missing the point" or failing to connect emotionally to the music at all. 3. I had some luck with doing the same as point 2, with some tracks from early aphex or some skee mask, where their interpretation was so similar to mine it was uncanny. This happened enough timeand with specific enough descriptions (that always surprised me a LOT) that it cant just be luck. This feels to me like times where me and the other person listening were much more connnected to the music and were feeling something much closer to what the artist intended. Anyone have any thoughts on this type of thing? And I did a survey of 12 people for In the maze park by AFX if anyone is interested in reading the responses, I was weirded out by some of them honestly.

What do you guys think ae mean when they talk about conditionals? I'm imagining rules that are something along the lines of, is sample A plays and then sample B plays one beat later, then sample C plays 2 beats after that, but with enough of these rules that you can set of cascades of sound. No idea how max works though

Yeah its great, sounds like how I imagine getting ECT would feel like. The swings from aggressive hard beats to moments of sweet melodies leading up to it are so good too

Could be, this effect is all over SAW

Listening to Strotha Tynhe, It's always sounded like a subtle phaser on this track but im realising now that its not moving in a consistent sin wave, the phase is all over the place. This + the way the track somehow feels like there is some extra "motion" going on at points makes me think that its not a phaser at all. Maybe the original recording has being re-recorded, with the position of the speaker or microphone moving around to create this effect. But then again the volume doesn't really change in that way and it doesn't feel like it moves around your head. Ive also noticed this weird phasing in a lot of his other tracks, like the percussion on Heliosphan, anyone know what's going on here?

I really enjoyed the first 2 eps, was a nice surprise to see 2 episodes there when I finally sat down to watch. It's even more obvious this season how much older the actors are than in breaking bad, but thats to be expected. I might even rewatch these 2 before the next one is out, its been a while since I've watched something of this quality, every second of it is great

If the sample played as an F, when you play it as a "C" in renoise it will still sound like an F because it is. And if you play a D it will sound like an G. If you want the note names in renoise to match up instead, you'll have to get the same sample in C, to do this just play it 5 semitones lower, so play a G (in renoise), resample that then use it as the sample for a new instrument. I think theres a tool mentioned earlier in the thread that does this automatically though. My notes could be wrong and i may have misinterpreted you, its early

Do you still believe this? i think this logic is very backwards. Effects like visual acuity come from activating receptors that are specifically serotonin receptors, the psilocybin would have had no effect without serotonin system already existing. Not to mention there are plenty of species that wouldnt have ever come into contact with these mushrooms that have a serotonin system, lobsters etc. I can see some plausibility in arguments about how it led to language due to synesthesia though.

Make some music

Yeah pretty much. And i like thinking about this stuff without the separation of what is nature and man made, we are a force of nature, and while we can change things on earth dramatically and commit suicide as a species while taking other species with us, we will never be able to properly sterilise this planet of life totally, and any life that remains will evolve into more complexity / intelligence again long after we are gone.

Could you at least try to explain the time bending part of that post you made? Maybe with an example? Do you mean something along the lines of shortening and lengthening different sections of time to make it "musical"? For example making a montage scene in a film is cutting out (shortening) lengths of time in the "real world" of the story so that the remaining parts all happen in rapid succession in a rhythmic way. Thats my best guess.

Got any quotes from ae saying this? I'm not really sure what making music in a non linear way is, do you mean making the different sections of it out of order and then putting them together in a different order to how you made them?

Just discovered Xanopticon, I find it quite difficult to keep track of the 1 in this, most of the time im not sure where i am and im just hearing the stream of beats, It's only been a few listens though Tracks like this I find difficult because it's quite fast and detailed, but in a lot of points the rhythm is sort of sparse. and there's nothing constant to hang onto. One bar could end with a gap in the drums, and the next could start with a small gap, leading to some ambiguity about where it really starts unless you are really focused on the time and confident in that timing. even a quiet consistent ticking hihat in the background would make it infinitely easier

I suppose thats all useful information, doesnt say a whole lot about the sequence of the notes though. And earlier you said music theory says how music works, i'd argue that it just describes the structure of music but doesnt say much of anything about "how" it works. The best it can do there is try to explain some subjective feelings by comparing the structure to the structure of other music thats linked to those feelings.

True about the harmonic series if you are only looking at intervals between adjacent notes as you go up but once you step outside it or consider intervals between notes that arent next to each other in the series then that rule doesnt work as consistently at all. Maybe its just too idealistic of an idea that there would be a mathematical / physics based explanation that does perfectly predict how dissonant intervals are. What you mentioned about acceptance of intervals that were previous seen as more dissonant brings up a larger issue i think, about how much of our perception of music is built on associations made in our minds and how much is more universal. For example do some melodies sound sad because of similarity to the tones you hear when someone is talking while sad? Or is there some fundamental part of the structure that triggers those emotions reliably regardless of a minds prior experience, the later seems unlikely

Yeah so I agree about the beating part, I find that part less interesting overall though because I think it plays less of a role that the other part of dissonance, which is the part common between C4 C#4 and C4 C#5, and the thing you perceive in monophonic melodies where the notes arent played at the same time but the interval is a huge part of the emotion of it. There are some interesting things in that article, but it still seems to stress closeness of frequencies as the main predictor of dissonance which i dont find too convincing

yeah well my point still stands with sin waves C4 and G4, and then C4 and G#4 with sin waves only the first part is less dissonant despite having a smaller gap in the freq between the 2 notes

That doesn't make sense to me, since you can come up with 2 2 note chords, the interval in the second set bigger than the interval in the first, but still have the second chord be more dissonant

If we are on the topic of harmony, why do different intervals sound the way they do in terms of dissonance / consonance? Seems like the more simple the ratio of 2 tones the less dissonant they sound together, except not exactly because it still sounds consonant if its slightly off a simple ratio, despite the actual ratio being not simple at all (for example in 12tet, a fifth isnt a perfect 3/2, but is very close) so whats up here? Could be closeness to simple ratios, or something else like the frequency of the interference pattern, which is definitely audible imo. Maybe someone here will have a much better understanding and will be able to explain it

Well how about we discuss a specific example in an ae track. Sorry if i was being offensive, something about the way you say "mistake" and "some people are going to notice and some are not" just rubs me the wrong way with this stuff, but if youre just talking about how using these systems in that specific way results in a particular sound that you subjectively interpret as coming from a lack of knowledge then you are entitled to your opinion.

I think its less about questioning subforum artists and more about how that "questioning" is putting some rules developed by a small group of people hundreds of years ago, above things that are actually more important. In the end the most important things are what the music makes you feel and communicates to you, and the theory should be a means to that end. So when someone comes in and says no this music (which achieves those goals exceptionally well) is actually "incorrect" because they disobey the rules whos goal is to achieve those more significant goals, it just feels like you are missing the point. You're doing a disservice to yourself if you value what music theory has to say about a piece of music over your own experience of it.

Yeah this sounds fun, what about the melody for the start of the Wildlife analysis? seems to be in C major (all the white notes? right?) and goes like this: A4 B4 E5 D5 B4 A4 B4 G5 E5 D5 A4 B4 D5 E5 D5 E5 B4 A5 E5 D5 A5 G5 the timing doesnt seem to be able to be written accurately with with constant bpm, to me at least what does theory say about what is going on here? there is something special about this melody and if you can explain it with theory I will be impressed