Autechre Some thoughts on technicality as part of the process of music

[sergeantk]

This has been something that I've always wondered.. What makes a good musician? Is it writing a catchy hook? Is it selling a million records? Is it completely innovating a new style? Is it being able to play at a virtuoso level?

 

To me it's interesting, as a guitar player. because there seems to be a pretty sharp divide. My guitar teacher, who was a huge classical guy, lived and died by the metronome, and had me use strict music notation and made me write out the "theory" behind every song or riff I had (i say "theory" loosely cause I always composed with my ear) These lessons were a great investment and have given me a proficient technical ability that I am satisfied with for how long I have been playing (6 or so years)

 

However, there's the other side of the coin - people who learn 100% by ear and don't know a damn thing about the theory of music. I used to mock these people but I later realized that perhaps I had lost something that all of these people had - a "pure" ear for music. The notes they heard were just notes, not A or B or C#. Many of these people, however, played by "feel" alone and had shit technical ability. More often or not these players are bad but many of the all time rock legends have no formal training.

 

Now I am considering the analogue for electronic music - the two sides. We have our groups like Autechre, for example, who meticulously program every single note and have incredible "technical proficiency" in electronic music, as it were. These are the masters of shaping sound and know their hardware and software inside and out.

 

Then you have your "want to be famous" producers who use nothing but presets, pirated software, and youtube tutorials. Most of these people are like the insects of the music world - buzzing around and never really doing anything noteworthy. However, like the earlier example, many of these somehow DO make it into the limelight (even if only for 15 minutes). This is with all of the shortcuts, all of the toes stepped on, and none of the real technical knowledge.

 

Does the second approach make you any less of a musician? What does make you a musician? Who should we really look up to - those who innovate quietly or those who spark the masses?

[kcinsu]

All answerless questions.

 

Everyone is a piece in the puzzle of life...

 

Don't get caught up in thinking so much about music... just go make some.

[YEK]

most of my favorite tracks i've made are created with happy accidents..

[Guest chunky]

i enjoy listening to skrillex much more than autechre

[Guest chunky]

i enjoy listening to skrillex much more than autechre

 

i gotta laugh when people talk about simple chord progressions and simple melodies like there is something wrong

music aint just teh fundamental of the note or a list of frequencies

theres so much that can be done with just one or two notes, think of dynamics, timbre, envelope, and the speed of the piece

C or D or F# are just bits of language that we use to communicate easily with each other

the actual C or D or F that you hear in the music can be really varied, it's not like you're listening to pure sine tones playing the fundamental without anything else affecting everything

i dont really agree with teh school teacher approach to music, the one that tells you what to do, no matter how complex or simple

in art the artist does what he wants to do, it doesn't matter how others see it, it's your own personal expression of what is beautiful, it's impossible for you to be wrong because it is your own taste, others cant tell you what you feel

technicality? theres nothing wrong with it in theory. in reality some people will make good art that is complex, others will make simple stuff that works too

for bach and drexciya, the highest goal was to honour God

[tokn]

Well, I would say the second part is the most important. There are people out there trying like a madcap to become a good guitarplayer and though they can do very hard technical stuff they are not even able to keep a beat or improvise something. Being a "real" musician means to me having this natural connection with tones and rhythms, feeling it, not controlling it.

[sergeantk]

 

theres so much that can be done with just one or two notes, think of dynamics, timbre, envelope, and the speed of the piece

C or D or F# are just bits of language that we use to communicate easily with each other

the actual C or D or F that you hear in the music can be really varied, it's not like you're listening to pure sine tones playing the fundamental without anything else affecting everything

i dont really agree with teh school teacher approach to music, the one that tells you what to do, no matter how complex or simple

in art the artist does what he wants to do, it doesn't matter how others see it, it's your own personal expression of what is beautiful, it's impossible for you to be wrong because it is your own taste, others cant tell you what you feel

 

I agree, and this is the problem I had with my teacher... though I wasn't musically mature enough to understand any of this at that point.

Well, I would say the second part is the most important. There are people out there trying like a madcap to become a good guitarplayer and though they can do very hard technical stuff they are not even able to keep a beat or improvise something. Being a "real" musician means to me having this natural connection with tones and rhythms, feeling it, not controlling it.

That's true. To me that's why I am so impressed with jazz musicians. A lot of electronic is in the same vein.

[Cryptowen]

Generally speaking I like the songs that I just kinda threw together without planning better than the ones I spent a lot of time thinking about, & listener feedback seems to agree. My most favouritests are the ones that did have some time invested, but I was able to do each revision with an open mind instead of getting all technical about it

[Friendly Foil]

Generally speaking I like the songs that I just kinda threw together without planning better than the ones I spent a lot of time thinking about <snip>

this. If something doesn't work after a few hours I delete it. someone on here once wrote about 'capturing the magic' and that is very much true. I find that the more I work on a track, the less personal it sounds in the end.

[Cryptowen]

I find that the more I work on a track, the less personal it sounds in the end.

I think it's because when you first start a track, you tend to be more adventurous, throwing out bold or plain crazy ideas in hopes one will lead somewhere. You hit a certain point once you've worked on it enough where it becomes very tempting to round off the "bad" sounds, not realizing that those strange improper bits were what made the track exciting in the first place. It's kinda like how I'd rather listen to someone who sings offkey a bit but has a really interesting voice, as opposed to someone hitting every note perfectly while sounding bland as heck

 

On a related note, I seem to subconsciously alternate between "random grab bag of quickies" albums & "planned out technical tracks" albums. These two being the former, these two being the latter. And sure enough, I've currently gone back to making several tracks a day with less melodic development but more odd sounds. I guess it must stem from getting bored with one method & wanting to try the other for a while

[sergeantk]

I find that the more I work on a track, the less personal it sounds in the end.

I think it's because when you first start a track, you tend to be more adventurous, throwing out bold or plain crazy ideas in hopes one will lead somewhere. You hit a certain point once you've worked on it enough where it becomes very tempting to round off the "bad" sounds, not realizing that those strange improper bits were what made the track exciting in the first place. It's kinda like how I'd rather listen to someone who sings offkey a bit but has a really interesting voice, as opposed to someone hitting every note perfectly while sounding bland as heck

 

On a related note, I seem to subconsciously alternate between "random grab bag of quickies" albums & "planned out technical tracks" albums. These two being the former, these two being the latter. And sure enough, I've currently gone back to making several tracks a day with less melodic development but more odd sounds. I guess it must stem from getting bored with one method & wanting to try the other for a while

 

Holy shit you guys might be on to something, I think this may be one of the things that's really holding back my songwriting lately. I tend to get so much more done in the first couple hours then I do for the rest of the track, often just staring at my computer hoping the song will finish itself (for the record, this is yet to happen)

[marf]

those who innovate quietly

[tokn]

On the other hand, some technicality is important. If we would draw the consequence out of this discussion to just use the first takes, it would as stupid as only creating technical music.

 

I think, things would be a lot easier, if the many steps in producing electronic music would be more seperated and done with the perfect mood: You need a clear head to build a song from a few crazy loops, but to get to the crazy loops, being wasted or creative is more important than being concentrated. Performing is another pair of shoes as mastering is. Most people (including me most of the time) approach all these very different task as if they were one thing, though each actually requires a different spirit.

[sergeantk]

On the other hand, some technicality is important. If we would draw the consequence out of this discussion to just use the first takes, it would as stupid as only creating technical music.

 

I think, things would be a lot easier, if the many steps in producing electronic music would be more seperated and done with the perfect mood: You need a clear head to build a song from a few crazy loops, but to get to the crazy loops, being wasted or creative is more important than being concentrated. Performing is another pair of shoes as mastering is. Most people (including me most of the time) approach all these very different task as if they were one thing, though each actually requires a different spirit.

Another really good point, i have never considered this but I can see how that is true in most situations

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

I really can't give a fuck about musicians.

 

I care about hearing artists that make good music. Technicality in music subjective. Out of all the music I love, I believe only a small percentage of the artists are expressing a difficult level technical music theory or extreme instrument mastering in their musicianship.

 

Technicality for the sake of technical difficulty doesn't appeal to me. Artists that craft incredible music is what matters to me and most of the time what I consider incredible music is not really all that complex. Maybe most people just don't have enough blood flow to keep their heart in the music if they are directing too much of it to music theory/instrument masturbation boners.

 

EDIT: I think I have minor food poisoning, I feel really uneasy. Surprised I only saw one blatant typo.

[Cryptowen]

Either way, time dedication is important. If you wanna make fancy songs you're gonna want to spend ages getting it just so, & if you wanna do simple songs you're probably gonna need to make a shitton of them to ensure you end up with a good handful that stand out from the rest

[kaini]

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

You can and often should spend a lot of fucking time perfecting the writing, texture, recording, layering, sound, design etc. of a relatively simple song by music theory/instrumental difficulty standards.

 

I'm trying to say: great song writers, artful producers, artists who play the music the song needs to reach it's potential rather than masturbate all over the tune etc. > technical musicians who love just being technical without worrying if they are going overboard and ruining what could have potentially been art.

[kaini]

there are thinkers and doers. eno is a thinker. squarepusher is a doer. sometimes we're lucky enough that we get someone who is both, like aphex.

[sweepstakes]

I just got in an argument with a friend about this who thought intentionally not learning theory in order to maintain somekind of sincerity or purity was a copout, willful ignorance. He compared it to intentionally not learning to read. I think you have to find your own way and your own context for the tools, but coming out of that argument I decided I agree with him, it can't really hurt you to learn some theory. Even Autechre, who are otherwise very autodidactic, learned how to create "substantial melodies" from Bola.

[YEK]

You can and often should spend a lot of fucking time perfecting the writing, texture, recording, layering, sound, design etc. of a relatively simple song by music theory/instrumental difficulty standards.

 

I'm trying to say: great song writers, artful producers, artists who play the music the song needs to reach it's potential rather than masturbate all over the tune etc. > technical musicians who love just being technical without worrying if they are going overboard and ruining what could have potentially been art.

 

richard devine?

[sergeantk]

I just got in an argument with a friend about this who thought intentionally not learning theory in order to maintain somekind of sincerity or purity was a copout, willful ignorance. He compared it to intentionally not learning to read. I think you have to find your own way and your own context for the tools, but coming out of that argument I decided I agree with him, it can't really hurt you to learn some theory. Even Autechre, who are otherwise very autodidactic, learned how to create "substantial melodies" from Bola.

 

I somewhat agree with him, it's a tool that really can only help you not hurt you... the notes aren't any less genuine if you know what they are.

 

although, interestingly, i feel that sometimes knowing a lot of theory can put you in a boxed state of mind - i guess there is a happy medium to feeling and knowing, similar to the analogy that was just made regarding Squarepusher, Eno, and Aphex (which was a really interesting point)

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

I disagree completely, I'm able to say what I think is good music to me, but I'm not able to say what is the correct mindset for people to look at making art. You don't think learning about music theory is bad thing for yourself but I guarantee there is a lot of amazing artists that have no interest in learning music theory, follow your interests, follow your heart.

 

It's just as understandable as those who think that having a lot of involvement in music as merely that of a business, recording engineering for a bunch of uninspired musicians, doing live sound for all sorts of random bands, playing session gigs with horrible bands, all sorts of different un-heartfelt music ventures what have you etc. can have a negative impact on continuing thinking that making music a magical spiritual art form.

 

I personally think that true inspiration and motivation to really dive into making music balls deep can be a fragile thing, that some don't respect enough. Different strokes for different folks. Everyone has different limitations as to how often they can be truly inspired and what can prevent from them getting in their mode.

[Dan C]

Learn music theory if you want to make music

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

LOL, that's really fucking stupid to think you have to know theory to make great music. It's like saying every painter needs to go an art school. It's art form based on passion and expression, best learned through experimentation and following your own personal path to learning how to communicate your own voice.

 

Especially dumb that anyone would think you need education in these art forms when hundreds of thousands of the greatest artists couldn't give a fuck about theory.