Sean Booth quote about being surprised by how similar electronic musicians sound to one another..?

[Guest chunky]

"the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest). "

"the combination of all the qualities of a person or thing that delight the senses and please the mind "

Ripped these quotes from dictionary.com

That's the sort of beauty that I'm talking about but I'm also talking about closely related things to that definition when I say beauty

The dictionary speaks of the mind but the thing about beautiful art is that it exists objectively.

It's more like this. Beauty and the balance between subjectivity and objectivity. Beauty that more closely approaches reality than anything else. It's hard to pin down exactly and there are many who would put their feet out to trip up anyone who makes an attempt at that. Think of an imaginary number like we use in complex numbers. It is not real but it is useful and it helps out in reality. Beautiful art also requires this sort of thinking, because art is real before it pleases the mind. A lot of teenage/modern philosophy says 'ignore reality completely, there is nothing outside of the mind', and that's why there's so much dross (mostly labelled 'idm'). There's a reality, and there's your mind too, or something like that?

Like I said, if anyone managed to pin this down without rambling, he'd be a rich man by now!

[Guest chunky]

Limpyloo could you explain further about those writers approach?

 

--

 

"I think, once again, Albini is wrong."

 

That's fine, it's just an old quote from a forum not something that must be defended to the death.

 

Sometimes the questions are more interesting than the answers and the questions can lead to new ideas. The question is, what good is novelty pursued for its own sake in art? Aphex Twin undeniably has done this. Think of metasynth or supercollider or whatever. He goes for the new technology, the novel stuff, then makes some tunes in it, then runs away and looks for another new thing. A few years ago it was dna melodyne. His novelty isn't always a byproduct, it's often the main goal of his album, creating something new. And since Windowlicker he has been reluctant to release music with heavily new techniques in it. Because people steal the ideas. He clearly knows that novelty has been one of his best assets. But just because novelty has served him well, it doesn't mean that other music or art minded people need to follow this philosophy. Beauty might not be others' supreme goal but it is one of the best goals in art, if not the best, and I'd place it higher than chasing the new thing (metal shavings in my burger, sex with screwdrivers, blocked toilet art displays).

[oscillik]

this thread suddenly got very hipster

[MisterE]

Who gives a shit? I mean, really?

you do. one of the reasons you and anyone else listens to autechre is because they sound a little less like the other stuff out there. why would you not give a shit about an artist's effort to do something that's a little more unique? there is something to be said for someone who can work within an already established genre, and bring it a few steps closer to 'perfection', yeah, but it's a whole other thing when someone goes a little outside the box and still makes something that's great. this is at least subconsciously understood by everyone, especially people who listen to idms like 'the chre'.

[SR4]

 

Who gives a shit? I mean, really?

you do. one of the reasons you and anyone else listens to autechre is because they sound a little less like the other stuff out there. why would you not give a shit about an artist's effort to do something that's a little more unique? there is something to be said for someone who can work within an already established genre, and bring it a few steps closer to 'perfection', yeah, but it's a whole other thing when someone goes a little outside the box and still makes something that's great. this is at least subconsciously understood by everyone, especially people who listen to idms like 'the chre'.

 

 

I give a shit about music I enjoy. I don't give a shit about how "similar" artists sound to one another.

 

Like all classical musicians "sound" the same, or all guitarists "sound" the same. Give me a break.

[MisterE]

 

 

Who gives a shit? I mean, really?

you do. one of the reasons you and anyone else listens to autechre is because they sound a little less like the other stuff out there. why would you not give a shit about an artist's effort to do something that's a little more unique? there is something to be said for someone who can work within an already established genre, and bring it a few steps closer to 'perfection', yeah, but it's a whole other thing when someone goes a little outside the box and still makes something that's great. this is at least subconsciously understood by everyone, especially people who listen to idms like 'the chre'.

 

 

I give a shit about music I enjoy. I don't give a shit about how "similar" artists sound to one another.

 

Like all classical musicians "sound" the same, or all guitarists "sound" the same. Give me a break.

so if i were to care enough to go through all of your posts here, i would never see you use words such as 'unique' or anything similar, when describing autechre or any other music, as one of the reasons you like it? you've never said anything like that in life, ever? to you, it's dumb to consider how original/different/unique something is in your appraisal of it? to me that's mind blowing someone would try to actually take that stance- to the point that i find it hard to believe. so to you, like a really creative and unusual piece of architecture scores absolutely no points over a building designed exactly according to a style that's existed for hundreds of years, at least no points for that very creativity in it's design? what would they be judged on then, just their functionality?

 

this is like a whole huge can of worms and you're trying to blow it off by saying 'i likes what i likes', which completely ignores the question of WHY you like it. so i'm really supposed to believe that autechre being less like other electronic stuff has absolutely nothing to do with why you like it? i dont.

[MisterE]

i mean it's ridiculous that i even should have to do this, but:

a) do you like jimi hendrix? do you consider him one of the best guitarists ever like many others? WHY do most people consider him such? is it JUST because of his skill playing or because he pioneered new and different techniques and approaches to not just the guitar but also to effects?

b) do you like directors like tim burton? why?

c) van gogh? i suppose it was dumb of him to try to be different? or are you one of those people who will say 'he wasn't trying to be different, that's just how he saw the world'? like he literally went around seeing swirls in everything he looked at... ? no. there was an effort on his part to create something unique, and anyone saying that there wasn't would be diminishing what he did.

 

if nobody ever focused specifically on doing something a little differently, in any type of art or anything else, we would still be 'cavemen'. i hope you don't consider yourself a progressive, with that attitude.

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

Can we get one of those auto-replace thingies for the word 'hipster' so that something else pops up..

[SR4]

MisterE:

 

listening to something and enjoying it for its uniqueness is a very obsequious statement in its own right- unique can be taken in an infinite number of directions, from timbre and melodic emphasis on certain notes/chords, to chord progression, to rhythmic styles and change ups, to portrayal of atmosphere, to creating other worlds, blah blah blah.

 

yes Ive liked things for being "unique", but I like things for other purposes than being different. Merely liking things for being different has to be a sign of mental illness or insecurity. I like things that can appeal to a myriad of sensibilities, uniqueness is not nearly the top priority.

 

If I like something, "similarity to another artist" usually doesn't factor into me liking that music. I could care less if Atol Scrap sounds like Autechre, its a good fucking record. I could care less if Tycho "sounds similar" to Boards of Canada (which I would still argue he doesn't), Dive was a good fucking record. I could care less if two songs use the same snare, its used well in those particular songs.

 

So don't try to paint me into a corner.

This whole argument or contrived point of debate seems like a self-congratulatory pat on the back BS to hear accolades and confirmation in the "higher" standards of musical intrigues.

 

I could easily say that Autechre sounds "similar" to all other electronic music, because it clearly sounds electronic. Yet people would say this is a rather silly statement. But it relies upon the exact same subjective paradigm that everyone else is referring to.

 

I understand everyone is all excited for the new album, and that's a good thing. That's awesome. But sometimes we tend to take it overboard in these weird vain attempts to show how "low" all other forms of music have become.

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

Music is change. Music is repetition. Tap tap tap, try the Tapatalk Extension.

Music is play. Music is ambition. Take 2 leaks a day to help relieve tension.

[coax]

it sort of goes back to my CGI comparison, that CGI seems to have continued on a linear advancing curve ever since it hit the scene. Audio DSP on the other hand ebbs and flows, and seems to be more defined by trend and novelty than hitting the sort of 'uncanny valley' or moving beyond it. We're still stuck in this odd precarious world of 100GB sampling classical symphony libraries when a keyboard synthesizer was made in 1994 by Yamaha that sounds VERY realistic and can do most symphonic instruments. It was only duophonic, but this was 1994. Imagine what 15 years of DSP development and increased processing could accomplish with the same technology.

 

I haven't heard that Yamaha synth so I can't comment on its realism, but compared to orchestral libraries from the early 00s, todays libraries have a warmth and depth that older libs don't even come close to. There's also been a lot of development in articulations and the way patches are combined and triggered and such. Listen to many digital orchestral arrangers on soundcloud and most of them sound 'real'.

It also seems to me that DSP / audio in general has been improving vastly, maybe not the fundamental concepts, but the increased complexity and ease of use and the increased processing power. Ableton Live really pushed the ease of use it seems to me, and anyone who learns the basic concepts can create highly advanced compositions with tons of 'audio events' that would have been seriously tedious or hard to do 15 years ago due to the processing power along with simple automation, VST and ease of working with samples, pitch, keeping rhythm etc. The same kind of refinement and increased complexity has also happened in the graphics department, with new Adobe applications for example, combining tools and automation of algorhithms that make an advanced calculation in a couple mouse clicks.

 

As far as speech synthesis, I agree, seems to me not much has been happening there, at least not in the commercial market.

 

 

 

just skimmed the thread, but...

 

I think lots of people just tend to make the music they like to listen to. There's nothing wrong with that even if it does lead to "samey" sounds. Experimenting isn't for everyone, partly for this reason. When I started playing piano (7/yo), it was because I REALLY wanted to be able to play Bohemian Rhapsody. Sadly, after I learned how to play it (and a handful of other Queen songs I adored as a kid), I quit playing entirely. I took up music again as a teenager when I was getting into punk rock, but not once have I picked up an instrument with no idea about its capabilities or any reference point for what kinds of music it can really fit into -- I like to learn by example. Experimenting is fine and dandy, but often leads me to unintelligible bullshit. Derivative music almost seems like a joy in comparison to a bunch of people with no particular musical intention patching up noodly atonal sequences and claiming they're onto some sort of grand new musical paradigm, something that "experimental artists" are a bit too eager to say. So let em be samey, it's for the best.

 

, i'm outta here

 

That's a good point, and it depends on the values of the person listening. Someone who's familiarized their brain to novelty and has a general attitude towards getting pleasure from that will seek those elements out. Not much comes for free in this world, especially not the mind, and music needs to be worked on consciously, we can change it, and it does change in the mainstream about what's acceptable, people get acceptance from simple exposure as well.

[MisterE]

MisterE:

 

listening to something and enjoying it for its uniqueness is a very obsequious statement in its own right- unique can be taken in an infinite number of directions, from timbre and melodic emphasis on certain notes/chords, to chord progression, to rhythmic styles and change ups, to portrayal of atmosphere, to creating other worlds, blah blah blah.

 

yes Ive liked things for being "unique", but I like things for other purposes than being different. Merely liking things for being different has to be a sign of mental illness or insecurity. I like things that can appeal to a myriad of sensibilities, uniqueness is not nearly the top priority.

 

If I like something, "similarity to another artist" usually doesn't factor into me liking that music. I could care less if Atol Scrap sounds like Autechre, its a good fucking record. I could care less if Tycho "sounds similar" to Boards of Canada (which I would still argue he doesn't), Dive was a good fucking record. I could care less if two songs use the same snare, its used well in those particular songs.

 

So don't try to paint me into a corner.

This whole argument or contrived point of debate seems like a self-congratulatory pat on the back BS to hear accolades and confirmation in the "higher" standards of musical intrigues.

 

I could easily say that Autechre sounds "similar" to all other electronic music, because it clearly sounds electronic. Yet people would say this is a rather silly statement. But it relies upon the exact same subjective paradigm that everyone else is referring to.

 

I understand everyone is all excited for the new album, and that's a good thing. That's awesome. But sometimes we tend to take it overboard in these weird vain attempts to show how "low" all other forms of music have become.

yeah there are all these different aspects of music. timbre, composition, etc. a genre takes pretty much all of that into consideration, and this is what's been discussed in this thread since the beginning. so those elements were already kind of a given in this conversation. my first comment here was to try to point out that while their sound might be largely different from the average electronic stuff, it's fairly similar when compared across their own various releases. that was taking timbre, composition, all of that stuff into consideration. so in that sense i was kind of in agreement with some of what you just said. while they HAVE pioneered their own sound, their releases are, from a broad perspective, fairly well contained within that sound. they don't invent a new genre with each release, as some people seem to want to give them credit for.

 

i don't think something that sounds like a perfect example of a genre\style is instantly bad just because of that. but it's a 100% true fact that it isn't innovative. if it's a cookie cutter example of acid music, or dubstep, or current pop, then it's not innovative. the word innovation has typically always had good connotations, and there is a damn good reason why. without it, music would still be people beating sticks on hollow logs and chanting, or whatever it was thousands of years ago. some of that shit might be cool to listen to, but after a while i'm going to get bored of it. so did the people around back then, so some of them specifically went out, with 100% intent, and found new ways to make music. new sounds, new compositions, new scales, new rhythms. that stuff didn't just come out of thin air- some clever humans had to generate those ideas. then a bunch of others copied them. so yes, i think it's just a fact that someone who generates some degree of 'new ideas' that are good, is furthering progression more than someone who is simply refining old ones, especially when they wouldn't have those old ideas to work with if someone else hadn't came up with them.

[Friendly Foil]

At least we can all agree on the FACT that Autechre is really, really, really, really amazing music.

[Hugh Mughnus]

At least we can all agree on the FACT that Autechre is really, really, really, really amazing music.

 

I disagree. lol

 

Lots of it is good. Some of it is not.

 

Subjective innit'?

[Friendly Foil]

 

At least we can all agree on the FACT that Autechre is really, really, really, really amazing music.

 

I disagree. lol

 

Lots of it is good. Some of it is not.

 

Subjective innit'?

No. Not when it comes to ae. sry dawg

[MisterE]

At least we can all agree on the FACT that Autechre is really, really, really, really amazing music.

heh, classic foil. guy really likes ae.

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

 

At least we can all agree on the FACT that Autechre is really, really, really, really amazing music.

 

I disagree. lol

 

Lots of it is good. Some of it is not.

 

Subjective innit'?

No. Not when it comes to ae. sry dawg

Sometimes the songs are drawn out far too long with very little changing or sounds developing, and in some places I don't hear any musicality. Pushing the boundaries of what music is, just for the sake of.

 

But when they do it right, they do it better than pretty much anyone else.

 

To each their own. Sometimes I'd rather throw on some old tech house than try and "decipher" the rhythm and musicality of something like draft 7.30; listening to music shouldn't always be a pretentious, uphill, interpretive battle.

[SR4]

yeah there are all these different aspects of music. timbre, composition, etc. a genre takes pretty much all of that into consideration, and this is what's been discussed in this thread since the beginning. so those elements were already kind of a given in this conversation. my first comment here was to try to point out that while their sound might be largely different from the average electronic stuff, it's fairly similar when compared across their own various releases. that was taking timbre, composition, all of that stuff into consideration. so in that sense i was kind of in agreement with some of what you just said. while they HAVE pioneered their own sound, their releases are, from a broad perspective, fairly well contained within that sound. they don't invent a new genre with each release, as some people seem to want to give them credit for.

 

i don't think something that sounds like a perfect example of a genre\style is instantly bad just because of that. but it's a 100% true fact that it isn't innovative. if it's a cookie cutter example of acid music, or dubstep, or current pop, then it's not innovative. the word innovation has typically always had good connotations, and there is a damn good reason why. without it, music would still be people beating sticks on hollow logs and chanting, or whatever it was thousands of years ago. some of that shit might be cool to listen to, but after a while i'm going to get bored of it. so did the people around back then, so some of them specifically went out, with 100% intent, and found new ways to make music. new sounds, new compositions, new scales, new rhythms. that stuff didn't just come out of thin air- some clever humans had to generate those ideas. then a bunch of others copied them. so yes, i think it's just a fact that someone who generates some degree of 'new ideas' that are good, is furthering progression more than someone who is simply refining old ones, especially when they wouldn't have those old ideas to work with if someone else hadn't came up with them.

sure, but again, that's the catch. "Innovation" is largely a subjective term and can be taken an infinite number of ways.

 

When you say Autechre is "innovative", my first response is probably to want to agree, but then I ask "How are they innovative?" because I cannot clearly identify or completely agree with that after thinking about it. If I did, just about every musician Ive ever listened to has been innovative in SOME way.

 

Now I have no problem with people praising someone or something as innovative, but when I hear people jump lock-step with Booth's opinion like they've been holing it up all this time makes me cringe a little bit.

 

Sean Booth thinks electronic musicians all sound the same. So fucking what? He's awesome at making music, but what the hell makes him the authority on determining "similarity"? What similarity is he specifically speaking of?

 

I hear this argument so many goddamn times it angers me almost as much as when musicians are accused of "selling out". THis is literally only a few words away from that old peach, "There's nothing new or original in music anymore."

 

If Mr. Booth believes electronic musicians sound similar to each other, then he's either being willingly ignorant in a wave of the hand, ivory tower, resting-on-laurels kind of way, OR he's being lazy. The answer that's always given to statements concerning lack of good music, or unique music or original music, is that those people making those statements just aren't trying. They either aren't striving to create what they believe is lacking, or they aren't listening to the utterly IMMENSE and exponentially expanding markets/areas of musical composition. Claims like that are absolute nonsense; they are saying less about the quality of all music being released, but they are saying more about the amount of music being released, and recognized in different degrees. The same technology that millions will "abuse" or refuse to wonk with to sound "original" is used by the tens of people every generation that DO make something amazing and recognized on large levels that never would have happened without modern social tech, soundcloud, etc.

 

People hated Prodigy for opening the doorways to cheesy rave-knockoffs. But didn't Prodigy make something absolutely massive back in the day with the same means/instruments/techniques? Didn't they influence at least one person or group that made something amazing? Again, its a subjective argument, and that's why I scratch my head when people get on board with these types of comments.

 

Remember when Stockhausen talked about Aphex with this very academic hu-tu-tuh attitude? Shouldn't we take his opinion more seriously than Sean Booth's? Or Richard D. James? Because Stockhausen is arguably more of an "innovator" and recognized as such than the other two?

 

Well, IMHO absolutely not, but I don't see why posing that is any different from Booth saying this nonsense.

 

Look, I like Autechre, I love their records, I like their musicianship, I like their ideas, I like their melodies, I like their beats. I LOVE Tri Repetae. I respect a great deal of what they have to say because of my love of their work. But this statement is lazy. It reeks of someone a little detached from reality*, or at the very least detached from once again the Massive, utterly massive amount of music being released and created and translated and transferred over billions of different internet connections.

 

I don't understand how in a musical community like this, with people coming up with amazing music from all sorts of different genres, experiences, with different instruments and software, and musical background or training, completely within their own bedrooms, or over internet chat/email with one another in a collaborative effort, that we collectively nod our heads that electronic music sounds "similar" to other electronic music as if its some sort of plague infecting these great grand inventors of the synthfuck-Wheel.

 

*deep breath*

 

I love you guys.

 

 

 

*when I say this, Im not saying that Booth is going insane ala Howard Hughes, I mean it in a subdued, relative sense...sorta like someone being "detached" from the outside world if they don't use any electronics or newspapers over vacation. That sort of detached.

[SR4]

 

 

At least we can all agree on the FACT that Autechre is really, really, really, really amazing music.

 

I disagree. lol

 

Lots of it is good. Some of it is not.

 

Subjective innit'?

No. Not when it comes to ae. sry dawg

 

LOL. I think we can agree on the fact that we enjoy the majority of Autechre's output.

[Hugh Mughnus]

I also like most of it.

[ZoeB]

I haven't heard that Yamaha synth so I can't comment on its realism

 

I believe they're referring to the Yamaha VL-1, VL1-m, VL-7 and VL-70m range. The Yamaha VL-1 along with a Korg Trinity were the two main (if not only?) instruments used to make the Riven soundtrack, for example, which is quite a nice ambient album in its own right. The real advantage of physical modeling is that you can cross pollinate instruments to create ones that can't physically exist, such as a bowed woodwinds. (Wendy Carlos also talks about creating hybrid timbres in her Secrets of Synthesis album, using the older and simpler digital techniques available at the time.) It's one of the few areas of music technology innovation which properly emerged in the nineties.

[Guest disoriental express]

 

I haven't heard that Yamaha synth so I can't comment on its realism

 

I believe they're referring to the Yamaha VL-1, VL1-m, VL-7 and VL-70m range. The Yamaha VL-1 along with a Korg Trinity were the two main (if not only?) instruments used to make the Riven soundtrack, for example, which is quite a nice ambient album in its own right. The real advantage of physical modeling is that you can cross pollinate instruments to create ones that can't physically exist, such as a bowed woodwinds. (Wendy Carlos also talks about creating hybrid timbres in her Secrets of Synthesis album, using the older and simpler digital techniques available at the time.) It's one of the few areas of music technology innovation which properly emerged in the nineties.

the Riven soundtrack was LUSH.... it reminded me of Steve Roach in a way...

[awepittance]

id like to check out the riven soundtrack. Its sort of a secret weapon among hollywood/game music composers and sound designers. It seriously sounds fucking amazing with some automation and an actual breath controller. Shocking that its over 15 years old and still sounds better than any 200 gigabyte sampling library in existence.

if you have extreme dedication to unparalleled extremely powerful 'realistic' synthesis, the Korg Oasys PCI card for windows98/Os9 is probably the best phys mod device ive used besides the Vl1. Extremely rich harmonics and sustains on the synthetic drum and bell sounds.

[coax]

 

I haven't heard that Yamaha synth so I can't comment on its realism

 

I believe they're referring to the Yamaha VL-1, VL1-m, VL-7 and VL-70m range. The Yamaha VL-1 along with a Korg Trinity were the two main (if not only?) instruments used to make the Riven soundtrack, for example, which is quite a nice ambient album in its own right. The real advantage of physical modeling is that you can cross pollinate instruments to create ones that can't physically exist, such as a bowed woodwinds. (Wendy Carlos also talks about creating hybrid timbres in her Secrets of Synthesis album, using the older and simpler digital techniques available at the time.) It's one of the few areas of music technology innovation which properly emerged in the nineties.

 

 

Aha. Thanks for the info, cool stuff. I should also make a slight apology to awepittance. I didn't see the earlier posts in the thread about the topic. I went a bit fast with my reply. Wendy Carlos rocks.

[ilt17]

Even within the early R&S group there were others with similar talents but who didn't make the break like RDJ did. Locust being one of them. Personally, I could see Joey Beltram, CJ Bolland and Robert Leiner making similar progressions as well but they just didn't.

 

Locust maybe yes but the others : no way! The only "wicked" thing out those 3 last men would be the "Source EP" by Leiner in 92, otherwise the rest is like 90% 4/4 beat and 10% "303+reverb = ambient", nothing as varied, versatile & creative as Aphex proposed back then!

 

Not saying they haven't good tracks, they all do but they're just on different planets. + Leiner & Co. had all the necessary contacts to go further but their creativity didn't follow, see what they did after 1995, nothing groundbreaking anymore.