XI year old Autechre Album Released: Exai (WARP234)

[Alcofribas]

with the exception of quaristice every time autechre release an album i think it's their best one. it is a little uncomfortable thinking that when I'm so much more familiar with earlier works but that's just always how it goes with me.

[joseph]

More going on than on Confield? Is that a joke?

 

Even Chi Slide is more "dynamic" than a lot or most of Exai. Part of the brilliance of Chiastic is how repetitive it sounds on the surface when really it's constantly transforming.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Joseph

[Candiru]

More going on than on Confield? Is that a joke?

 

 

 

Nope. Not only does it sound a lot busier, but it's just more funky, groovin' and melodic than Confield. A lot of the time, the sound of a new frontier isn't as exciting as its later incarnations. Or some shit.

[Guest Rulohead32]

I GOT EXAI BOIS

 

 

SO EXAITED :D

[Turbo Zwanengestuif]

with the exception of quaristice every time autechre release an album i think it's their best one. it is a little uncomfortable thinking that when I'm so much more familiar with earlier works but that's just always how it goes with me.

Worked and works so far the same for me. (if it might be any relevance to mention)

[Alcofribas]

sean pls

[fizzkinz]

more fun than Confield, if not as novel at the time of its release.

This confuses the hell out of me.

Not the fun part. Maybe Exai is more fun than confield.

But as far as novel upon release... There is no way! I really like Exai, but it is hardly reinventing the sound of electronic music, or pushing new grounds. It's great in what it presents, but it's really just a well executed example of current techniques and musical directions.

Confield definitely turned everything on its head and went into some uncharted territory, especially for the time of release

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

more fun than Confield, if not as novel at the time of its release.

This confuses the hell out of me.

Not the fun part. Maybe Exai is more fun than confield.

But as far as novel upon release... There is no way! I really like Exai, but it is hardly reinventing the sound of electronic music, or pushing new grounds. It's great in what it presents, but it's really just a well executed example of current techniques and musical directions.

Confield definitely turned everything on its head and went into some uncharted territory, especially for the time of release

 

 

There are definitely some songs off Exai that are "pushing new grounds"....

 

Fleure and VekoS come to mind immediately.

 

I'd love to hear some other songs that use the same techniques and musical direction. Provide examples please!

[joseph]

 

More going on than on Confield? Is that a joke?

 

 

 

Nope. Not only does it sound a lot busier, but it's just more funky, groovin' and melodic than Confield. A lot of the time, the sound of a new frontier isn't as exciting as its later incarnations. Or some shit.

 

Well you're just factually wrong. Confield is way more dense and intricate on average than Exai. Even superficially complicated tracks like Fleure are way easier to unravel than, say, Lentic or Pen Expers.

 

Draft beats them both by a mile.

[oscillik]

farts into the wind

 

- Arthur Schoppenhair

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

 

More going on than on Confield? Is that a joke?

 

 

 

Nope. Not only does it sound a lot busier, but it's just more funky, groovin' and melodic than Confield. A lot of the time, the sound of a new frontier isn't as exciting as its later incarnations. Or some shit.

 

Well you're just factually wrong. Confield is way more dense and intricate on average than Exai. Even superficially complicated tracks like Fleure are way easier to unravel than, say, Lentic or Pen Expers.

 

Draft beats them both by a mile.

 

 

I don't even like Confield. Listened to it once and threw it in the garbage.

 

I guess different people like different things. What an epiphany.

[joseph]

 

 

 

More going on than on Confield? Is that a joke?

 

 

 

Nope. Not only does it sound a lot busier, but it's just more funky, groovin' and melodic than Confield. A lot of the time, the sound of a new frontier isn't as exciting as its later incarnations. Or some shit.

 

Well you're just factually wrong. Confield is way more dense and intricate on average than Exai. Even superficially complicated tracks like Fleure are way easier to unravel than, say, Lentic or Pen Expers.

 

Draft beats them both by a mile.

 

 

I don't even like Confield. Listened to it once and threw it in the garbage.

 

I guess different people like different things. What an epiphany.

 

Sure, but your musical taste doesn't change the fact that Confield is more dense and intricate on average than Exai.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Joseph

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

 

 

 

More going on than on Confield? Is that a joke?

 

 

 

Nope. Not only does it sound a lot busier, but it's just more funky, groovin' and melodic than Confield. A lot of the time, the sound of a new frontier isn't as exciting as its later incarnations. Or some shit.

 

Well you're just factually wrong. Confield is way more dense and intricate on average than Exai. Even superficially complicated tracks like Fleure are way easier to unravel than, say, Lentic or Pen Expers.

 

Draft beats them both by a mile.

 

 

I don't even like Confield. Listened to it once and threw it in the garbage.

 

I guess different people like different things. What an epiphany.

 

Sure, but your musical taste doesn't change the fact that Confield is more dense and intricate on average than Exai.

 

 

What is your measurement of density and level of intricacy?

 

Do you have some sort of equation or are you basing this on your own hearing? If the latter, than it's a matter of subjectivity and yes, that changes with the person.

[Hugh Mughnus]

whoops nevermind you're right. I threw it in my complexometer here and Confield wins.

[joseph]

Yes it's based on my own ears, which work just fine.

 

It's ridiculous to say that I can't use my ears to determine whether some music is more complex than some other music, even without a precise definition of "complex".

 

Would you agree that this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nklzAUrXSuM

 

is less intricate than this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc2G5b5NvE4

 

which is still less intricate than this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGfUfu9vsj4

 

????

If you agree, then you agree that intricacy and density are not "all subjective". I'm saying that under reasonable usages, Confield is more dense and intricate. Maybe you should pull it out of your garbage can and listen again!

 

The last video is not even all that high in the chain of complexity, but for example Bladelores, JTVC, T ess xi, don't get much past the first one.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Joseph

[Hugh Mughnus]

I didn't really throw it out, lol.

 

I'm saying some people who have ears that work fine hear Exai as more complex and then you hear Confield with your ears that work fine as more complex.

 

So there's that!

 

Agree to disagree or whatever the kids say these days. Yolo. Or... brah. ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

autechre pls

Edited September 27, 2013 by StephenG

[joseph]

The last video is not even all that high in the chain of complexity, but for example Bladelores, JTVC, T ess xi, don't get much past the first one.

 

And since it has led to fruitful discussion, I'll clarify what I mean. I'm talking about sonic intricacy, not "composition". The second track on Exai is compositionally better and you might say "more intricate" than everything on Confield.

 

 

If someone tells me that YJY UX is more dense and intricate than Bine, their ears are broken. It's a matter of fact. If someone told you the sun looked purple, you wouldn't write it off as "opinions are like assholes, dude".

 

I won't agree to disagree, I will agree that you're wrong. Why can't we talk critically about music here on WATMM? It only takes five seconds for someone to tell me that "my opinion is like an asshole" or that "music is subjective" or some shit like that. (Sorry to take it out on you StephenG, it's a widespread illness here)

Edited September 27, 2013 by Joseph

[Hugh Mughnus]

I don't have the technical knowledge to discuss music critically.

 

How are you gauging complexity though? that is what I don't understand. Because one person may hear certain rhythmic components in a song where another person doesn't. Most listeners dismiss most of what I listen to as "noise" and don't hear music at all.

 

I've often listened to music and dismissed it as simple only to come back years later and "get it", so to speak.

 

Also it seems you are using "density" and "intricateness" as the ultimate measure for which listening experience is better. Quite frankly, listen-ability, replayability, and overall sound design should come into play as well.

 

Shit. Sometimes I prefer to listen to Astroblaster rather than Ziggomatic v17 (both afx, I know).

 

Sometimes one is a better listening experience.

Edited September 27, 2013 by StephenG

[joseph]

Also it seems you are using "density" and "intricateness" as the ultimate measure for which listening experience is better. Quite frankly, listen-ability, replayability, and overall sound design should come into play as well.

Where did I say that? I haven't said whether or not I actually think Confield is better than Exai.

[Hugh Mughnus]

You didn't say it explicitly, it's just the impression I was getting.

 

Am I incorrect in that assumption? (I blame the interwebz)

Edited September 27, 2013 by StephenG

[joseph]

How I'm gauging intricacy is hard to convey, but it doesn't mean it's just a matter of opinion. Just like beauty is not a matter of opinion.

 

The three videos I posted form an ascending chain of rhythmic intricacy, this is hopefully not too controversial.

 

They also form an increasing sequence of compositional intricacy: Each one requires considerably more information to specify how to execute a performance.

 

They also form an increasing sequence of sonic intricacy in the following sense: The first one is just a series of tones, the second one may use a lot of instruments, but the instruments themselves are not very important. There is no official instrument list for In C! I think there are conventions and standards of harmoniousness, though. The third one is composed in the typical, classical sense, with a list of players and instruments who have crucial roles that cannot be changed without destroying the idea.

 

 

(And yes, you are incorrect to assume that I only value intricacy/whatnot. Personally I haven't even decided which of Confield and Exai I love more. It's close.)

Edited September 27, 2013 by Joseph

[oscillik]

 

 

 

 

More going on than on Confield? Is that a joke?

 

 

 

Nope. Not only does it sound a lot busier, but it's just more funky, groovin' and melodic than Confield. A lot of the time, the sound of a new frontier isn't as exciting as its later incarnations. Or some shit.

 

Well you're just factually wrong. Confield is way more dense and intricate on average than Exai. Even superficially complicated tracks like Fleure are way easier to unravel than, say, Lentic or Pen Expers.

 

Draft beats them both by a mile.

 

 

I don't even like Confield. Listened to it once and threw it in the garbage.

 

I guess different people like different things. What an epiphany.

 

Sure, but your musical taste doesn't change the fact that Confield is more dense and intricate on average than Exai.

 

I'd be interested to see your objective evidence to prove that Confield is more dense and intricate than Exai.

[joseph]

How could I prove that? I can't even prove the earth is round.

 

You can measure it in a lot of ways, but the best way is just by listening carefully to the layers, sampling, frequency of rhythmic and sonic shifts, degree of fucked-up-ness generally.

 

Have you listened to Confield carefully? Have you listened to Exai carefully?

Edited September 28, 2013 by Joseph

[Hugh Mughnus]

I can't even prove the earth is round.

 

 

 

hehehehe =)

 

Summary of evidence for a spherical earth[edit]

These are given in an order which approximates how they were observed historically:

1. When at sea it is possible to see high mountains or elevated lights in the distance before lower lying ground and the masts of boats before the hull. It is also possible to see further by climbing higher in the ship, or, when on land, on high cliffs.
2. The sun is lower in the sky as you travel away from the tropics. For example, when traveling northward, stars such as Polaris, the north star, are higher in the sky, whereas other bright stars such as Canopus, visible in Egypt, disappear from the sky.
3. The length of daylight varies more between summer and winter the farther you are from the equator.
4. The earth throws a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
5. The times reported for lunar eclipses (which are seen simultaneously) are many hours later in the east (e.g. India) than in the west (e.g. Europe). Local times are confirmed later by travel using chronometers and telegraphic communication.
6. When you travel far south, to Ethiopia or India, the sun throws a shadow south at certain times of the year. Even farther (e.g. Argentina) and the shadow is always in the south.
7. It is possible to circumnavigate the world; that is, to travel around the world and return to where you started.
8. Travelers who circumnavigate the earth observe the gain or loss of a day relative to those who did not. See also International Date Line.
9. An artificial satellite can circle the earth continuously and even be geostationary.
10. The earth appears as a disc on photographs taken from space, regardless of the vantage point.

Edited September 28, 2013 by StephenG

[joseph]

Hopefully you know that none of those constitutes proof. If I want to, I can just say that those reflect the subjective experiences of the "observers".

 

Similarly, when confronted with the changing-every-second sonic hurricane that is Bine, versus a track like JTVC that just repeats itself over and over, it's consistent to always say "the intricacy of these tracks is just my personal experience. There are not right or wrong answers". But you'll look extremely silly in the process - just about as silly, I'd say, as a flat-earther.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Joseph