Jump to content

Freak of the week

Members
  • Content Count

    254
  • Joined

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Freak of the week

  • Rank
    Recently Joined

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Selected

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I find Formula interesting because of it's "disruptive" factor, but that is different from what you are after it seems.
  2. I was talking from the perspective of professional music theorists who write papers and stuff, should have been clearer I guess. It would be interesting to try and analyze Formula.
  3. There is no point in analyzing a music that is not meant to be analyzed, but simply enjoyed at it's face value. From the music theory perspective his stuff is so trivial that it's simply not worth the effort. It's like if you asked CERN physicists to analyze some elementary-school experiment. If you are interested in the theory-heavy stuff listen to academic electronic or modern classical.
  4. You sure about that? I think that the main reason of his popularity is his intuitive approach. Sure music theory is nice but I don't think that many people give a shit about it.
  5. This is proper AFX list: Polygon Window – Untitled AFX – AB3 CD Only Track #1 Aphex Twin – On (D-Scape Mix) Aphex Twin – SAW2 CD2 TRK3 Aphex Twin – Phlid GAK – GAK 2 Aphex Twin – Aphex Airlines Aphex Twin – INKEY$ Aphex Twin – Formula Aphex Twin – Perc # 6 Aphex Twin – Gwely Mernans AFX – KTPA1 AFX – KTPA2
  6. Every time somebody farts WARP gets a royalty.
  7. This track was playing during one of AFX interviews. That surely means Carl Craig stole it from AFX, right?
  8. Yeah I think I have gone a bit overboard with my first post in this thread. You know what, life is tooshort, do what you like.
  9. A) If you're serious about the music, like the academics whom you mentioned, then it's actually relevant if you want to be taken seriously. Whether or not that is a good thing is another story. B) I never implied sampling was bad or anything. (Go Plastic is amazing, of course, but I sometimes think that it would be even cooler if Tom didn't use other people's samples and just went full autistic with his own.) My criticism was mainly directed towards people who rely heavily on other people's samples (Burial etc.). I get it that there are scenes like vaporwave etc. but I still think that it's laziness or maybe just not giving a shit about what you are doing.. C) That is the "problem". Today everything is super-available and that of course makes it harder to be more original. That's why you have to work even harder to make something relatively new (nothing is 100% original, we know that). And using these "sample packs" is definitely not less lazy than creating your own samples from scratch (by recording, by using computer...) and manipulating them. My criticism was aimed at people who are heavily using other people's samples and contribute very little or not at all. Then again I think that the people whom you mentioned don't really give a shit about how people call them. Yeah okay informatically speaking every sound is a collection of samples, but that is a microscopic approach, and I wasn't referring to that kind of samples. By "everyone samples..." I meant people who sample other people's tracks. Here by samples I mean "parts of tracks that can range in duration from the order of say 1 second to the order of say 10 minutes or more, that are used in other person's track, and may or may not be modulated in a certain way, but are still clearly recognizable." This approach is a macroscopic approach when observed from the informatic point of view.
  10. This whole concept of "but everyone samples it's ok" is just bullshit and simply a sign of laziness. If you can't come up with something of your own then you don't deserve to be called a musician. Then again maybe some people don't care how they are gonna be called.
×
×
  • Create New...