squarepusher Spin interview

[usagi]

Hi Tom. You're in São Paulo, are you debuting your new live show?

 

That's very much what I was doing, the new live show. Which doesn't actually include any old material.

 

Tell me some more about the show. It's an audio-visual set, and you've designed your own video synthesizer — what exactly is a video synthesizer?

 

I termed it a video synthesizer; it's just a rough way of referring to it. Part of the idea of using that term is that some of the ways in which it generates images are analogous to how a synthesizer generates sound — i.e. through mathematical functions which can be combined in various ways to generate patterns. It takes in information from the sound, so part of the sound from the show will be then inputted into the video synthesizer, and it will decode that into information which can then be used to control the images. It also takes in information in a much more simple, instructional form. I.e. you'll go, "Now turn the screen red," "Now move this object from this position to this position," and so on, in the same way that you would output information to a musical instrument from a sequencer. Broadly speaking, the idea is to be able to generate images in real time, using certain forms of information, and those images can be changed in real time. In that respect, it's quite clearly differentiated from playing a piece of video, which is obviously going to be the same every time you play it. The point about this is that I can have real-time control, so that at any given time, if the music changes, a parallel change also occurs in the images.

 

Are you using any pre-recorded video at all?

 

No, none.

 

So it's sort of like the difference between a sampler and a synthesizer, then.

 

That's a reasonable analogy, yeah.

 

You have some incredibly descriptive imagery in your track notes to the album, which I love. You said of "Red in Blue" that the chord progression "suggested a kind of occult mist where objects would appear in mid-air and vanish again only to reappear elsewhere; the mist was dense, but fragile." Are you synaesthetic?

 

Yes. But I don't think that's uncommon, is it? This is something that lots of people have.

 

What kind of relationships do you have between sound and other senses?

 

It's always struck me that it has a kind of ad-hoc nature. It's hard for me to predict in advance what sounds will give rise to what images. In that respect, my investigation into it is somewhat empirical. I'm trying to discover that. In the track notes, obviously I've given descriptions to try to form a little bit more of a context for the images that are being shown in the show. Nonetheless, it wasn't always the case that the story came first. Sometimes the sound will evoke the story. Sometimes the story evokes the sound. It's certainly never quite the same: Each time I embark on a new piece, the actual mechanism and structure of the way I go about it is subtly changed.

 

For example, the one you described, the objects coming and going in the mist, that was very much inspired by the sound. That was not an idea or an image which I had prior to starting work on the piece of music. It was very much the music which evoked this kind of image and idea. On the other hand, the "Dark Steering" track, where there's a description that briefly describes this dream about missile tracers in the sky —

 

And then it morphs into a scene of flying through a library?

 

Yeah, yeah. [Laughs] The idea started with the missile tracers, and then flying through the library came later. That was almost a response to the sound, whereas the initial starting point was these tracers. That was my initial reference point from which I started working on the sounds. As I say, on each given piece, the way it works is slightly different. But the point was to try and foster as coherent a relationship as I could between picture and sound. So that there was no sense of tokenism, there was no sense of it just being strapped on for the sake of it. There's no sense of it being, like, trying to keep up with the Joneses, like, just because lots of people now use visuals at shows, I also felt obliged to do it, regardless of the fact that I may not have any good ideas. I'll only do it if it feels like I've actually brought something to the experience of listening to the sound through the picture.

 

This is something I really don't like, if I see this kind of tokenism, where people feel that they have to supply a visual component to their shows, but they didn't necessarily have any real inspiration for it, they just went out and got some third-party guy to design it for them, who himself didn't have much of a clue as to why or what these images should be doing. It's an odd situation. I only would do it if I felt like the pictures bring something to the sound. I'm pretty confident that that's the case for this project.

 

For someone to experience fully what you are trying to do with this record, do they really need to see the live show?

 

Well, that's a very good point. Because obviously it brings up, in a quite stark fashion, the seeming contradiction between what I'm saying about these visuals being very close to the heart of the project, and yet, with the album, you don't see them.

 

I suppose, given my initial considerations regarding how these images would be displayed, that that pretty much determined the course of how the project was then presented to the public. Basically, from the very outset, I had the idea that the images would be displayed on the LED mask that I wear on stage and on the rear LED panel which is situated behind me. Secondly, that LED would be the product I would use to transmit the images, because of the particular quality of light that it generates and the intensity that you can achieve with it, which I feel is something that's not really possible to realize with projectors, for example. And thirdly, the scale: The absolute minimum size of the rear screen is five meters by three, which I see as being totally essential to realizing my aims, in terms of getting the intensity and the scale across.

So the compromise of releasing this in a format that the public can appreciate at home is obviously really difficult. That immediately throws away the scale and it throws away the intensity. If you were looking at this on a computer screen, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work. Obviously, there's the option of doing this as a DVD, with all this stuff scaled down so that you could then watch it on a television or a computer, but that, for me, was such a strong disavowal of the initial ideas that I decided not to do it. And I thought that actually an audio album is better, and feels like a more satisfying thing to offer to the public, rather than this halfway house where the visuals are combined, but they don't receive the correct kind of treatment. It's quite a compromise, of course.

 

The other point is, I've striven to recreate some of the mental images this music brings about for me; that's of course not to say that the public should see it like that. I could be quite happy for someone to have their own response to this, and for that response to be entirely different to my own. That's what makes the album feel like a satisfying thing to offer to the public. You just leave it much more open-ended as to how they respond to it. The problem with the show, I suppose, is you're somewhat railroading people into a particular kind of visual response to the music, and they may or may not agree with it. Whereas the album allows that scope, either to not have any kind of mental image, or to have your own personal one, which I'm more than happy to try to foster. Each one has its problems. There's no perfect representation of this project. In any case, if you disagree with the images I'm putting up there, you can always shut your eyes.

 

Let's talk more about the album. I like that it feels very much like a proper album, like a unit, a coherent piece. BuIt also feels like you went back to your roots a little bit.

 

I mean, we're probably moving from the sort of territory which I'm comfortable to talk about into territory that I'm not so comfortable with. I see this as probably more your job than mine, to make those kinds of assessments. I don't mean that in a rude fashion. I just mean, I'm very close with this. I'm concerned with it, as much as I am aesthetically as I am technically. There are numerous ways in which I'm concerned with this music that a listener just wouldn't be. So I think that kind of assessment is really public domain. I don't know what I can offer in that respect. I can certainly say the idea of trying to replicate something I've done in the past is quite offensive to me. Trying to recapture something I was doing 15 years ago, that's certainly a long way from my intentions.

 

But I hear a sense of pleasure in this album that reminds me of, say, Feed Me Weird Things, much more than your recent releases.

 

I would say, in a much more flat-footed way, certainly the album was starting from different premises than the albums I've made in the last seven or eight years — one of the main things being not using any live instrumentation. In a technical sense, there is resonance with what you're saying, because I actually returned to a certain method of making music which — disregarding the fact that I was also working on visuals, which makes it rather different — is not so far away from the techniques I used on, say, Go Plastic, from 11 years ago. There are certainly technical resonances. And of course, though the aesthetic ones may spring up in relation to those, I like to think that I'm not in any way producing a redundant offering, something which is basically a replica of something from before. If there's a sense of resonance between this and earlier work, I'm perfectly happy for that to be there, but as I say, it's more your job and the general public's to explore that and investigate. I'm confident to talk about music in technical terms, in numerical terms, but I'm not necessarily so happy to talk about it in biographical terms, certainly when it comes to my own work.

 

I did want to talk to you about technique. I was struck that, at least on the surface, there are techniques that you were using in your very early records, particularly the rapid-fire beat-repeat effects. How are you constructing the music?

 

The central element of the sessions from this record was the sequencer. It's a very, very, very programming-heavy album. Just information, information, information. It's just lists and lists and lists of numbers going into the sequencer, and that controlling the various sound sources in the studio. It's just a creature, a monster of control, if you like. One of the fundamental things that I set out to do, initially, is that there was going to be no live performance [of instruments on the record]. That's a big deal. That means that there's no manual manipulation of instruments, that it's all coming from data. That lack of manual contact with the sound-making device is, for me, significant. I've spent such a long time working with music in that fashion. It's a big thing for me. If you cut it out, that makes a significant impact on the session.

 

I'd say, as well, it's been like a holiday, making this record. It's so much easier when you don't have to play instruments. If you imagine, over the years, the records that I've made that do feature live instruments, you're moving from the perspective of a recording engineer to the perspective of a musician or a performer, and these two things are quite different. They're quite distinct attitudes. They all have their own concerns and problems associated with them, which are not always particularly compatible. There's the ego, as a performer, and there's the love of the craft from the recording engineer, and also maybe from the producer's perspective, it's much more about trying to keep an overview. It doesn't matter how much you enjoyed playing that; does it work in the piece of music? You've immediately got a tension springs up between the two. I can think, "Ah, I really enjoyed that, and it felt so good," and it sounds great for me, and in the end, the producer side of me is saying, "Yeah, well, doesn't matter. It just doesn't work." Then you have to throw it away. Crikey, that's actually something I've gone out of my way to do. I love that challenge. But throwing that challenge away temporarily, setting it aside and going, "Right. I'm just the programmer. That's it." The perspectives of the programmer and the producer, I feel, are fairly consistent with each other. It's easier to take a step back from it; there's no integrity of performance. There is a craft to programming, but you don't feel precious about what you've done. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and you rewrite it.

 

It's interesting, because there's such a vogue right now for live jamming on hardware synthesizers, just letting the machines run, and editing later. Your approach on this album is really the opposite.

 

Absolutely. I'm trying to leave as little to chance as possible. In this instance, I'm not interested in what the machines can contribute. I'm trying to absolutely dominate them. I'm not trying to get their input. I don't want it.

 

Earlier, you mentioned the ego involved in live performance. You used to be known for some pretty chaotic live performances — I seem to remember you downing a bottle of vodka at a show in San Francisco, many years ago.

 

Oh crikey, yeah. I mean, I'm 37 now. I've lived almost half my life, to an extent, in the public eye. Anyone will recognize that a person can change in significant ways in a 17-year period. Chaos — I've always been attracted to chaos. And there are dangers associated with chaos — musically, as much as there is personal risk associated with that. How can I put it? I look fondly on those days. It's not quite as easy for me to down a bottle of vodka onstage anymore. Maybe because I've got this mask on my head.

 

As I say, chaos has always attracted me. It's a funny thing. My describing the process of making this record as being an absolute creature of control and rational deliberation: I would absolutely say that. I think for some people that the effect on the listener would translate to being quite tedious, quite mechanical. But if I had any conviction that that was the case, I wouldn't have released the record. What I'm trying to do is to foster as much control as I can, so I can actually generate as vivid and hallucinogenic and chaotic experience as I can, just for myself as a listener. You've got to remember that I'm also a listener, as much as I am a composer. One tries to please the other, and yet there are divergent interests.

 

Again, I want a certain thing as a listener, and, coming from the perspective of a composer, you have to confront certain limits. You have to say, actually, "This is what you want to hear, but tough shit." To do that is either really far too difficult, or alternatively, doing this is redundant. I don't want to do that anymore, I want to explore new methods. So the composer has his own attitude. I'm not saying I'm unique, of course, I think everyone who makes music is also a listener, in some fashion or another. But I'm just trying to be as aware as possible of the different needs of the two characters.

 

I was reading an old Pitchfork by Dominique Leone, where he wrote that Ultravisitorsounded like "the work of someone more in love with himself than his audience."

 

[Laughter]

 

A lot of critics seem to have an idea of you being a self-indulgent producer — that you're defying and even frustrating your listener's expectations. How do you feel about that?

 

First of all, any musician that's not self indulgent, I can't imagine that they'd be any good, to be honest. Any musician that puts himself primarily at the service of his audience is likely to quite rapidly become a self-repeating machine. With audiences, there's always a tension. Audiences, particularly at gigs, tend to want to hear the favorites, and if you're not careful, as I see it, and I certainly feel that I've observed it in looking at other people's careers, you can get fenced into an area that the audience wants you in. And if you don't do that, then you risk losing them. This is something that I've tried to get away from as much as I can. Don't feel for a minute that I don't respect the audience. What I'm doing is a mark of respect, in the sense that I'm doing exactly what I always did. I never disavowed the principles which have dictated my work and dictated me becoming known in the first place. What I feel is actually the wrong thing to do is when a musician gets known, having done what they've done out of love and having fun and enjoying themselves, gets known for it and then switches tack and thinks, "If I'm going to continue to be loved and respected by my audience, I have to repeat, I have to keep referring to this moment of glory." And it becomes a prison. It becomes a thing which restricts their future activity and consequently dries up their enthusiasm for their work. And kaput: End of their career.

 

The funny thing is that an audience can also detect this. There's always this tension where you're trying to create the creative process afresh, to give yourself the best chance of giving something to your audience that they're really going to love, and actually show them something new. And that entails sometimes pissing them off. Because to give yourself the chance to do it, you have to keep everything open, you have the creative process fluid, you have to keep the idea of what you are as a musician open-ended, in order that you will have the chance in the future of making something that they will love as much as they did the first thing you did, but also for that to be different to it. Is that clear? Because this is quite an important point for me. And I realize that a lot of people think I'm self-indulgent and that that's a bad thing. I would say: Yes, I am self-indulgent, but it's a good thing.

 

Let me ask you a biographical question related to this. When you were younger, did you have a fan-based relationship with certain artists that led you to think this way? Were you ever disappointed by one of your idols?

 

When I was a teenager, I played in various bands, local bands that were trying to get signed, trying to get known and get out there and establish a career for themselves. I looked at this more as an observer — in these groups, I was not playing my own music, they were not my own pieces. I was more, I suppose, just a bass player, in those days. And typically a lot younger than the people I was playing with. So I saw this process at fairly close quarters, but nonetheless I had nothing really personally at stake. It seemed to me that these bands were desperately trying to get known. And in order to do that, they would really try to calculate what people wanted to hear, and then try to deliver it. It seemed to me that that actually really negated lots of creative possibilities. And when I say creative possibilities, I mean things that can ultimately be rewarding for the fucking audience. I don't just mean things that are enjoyable to play for the musicians that leave the audience cold. I mean things that can actually bring life and vigor to the fucking scene. I remember trying to contribute ideas—"Why don't we try this, why don't we try that? That could be interesting; that could be a new way to articulate this music"—and my ideas were often received in a quite abruptly dismissive way. Like, "No, that's not what people want to hear." But actually, you're making a lot of assumptions about what people want to hear. Why don't we concentrate on what we want to hear, and see if people join in, see if they come along with us, so to speak? But that didn't really ever happen.

 

I've had so much experience with this tendency to try to predict and placate audiences. I thought actually, well, I'm just going to see what can be done when you follow your own interests. Because then, if you win an audience, you've won on every level. You've satisfied yourself, you've satisfied them. If I try and predict the audience, I might well satisfy them, but I've got no guarantee. And I certainly won't have satisfied myself. Every time I make a record I throw everything at risk. I stake everything on it. Because I think, if I win, then I've got the best situation I could be in. And what rational human being would not want to be in the best possible situation? I'm just trying to fucking get to that. And I don't have an interest in frustrating people, but it is sometimes a byproduct of this process. But I'm confident that an attentive listener, even if they don't agree with the aesthetic decisions, will detect commitment and passion in what I've done. And that should be sufficient to keep interested in what I do next. But you know, I'm speculating. I really am. There's no manual for this. Lots of people would summarize my outlook, as you rightly say, as being self-indulgent, and dismiss it. That's up to them. I'm trying to make things which transmit as much love and life to people as I can. Sometimes, by doing that, you actually frustrate people, because you've switched tack. But I switch tack in order to keep alive, to keep the chance of making that perfect record possible.

 

full interview here

[Guest catharsis]

Awesome interview. It's nice to see his stance on musical philosophy, but it's pretty clear from his music that he's not trying to make it listener friendly for the masses. Everything he says makes perfect sense to me (and probably to most everyone else here), but unfortunately many musicians are interested in "making it big" and feel the need to only play what people want to hear, and the trick then becomes finding the right audience.

[acid1]

I'm trying to make things which transmit as much love and life to people as I can. Sometimes, by doing that, you actually frustrate people, because you've switched tack. But I switch tack in order to keep alive, to keep the chance of making that perfect record possible.

 

Cheers Mr Pusher!

[Tessier Ashpool]

Yeah. This is a great interview - his point about not trying to "recreate" a moment of glory is well put (and well taken). I mean, I personally really disliked his last few records, but that's personal taste, and it's hard to fault an artist for exploring different things.

 

It kind of reminds me of Radiohead - they have consistently done different things, tried new avenues, often pissing off their fans because they didn't do a "Bends Part II" or an "OK Computer Part II." In retrospect, however, it is the very commitment to trying things different and new which has made them such a long-standing band of overall high quality. *

 

*yes I know, I should probably raise the flame shield after a statement like that

[beerwolf]

his answer to those last two questions explains exactly why this guy is one of my favourite and most respected artists.

 

agreed.

[ascdi]

Interview is QG

[elusive4]

i cant read this shit seriously.

[elusive4]

try not to use the word "i" so much,

[Adieu]

I posted in the Aphex Twin forums not long ago that Mr. James should use analog video synthesis at his shows. It is interesting to me that Mr. Jenkinson is using it himself now.

 

 

try not to use the word "i" so much,

 

I mean I kind of agree that he comes off a bit wanky and that is to be expected, but I think the type of person he is, the type of music he makes, and the way he leads his life is in a very self-absorbed way. I think that most artists have to live this way especially if they are pushing boundaries and doing things that are very difficult. Good electronic music is so personal that it always seems like an internal discussion when it is really good. So, to ask someone questions about it really seems to me that you shouldn't get answers that don't include a lot of "I's".

[elusive4]

try not to use the word "my" so much,

[pissflaps]

I detect a bit of an angry vibe when the interviewer is basically telling Tom that this sounds like some of his earlier stuff. Because it does: Take "I wish you Obelisk" from the My Red Hot Car EP, listen to the acid bassline, then listen to the acid basslines on this record. As far the programming goes, listen to "Kill Robok" and you see Ufabulum all over the place minus the Ceephax synths.

 

My guess is Tom is having a hard time aknowledging that this isn't the early 2000's anymore, when all of this "genre" of music was getting so perfected by him and his friends, and he and Richard happened to be the first people to exploit it, and now everything they do that resembles this will get compared to his earlier stuff. You simply can't shock people anymore like 10 years ago, at least not us who have been into this music for ages.

 

Richard knows this. This explains why he is literally afraid of releasing anything under "Aphex Twin" after Drukqs. And this would also explain why he is signing (or releasing music under other aliases as far as we know) guys like Wisp, Monolith, Steinvord, JK aka +10, Photodementia (rumors say this is also Steinvord), The Tuss and so on, people who has captured that "Rephlex" charismatic sound, so he can put out the music that he really likes and would like to be putting out without being judged by the mainstream media (because he really cares about it). Just check Pitchfork's review on Ufabulum, im pretty sure Richard doesn't want this, so he is basically making money from live shows and teasing us with "6+ finished albums".

I wonder what Richard and Tom's next move is going to be like. Specially Richard. Tom has been pretty prolific, some of it good, some it dodgy, but generally nothing mindblowing. But Richard, he is making people's expectations bigger and bigger every year, now 10 years and counting, to blow our minds away again like he did with Drukqs. If he doesn't officially announce something really soon, I would stop expecting anything and call it a retirement.

[Adieu]

I detect a bit of an angry vibe when the interviewer is basically telling Tom that this sounds like some of his earlier stuff. Because it does: Take "I wish you Obelisk" from the My Red Hot Car EP, listen to the acid bassline, then listen to the acid basslines on this record. As far the programming goes, listen to "Kill Robok" and you see Ufabulum all over the place minus the Ceephax synths.

 

My guess is Tom is having a hard time aknowledging that this isn't the early 2000's anymore, when all of this "genre" of music was getting so perfected by him and his friends, and he and Richard happened to be the first people to exploit it, and now everything they do that resembles this will get compared to his earlier stuff. You simply can't shock people anymore like 10 years ago, at least not us who have been into this music for ages.

 

Richard knows this. This explains why he is literally afraid of releasing anything under "Aphex Twin" after Drukqs. And this would also explain why he is signing (or releasing music under other aliases as far as we know) guys like Wisp, Monolith, Steinvord, JK aka +10, Photodementia (rumors say this is also Steinvord), The Tuss and so on, people who has captured that "Rephlex" charismatic sound, so he can put out the music that he really likes and would like to be putting out without being judged by the mainstream media (because he really cares about it). Just check Pitchfork's review on Ufabulum, im pretty sure Richard doesn't want this, so he is basically making money from live shows and teasing us with "6+ finished albums".

I wonder what Richard and Tom's next move is going to be like. Specially Richard. Tom has been pretty prolific, some of it good, some it dodgy, but generally nothing mindblowing. But Richard, he is making people's expectations bigger and bigger every year, now 10 years and counting, to blow our minds away again like he did with Drukqs. If he doesn't officially announce something really soon, I would stop expecting anything and call it a retirement.

 

I think you've made some good points, but I think that Ufabulum would be 5 times better if it was just mixed differently. I haven't listened to the album though. I'm only commenting on listening to the single and hearing other people's reactions that matched my own based on that one track. I think that it is possible there are more legitimate reasons AFX is releasing music under different alias's. It is most likely a licensing issue. He always has done it and likely for the same reasons. I wouldn't worry about him continuing to release music, because he released new music as recent as last year. (new analord tracks) I also don't think he gives a shit what the mainstream media say about his work. I think he is passed the point of needing to make money by selling records so what would he have to fear by a poor reception of one of his albums?

[beerwolf]

Think about it. Richard's whole world is making music, it his his life, so don't be too hasty in thinking he will never release under Aphex Twin again.

 

It would be like somebody surgically removing part of his soul.

[lumpenprol]

Tom is playing nice in that interview, but I for one will not forget the bizarre egotistical essay rant from Do You Know Squarepusher?

[pissflaps]

I always had the impression Richard really cared about what the mainstream media has to say about him. It's the mainstream media that made him "the mozart of electronic music" and basically hyped him to worldwide levels. He didn't like at all how Drukqs had such really poor reviews on the most "important" review sites, and since then he has been sort of irrelevant in the electronic scene, to the point Skrillex may very well go down as "the inventor of electronic music that got 3 grammies" in history and newer generations will not know if Aphex Twin even exsisted, if you know what I mean. I think he liked the attention during the MTV days and that attention is what made him rich after all. And in any case, the main point was the fact that he is scared about not surpassing his latest record, because he knows whatever he relases as Aphex Twin will get compared to Drukqs, and Druqks raised the bar so high that only a couple of people ever have made stuff that amazing since then. He always liked to set the bar higher in the electronic scene with every release, and im feeling he can't do it this time.

[YEK]

I always had the impression Richard really cared about what the mainstream media has to say about him. It's the mainstream media that made him "the mozart of electronic music" and basically hyped him to worldwide levels. He didn't like at all how Drukqs had such really poor reviews on the most "important" review sites, and since then he has been sort of irrelevant in the electronic scene, to the point Skrillex may very well go down as "the inventor of electronic music that got 3 grammies" in history and newer generations will not know if Aphex Twin even exsisted, if you know what I mean. I think he liked the attention during the MTV days and that attention is what made him rich after all. And in any case, the main point was the fact that he is scared about not surpassing his latest record, because he knows whatever he relases as Aphex Twin will get compared to Drukqs, and Druqks raised the bar so high that only a couple of people ever have made stuff that amazing since then. He always liked to set the bar higher in the electronic scene with every release, and im feeling he can't do it this time.

 

word... drukqs2

[elusive4]

You simply can't shock people anymore like 10 years ago, at least not us who have been into this music for ages.

 

neg. the problem is even after all that time everyone still looking for immediate shock value on first play. the immediate catched tunes wear off quickly. garbage binned. the good ones have persistance and age well with time. always bene that way with the quality tunes. i still not understand how you guys talk about tunes with such authoritative opinions within first year or 2 of released. how on earth can you know it well by so soon as to put forth a worthy merit of input?

 

Photodementia (rumors say this is also Steinvord),

 

lol if you dont know photodementia then youve got some history for homework to learn.

 

steinvord release is garbage.

[gunnar]

lol if you dont know photodementia then youve got some history for homework to learn.

 

eh what? enlighten us. there is no history on photodementia.

[pissflaps]

neg. the problem is even after all that time everyone still looking for immediate shock value on first play.

You just admited the fact you can't shock people anymore like 10 years ago with that claim.

 

i still not understand how you guys talk about tunes with such authoritative opinions within first year or 2 of released. how on earth can you know it well by so soon as to put forth a worthy merit of input?

I don't care about the actual quality of music in this argument right now, im talking about the straight forward nature that Aphex Twin and Squarepusher used to have with every new release.

Given the fact the more time passes, the more releases you've listened to, the most ready and trained your ears are. After having completely understood and re-listened the most complex and latest releases by folks like RDJ or TJ years ago, it simply becomes easier to judge and decide if you like or not music of this nature. You simply DON'T need so many re-listening sessions to fully grasp and get everything from music like this anymore. I've listened to Ufabulum like 20 times already, and I pretty much know it from tip to toe, and it's safe now to say this is far from groundbreaking or anything of that level. This is what im talking about in this thread. Purely the shocking value and "setting the bar higher than anyone else before" that Richard and TJ always have been conscientiously going for. Richard knows he can't do this at that level anymore, this is a main reason of him not releasing anything under Aphex Twin for such a long time.

Sure, Ufabulum it's more quality "idm" music which is now hard to find, in the sense the Steinvord EP was more quality "idm" music, but nothing sort of groundbreaking. Simply put: This is 2012 and not late 90's anymore. Our ears are used to so much music of this nature that at this point that you don't need a billion listenings per track like you needed when you first purchased Drukqs when it came out, so to speak.

 

 

 

lol if you dont know photodementia then youve got some history for homework to learn.

There is nothing to learn about photodementia that doesn't go beyond bare rumors and not solid facts. The PR by Rephlex sounds like another joke.

 

steinvord release is garbage.

 

neg. That release is the first release in a long time to bite this style not failing misserably, like everyone else. In fact it's pulled off quite well. I also thank that the classic breaks are used on there (Tom, you are not being innovative by using piercing clicks as drums, you are just ensuring I get severe ear fatigue by the end of the track -yes, im talking about Drax 2-)

[Suffocate Peon]

That's one way to describe Red In Blue.

[marf]

I always had the impression Richard really cared about what the mainstream media has to say about him. It's the mainstream media that made him "the mozart of electronic music" and basically hyped him to worldwide levels. He didn't like at all how Drukqs had such really poor reviews on the most "important" review sites, and since then he has been sort of irrelevant in the electronic scene, to the point Skrillex may very well go down as "the inventor of electronic music that got 3 grammies" in history and newer generations will not know if Aphex Twin even exsisted, if you know what I mean. I think he liked the attention during the MTV days and that attention is what made him rich after all. And in any case, the main point was the fact that he is scared about not surpassing his latest record, because he knows whatever he relases as Aphex Twin will get compared to Drukqs, and Druqks raised the bar so high that only a couple of people ever have made stuff that amazing since then. He always liked to set the bar higher in the electronic scene with every release, and im feeling he can't do it this time.

 

 

im sooo glad you are here to tell us what Rich knows about himself

[pissflaps]

im sooo glad you are here to tell us what Rich knows about himself

 

Im so sad that you can't grasp the concept of personal observation, and yours is really poor to not notice Richard's persona has been build in acting as if he doesn't care about the mainstream when he is well aware of it. An obvious recent one: Associating himself with Die Antwood so the mainstream press keeps blogging about him while doing nothing.

[Tessier Ashpool]

lol ok, so, since all we can go on is our opinions and observations, I'll throw in my 2 cents (yes, i know, no one asked, but it's a forum, so there you go).

 

I'd be almost willing to bet my eternal soul that Richard could really give less than 2 fucks about what the mainstream press/media thinks. Or anyone else except his own, internal marker of what is "good." At this point in his career, he's got enough money (from what I understand) to sustain himself for life, and, if you want some "evidence" see the interviews with Steve Beckett at WARP which have indicated that Richard seems to be the artist on WARP that cares the least about trying to please / pander to the outside world. Can't be arsed to find the exact quote, but basically Steve was like "the album will be released when Richard gets it to us, and he frankly doesn't pay much attention to what the outside world thinks of him."

 

Now, it's obvious that Rich is a savvy dude, who understands the importance of the mediated persona, but I highly doubt his association with Die Antwood is about trying to get press/buzz going about himself, but rather that he found kindred spirits who make interesting music and also like to fuck with public perception. Know lots of folks seem to hate on Die Antwood but those cats are probably entertaining as shit to hang out with, and seem to have a similar intelligence about both image and music to Rich.

 

And, finally - as long as the Phex is sticking to not giving a fuck about anyone else's standards than his own, I'm sure that his music will continue to be as soulfelt and pristine as it always is. He's just so on another fucking level that I don't think you can even begin to compare him to existing artists or even genres. Another quote somewhere from him talks about how he doesn't take ANYTHING seriously . . . except his music. And, frankly, haven't seen any true evidence to the contrary . . . and I hope that never changes.

 

That's more like a whole dollar - feel free to give me your change back if ya gots the sense

[sweepstakes]

I'd be almost willing to bet my eternal soul that Richard could really give less than 2 fucks about what the mainstream press/media thinks

I highly doubt his association with Die Antwood is about trying to get press/buzz going about himself, but rather that he found kindred spirits who make interesting music and also like to fuck with public perception.

 

He doesn't care about public perception but he likes to fuck with it? That doesn't seem consistent.

 

This thread is now about The Aphex Twin

[Tessier Ashpool]

I'd be almost willing to bet my eternal soul that Richard could really give less than 2 fucks about what the mainstream press/media thinks

I highly doubt his association with Die Antwood is about trying to get press/buzz going about himself, but rather that he found kindred spirits who make interesting music and also like to fuck with public perception.

 

He doesn't care about public perception but he likes to fuck with it? That doesn't seem consistent.

 

This thread is now about The Aphex Twin

 

Yeah, I know, Aphex Twin hijack in session . . .

 

So, to clarify, I don't think that's inconsistent - it's more that there's a difference between caring what people think about you, and having fun with their expectations. I.E., I don't think he's going around planning his next move because he's worried that someone will judge him - but he probably does things (less so now than perhaps initially) that mess with how people view "the Aphex Twin" because it amuses him, or just because it's plain fun.

 

So, while the OP (pissflaps) is suggesting that he hooked up w/ DA to foster "buzz" about him and "keep him on the radar" I'm disagreeing, and suggesting that he's doing it because it just seems like a fun thing to do.

 

Part of this response is to the idea (also from Pisslaps post) that Richard is not releasing music because he's "worried" it won't live up to expectations, people will judge him in regards to other music/his own catalogue, etc. Just seems really off base (my opinion only) - just can't imagine from everything I've read/heard that Richard is sitting somewhere, fretting over his next album and having arguments with himself about whether or not Skrillrex fans or Pitchfork is going to give him a good review. He seems to make music because he loves making music and, in terms of the name he uses? Well, Aphex Twin stuff sounds like "Aphex Twin" and AFX sounds like "AFX" stuff. Again, my opinion only, but this would explain why, on Analord, Fenix Funk is labeled as Aphex Twin, with the remainder as AFX. FF always has sounded like an Aphex Twin song to me . . . the rest, not so much. . .

 

*shrugs*

 

Of course, opinions are like assholes, and I'm one so whatevs. . . not like this really matters as, personally, I just want him to release an album, as it'd be ace to have both a new Squarepusher and Aphex album in the same year!!! (see how I tried to get back on topic there? ;-P )