Aphex already did it

[marf]

not a joke.  I have some amazing bits of gear. Something is always broken though. it's a huge distraction. I guess Im having a mid life crisis. Other factors are weighing in. Having to take care of a house. Get a good job. Music distracts me totally. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by marf

[dingformung]

5 hours ago, rhmilo said:

I could have sworn your original post was a riff on this Stockhausen thing.

I retract my like.

Oh, it was. Can I have it back?

[dingformung]

3 hours ago, Tim_J said:

same here, shame on you dingding...

Fuck you. Shame on YOU. Ok?

[Limo]

15 minutes ago, dingformung said:

Oh, it was. Can I have it back?

Now I'm confused.

[Real Human Bean]

12 hours ago, ignatius said:

TiL, Stockhausen didn't understand bangers. 

Oh he definitely understood bangers:

 

[xox]

what we’re gonna do with marf now? ban him?! i mean, he’s no longer a dreamer of dreams

[zero]

4 hours ago, brian trageskin said:

i don't know much theory, i don't know much music, i suck at making music and i suck at playing instruments.

haha, I can totally relate to that. I first started playing the guitar in 1992, and peaked by about 1995. that was the year the prog/metal band I was in won our high schools battle of the bands contest. it was a 3 song set - 2 originals, and we ended with a cover of "One" by Metallica lol. it was my job to do the wankfest solo at the end, and I fucking nailed it. some of the guitar players from rival bands came up to me and were like wow nice one dude. 

but alas, since then, it has all been totally downhill. I stopped playing the guitar by about 1997, when the evils of electronic music ruined my desire to progress further with the instrument. I gave the bedroom musician thing a shot, but was never any good and so called it a day. sold and gave away all pieces of music gear I owned years ago and thought that was the end of it. then I turned 40 and had some a-ha moment that I was going to pick it up again, and so bought a cheap electric guitar and pignose amp. I noodle with it every so often but yeah, I don't take that shit too seriously at all.

[fxbip]

Drukqs was heavily influenced by Bogdan and John Cage.

Analord was heavily influenced by Detroit Techno/Electro.

etc.

Fail.Fail better.

Free jazz is awesome.

[fxbip]

Take AFX influence.

Take ''one or more other musicians you admire but working in an another style of music'' influence.

Merge them.Merge both influence.

Ive had decent results doing that.

I think originality is often either an improvement on the original influence (like Bach style was Buxtehude style but taken to the next level, and Mozart style was basically Johann Christian Bach style but taken to the next level)

OR

a merge of vastly different aesthetics in one new sound

Of course this is easier said than done haha

Edited March 9, 2021 by fxbip

[dingformung]

John Booth from Autechra: "I think we have a natural ability to recognise harmony and I think this exists as much within an engineering context as it does within music. Working in a studio is really no different than building a bridge from metal girders, isn't it? Constructing harmony from a load of predefined frequencies is essentially no different. To me it's all construction, building."

[cruising for burgers]

i think marf should stick to didgeridoos...

[cruising for burgers]

harmony? in autechre? that's just a pile of randomly generated fart sounds smeared all over an audio file...

[dingformung]

13 hours ago, Key said:

He only heard 'Digeridoo', think he was refering to the drums. I imagine he was looking down on it for being simple, uninteresting etc.

A shame. The Digeridoo ist the best kind of drum in all of Africa imo

[cruising for burgers]

btw marf, all the good music has already been done... nothing in the future will top that so, don't fret...

Edited March 9, 2021 by Tim_J

[Silent Member]

Afx is mostly known for his krautrock and boom bap rap, there's still a lot left to explore marf.

[fxbip]

5 hours ago, brian trageskin said:

 

btw i'd like to clarify my point about listening to bebop first and free jazz second :

what i mean is, if you're interested in having a better understanding of how the language of music works and you're in the process of learning how it works, you're gonna waste your time if you skip bebop and jump straight to free improv. doing so won't help you get a better grasp of how music works because you'll be missing quite a few basic blocks of knowledge

 

 

 

There is an assumption that everyone would understand or prefer bebop to free jazz tho.

As someone who likes breakcore, weird idm and contemporary and modern classical, and music with lots of weirdness and dissonance in general, i straight away prefered the real intense free jazz to bebop or cool jazz.

I thought i didnt really liked jazz until i started catching some Coltrane, Miles Davis, Albert Ayler or Ceci Taylor wild stuff.

The wild stuff was the entry point.

Im pretty sure loads of people would say the same.

And i think this is in fact one of the issues in classical and jazz.

There is not enough concert/radio broadcast with the truly wild shit.

Too many people have a vision of it as a something of an elevator music or chill music, with no tension or intensity, music for old people to drink tea.

Show the youngsters some Ligeti and some Cecil Taylor, not only Mozart and Smooth Jazz. (and im saying this but i still fkin love Mozart to bits)

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by fxbip

[Alcofribas]

@brian trageskin your approach to learning about jazz is definitely cool and one that is applicable to a lot of people interested in the subject. however, i'd like to riff on this by pointing out that the perspective that music appreciation is tied to the "rules" or an understanding of how it works or its historical context is imo flawed. that's basically an academic approach, which is completely legit but not the full picture. i don't even think that's really how music works anyway - there's so much more to music that eludes what one is able to account for in rules or chronology.

i think electronic music has made this abundantly obvious really - there is basically no way to encompass what is even happening in a piece of electronic music within the language of the western pedagogy thus far. how would you codify all the intricacies in timbre and color, or the myriad ways in which recording processes impart characteristics to the sound, e.g. the way recording to tape can limit or compress the dynamics of a performance or draw out harmonics? these are very much what electronic music is all about and notions of scales and harmony and so on are just inadequate here. indeed, this is why a lot of people discredit electronic music from the outset; bc they only know how to hear the notes and such.

but besides that, music doesn't need to be understood from an under the hood perspective to be understood. i don't think some super music nerd who knows all about harmony and stuff appreciates the beatles more than a teenage girl with their posters all over her wall and who lost her shit at a concert. in fact, i'd wager to say she "understands" the music even more as her enjoyment entails a sense of direct connection, even liberation, which is an essential aspect of music that cannot be seen on paper as it were.

all this to say that it's absolutely cool and proper to approach music through study of its parts within a certain tradition of teaching and historical contextualization, but even this method has so many obvious limitations. for instance, a proper understanding of jazz would have to also entail the social and cultural situation of black americans at the early-mid point of the 20th century; there would likely have to be an exploration into technological developments such as amplification as a solution to increasing the volume of certain instruments in a jazz setting; there might be a need to examine how recording processes influenced playing styles and compositional possibilities within the genre, etc etc. so you can definitely learn a lot about jazz through understanding the underpinning musical rules but that's not really getting to the bottom of it, it's just one dimension of a more complex artform. 

also, in the end, i completely reject pedagogical gatekeeping: if you know absolutely nothing about the technique you can still 100% have a deep and expansive understanding of music. it is just modulated air that makes you feel shit.

[sheatheman]

music only has the power you give it. stop giving aphex so much power. i always listened to his music for the sweetspots, which really represent about 10% of his output...

[Alcofribas]

I only listen for when he talks about breast milk

[cruising for burgers]

On 3/8/2021 at 3:57 PM, cern said:

Find something that fits you.. People are always gonna say "oh thats sounds like Aphex Twin or Autechre" just because of an odd time signatuere and different percussions. 

odd time sigs? in afx? right...

[auxien]

44 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

music: it is just modulated air that makes you feel shit.

 

[cruising for burgers]

47 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

music is just modulated air that makes you feel shit.

 

2 minutes ago, auxien said:

music: it is just modulated air that makes you feel shit.

 

[Ivan Ooze]

Afx power

[brian trageskin]

3 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

@brian trageskin your approach to learning about jazz is definitely cool and one that is applicable to a lot of people interested in the subject. however, i'd like to riff on this by pointing out that the perspective that music appreciation is tied to the "rules" or an understanding of how it works or its historical context is imo flawed. that's basically an academic approach, which is completely legit but not the full picture. i don't even think that's really how music works anyway - there's so much more to music that eludes what one is able to account for in rules or chronology.

i think electronic music has made this abundantly obvious really - there is basically no way to encompass what is even happening in a piece of electronic music within the language of the western pedagogy thus far. how would you codify all the intricacies in timbre and color, or the myriad ways in which recording processes impart characteristics to the sound, e.g. the way recording to tape can limit or compress the dynamics of a performance or draw out harmonics? these are very much what electronic music is all about and notions of scales and harmony and so on are just inadequate here. indeed, this is why a lot of people discredit electronic music from the outset; bc they only know how to hear the notes and such.

but besides that, music doesn't need to be understood from an under the hood perspective to be understood. i don't think some super music nerd who knows all about harmony and stuff appreciates the beatles more than a teenage girl with their posters all over her wall and who lost her shit at a concert. in fact, i'd wager to say she "understands" the music even more as her enjoyment entails a sense of direct connection, even liberation, which is an essential aspect of music that cannot be seen on paper as it were.

all this to say that it's absolutely cool and proper to approach music through study of its parts within a certain tradition of teaching and historical contextualization, but even this method has so many obvious limitations. for instance, a proper understanding of jazz would have to also entail the social and cultural situation of black americans at the early-mid point of the 20th century; there would likely have to be an exploration into technological developments such as amplification as a solution to increasing the volume of certain instruments in a jazz setting; there might be a need to examine how recording processes influenced playing styles and compositional possibilities within the genre, etc etc. so you can definitely learn a lot about jazz through understanding the underpinning musical rules but that's not really getting to the bottom of it, it's just one dimension of a more complex artform. 

also, in the end, i completely reject pedagogical gatekeeping: if you know absolutely nothing about the technique you can still 100% have a deep and expansive understanding of music. it is just modulated air that makes you feel shit.

i don't get what you were trying to say in that last sentence but you're mistaken if you think i'm gatekeeping. i just find the notion that free jazz is an interesting thing to check out as an entry point in the study of music a very misguided one. don't you want to understand the basic meat and potatoes of western music first? the basic vocabulary? the basic grammar, etc

since 99.999% of western music uses tonal/functional harmony, you might as well learn how it works, no?

also i completely disagree with you about the teenage girl understanding the music more than the theory nerd. the more you develop your musical ear through studying, the more sensible to the material you get. ask any "music nerd", they'll tell you that they're more emotionally involved with music now that they've ever been in the past. the more you understand music, the more subtleties your ears catch. you start hearing things you couldn't before, the material makes way more sense and your enjoyment is only increased as a result 

there's this misguided notion that the more you study music, the less you enjoy it. couldn't be further from the truth. the pleasure is intact and only increased by studying. i'm only parroting toad anyway, i should have let him do the talk 

and also, about "understanding jazz", that's not my point. i'm not interested in understanding jazz, i'm interested in understanding music, which jazz is. i could have mentioned any other style of music, i just picked jazz because it has all the basic components of western music and it's sophisticated enough to really expand your understanding of the language of music yet repetitive and predictable enough to be able to recognize patterns which makes it easier to digest the information. for this reason it's a perfect entry point for the study of music imo. whereas free jazz is unpredictable by nature, therefore less repetitive, less predictable, therefore harder to digest, therefore less likely to teach you much about the inner workings of most music 

keep in mind that i'm only talking about learning the language of music. not the language of jazz, not the history of jazz or the size of coltrane's penis

 

[Amen Warrior]