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

[sheatheman]

How is copying Sean Booth's philosophy different than less successful electronic musicians copying more successful ones?

[LimpyLoo]

How is copying Sean Booth's philosophy different than less successful electronic musicians copying more successful ones?

 

Such a goofy question, but the answer is nobody's "copying Sean Booth's philosophy." Rather, people who are open to reason, hear his words and think "yes, that is true."

 

That's like saying that if you agree that gravity is real then you are copying Isaac Newton's philosophy (or something akin to that).

[joseph]

Exactly!

[awepittance]

haha really weird question. It's like saying 'but it's uncreative to copy someones philosophy who's encouraging people to be more creative' lol

[goDel]

 

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.

I think you're missing a couple releases (and youre giving these other artists not enough credit and rdj too much - especially pre 95), and also my point. I was hoping to say that before 95 all these artists released material which in their own way was trailblazing, had distinct styles or had some similarities in the creativity. Before 95 rdj was not nearly as prolific as after imo. not saying he wasnt, but back then he wasnt on a more different planet than these other examples were, imo! It pretty obvious that rdj's entire catalogue is more prolific than all these artists combined. But if you only take pre 95, things change, imo.

 

Take leiners debut album organised noise, for instance. A track like neuromancer is, imo!, up there with something like digeridoo. I know i'm not taking a popular position. And most of it might have to do with leiner laying the groundwork for what later was going to be trance and gaia and all that... Fill in yourself, but it wouldn't be positive.

 

Another example would be cj bollands neural paradox ep. The composition of a track like austral body is pretty brilliant, imo. Especially when taking into account that it's all hardware. ( i admit i'm not nearly as knowledgable in this department as most of you, but i think i can get away with this one). And here will be my next point. The reason why these other artists did not make a evolution which could be equal to rdj's, is, imo, that they werent able to make the software transition the way rdj did. That neural paradox ep is, imo pushing the limits on hardware composition. But when you have rdj starting to release the software stuff like on both habs, i think you can see why i think these artists have missed the boat around 95. They were stuck in hardware world.

[splesh]

 

I make the most original music in the world.

It's neither rhythmic nor arrhythmic; neither tonal nor atonal; neither random nor orderly; it uses neither acoustic instruments nor synthetic instruments; it exists not only outside the frequency spectrum audible to humans, but the frequency spectrum itself; it isn't derived from anything else, nor can anything be derived from it.

God, I just came in my pants.

flol

[MisterE]

 

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.

 

That seems like an oversimplification, though, because you're assuming that everyone has heard everything. If I've never heard x album, how can my work be derivative of it? Just because something came first doesn't mean it inspired everything similar that came after.

 

You're also discounting the fact that we're all mostly using similar equipment, we have similar brains, and, while there are infinite ways of making songs, it all boils down to some combination of different components. To put it more simply, if you have twenty guitarists and they each compose a song, there will inevitably be similarities and overlaps. Maybe some use the same cadence or finger picking technique. All are still original.

 

There is no progress in art.

there is no progress in art? ok that statement right there causes me to just discredit everything you have to say on the matter, but i'll address some of the other stuff anyway. just because there are a lot of people around here who want to think that their very autechre or analord sounding music is in no way derivative of autechre or aphex, does not make it so. and just because you might not have specifically heard aphex himself does not mean you have not been influenced by him or that your work may not be at all derivative of ideas he came up with. the question i'm getting at here, is would Y exist without X. if the answer is NO, then, well, the answer is NO. you can be influenced by one of the many many other acts who WERE influenced by X, and so your work can still be derivative regardless of whether or not you actually heard X.

 

look, i know it sucks people, but the fact is that some people are just smarter, more clever, and more creative than you. the reason why aphex has gone down in history is because he was one of the first. any intelligent, thinking person understands that the more influential figures in history are, well, MORE INFLUENTIAL. thats how simple this concept is. i can define it by itself. its ridiculous the lengths some of you people want to go to here. if you grew up in the wild, in a cave, since infancy, and someone brought you a drum machine and showed you how to use it to some extent, and some synths and computers, lets just say for the sake of argument that this was possible (showing such a person how to use this stuff), you would come up with stuff that would be a lot different than the stuff thats out there right now. now this ignores the fact that those synths and drum machines were also following the same types of influences, so yes, a drum machine is probably going to be geared towards a 4/4 beat, and a synth will be tuned for chromatic scale. so lets say that these drum machines and synths given to this feral cave person were magical and had no bias and that person could construct any rhythm and any scale, and that there were some drive to do such with that equipment.

 

for people to try to actually argue that the reason why almost all electronic music uses similar structures, rhythms/beats, time sigs, tempos, timbres, harmonies, melodies, scales, etc etc etc, to try to suggest that its merely a coincidence and not because of things being influenced by clever ideas which at some point in history can be PINPOINTED to one person, or maybe a group of people, is just beyond braindead. no. its not coincidence. its because you made your stuff according to something else you heard. you liked THEIR ideas, so you used them. OR you used ideas that have been used so many times over that they are just floating in the ether to grab, but at some point they were still originated by a person. at some point in history, someone originated that idea, and guess what? it wasn't you. that's why elvis, the beatles, aphex, herbie hancock, miles davis, squarepusher, motzart, beethoven, etc etc etc, those guys do go down in history (to various extents). they originated maybe one or two ideas each, beyond utilizing all the ideas that were out there for them to grab at. and yes i am oversimplifying things. when i talk about 'ideas' it gives the impression that it can be quantized down to a single idea or two. the influence might come from the overall presentation, maybe old ideas are combined in a new way, or with a new attitude or twist. a genre happens because a few acts actually pioneered a particular sound, and then a lot of other people copied it. FACT.

[MisterE]

Yes, obviously cause and effect come into play. No shit. I'm talking about progress in terms of some abstract idea of quality.

ok maybe that's what you meant, but its not what you said, at all. and what you did say was wrong.

"There is no progress in art." you did not qualify what KIND of progress you were talking about. you just said there is NO progress in art. some, or rather, MOST people, would take that to mean exactly what it says. that there is NO progress (of any kind). also, you were replying to me, and i don't think i ever said anything about 'quality' in any of my statements about influence/innovation in this thread, so you're kind of changing the subject here. although, i would say that an artist who influences more people, is probably what i would consider a 'better artist' than one who doesn't, on average. sure there are going to be some exceptions- great artists that nobody ever hears of and that's just the luck of the draw. but to influence lots of other brains out in the world is a thing.

There's no objective way to compare art,

a very blanket statement which is not always true.

so you can't say that art is getting better over time. It's not better electronic music because some new invention came about... that invention could exist, and you could choose not to use it, and it could still be subjectively good to someone. Just sitting around and moaning because you haven't invented anything is retarded. Use the existing technology, use the sawteeth and the boomer BDs. Have fun. Stop the narcissistic attempt to futilely immortalize yourself in history. The sun will explode anyway.

a) you maybe could say art is getting better, depending on how you define the word 'better', but i dont really care about that because it wasn't anything to do with what i was saying when you replied to me.

b) i mean, i basically agree with what you are trying to say here. quality is quality.

c) nobody was, or at least i wasn't, 'moaning about not inventing anything'.

d) i think it's narcissistic (and maybe a bit ironic and hypocritical) of you to tell others to stop doing something which i haven't seen anyone actually say they are even trying to do (immortalizing ourselves in history). but i mean, who are you to tell others that if that's their goal, that they shouldn't try to go after it, and that it's somehow wrong or narcissistic? maybe some people would like to go after the idea of being well known, influential, respected, etc etc etc and all the stuff that comes along with. in fact i wouldn't be at all surprised if you were even one of those people. but tell me this- is it narcissistic of an athlete to push themselves to be not only the best they can be, but to measure their accomplishments against others and to try to surpass those? maybe it is, but even if that's the case does that mean it's a bad or wrong thing to do? to try to be 'the best' at something, even if that goal is vague and kind of impossible? just to be influential around the world, to be considered a great or whatever, you are saying that that's a dumb goal. well, i'm sorry but i wholeheartedly disagree with this mentality. and again, i never personally said any of this was my goal so youre making more assumptions. but if it is anyone's goal, i say go for it. don't let someone tell you that you're being too much of a 'try-hard' or whatever it is that some people seem to think. they have their reasons for not wanting to think outside the box. let them have their reasons to stay in that box, and DON'T let them tell you that you should stay in that box also if you have other ideas. leave them in the box to themselves. that said, i also never said it was horrible to stay in the box. i believe i did say that there is something to be said for perfecting existing ideas.

In all seriousness, you'd have to invent all your own technology... you can't stand on anyone's shoulders if you want to be "original". Pretty sure RDJ didn't harness the power of electricity independent of the rest of the world, or stumble upon the 12 TET scale coincidentally.

this is another straw-man argument. you are making things completely just black or white, which is just absolutely nothing like how they are. i already pointed out that everyone is standing on the shoulders of people who came before. but i'll say this again- the people who take those ideas further in new directions, or who come up with a new or slightly new idea, and if those ideas click with other people or if they are seen to be improvements on something (this applies not just to music but to tech of any kind and basically anything made by humans), then those are influential people. they earn that description by being clever enough to think of a 'better' way, or a different way that appealed to people. 'originality' is a relative term. obviously nobody can start from scratch. it doesn't mean we should strike the word 'originality' from the dictionary.

I think we're agreeing in a way... everything has a source. Except you're claiming that those who have innovated have somehow made qualitatively "better" art, which is a common misconception. I want the newest car, the most cutting edge phone, and the "most advanced" music.

except that i never said this. you just assumed that that's what i meant.

Pretty sure some tribes 4000 years ago were doing interesting things with polyrhythms.

ok?

To add to this... you're just assuming that everyone who has made an innovation has received worldwide attention.

i never said that either. i mean, i just, absolutely, never, did, say, that.

Is popularity the ultimate mark of "innovation?"

we are talking about a few different things here. 'influential' implies that an innovation caught on with others and became popular. i was talking about both innovation and influence.

It's not a popularity contest.

ok. except that it is. just like everything else down to presidential elections.

Art doesn't exist in a hierarchy. So therefore I don't see any progress.

except that it does and there is.

[luke viia]

MisterE, I just want you to know that your posts really irritate me. I hope you can 'except' that and 'stop' using 'apostrophes' in your 'assertive' ill-informed 'opinions' of 'art.' 'Thank you.'

[Alcofribas]

'lol'

[sheatheman]

 

How is copying Sean Booth's philosophy different than less successful electronic musicians copying more successful ones?

 

Such a goofy question, but the answer is nobody's "copying Sean Booth's philosophy." Rather, people who are open to reason, hear his words and think "yes, that is true."

 

That's like saying that if you agree that gravity is real then you are copying Isaac Newton's philosophy (or something akin to that).

 

No, it's the equivalent of getting up every day and saying "Gravity is so effing amazing, it helps me do so much while keeping me grounded in the real-world. Anybody who doesn't have MY understanding of gravity is a lost cause and needs to give up."

 

It's not that I don't agree with this alleged quote, but where does it get anyone to say how everyone is copying everyone? Does it help you make good music? Does it help you listen to good music?

 

Maybe it does, I don't even know. Reveling in a video(?) of him saying it is one thing, but trying to have an intellectual discussion about imitation in art is not advisable here.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

How is copying Sean Booth's philosophy different than less successful electronic musicians copying more successful ones?

 

Such a goofy question, but the answer is nobody's "copying Sean Booth's philosophy." Rather, people who are open to reason, hear his words and think "yes, that is true."

 

That's like saying that if you agree that gravity is real then you are copying Isaac Newton's philosophy (or something akin to that).

 

No, it's the equivalent of getting up every day and saying "Gravity is so effing amazing, it helps me do so much while keeping me grounded in the real-world. Anybody who doesn't have MY understanding of gravity is a lost cause and needs to give up."

 

It's not that I don't agree with this alleged quote, but where does it get anyone to say how everyone is copying everyone? Does it help you make good music? Does it help you listen to good music?

 

Maybe it does, I don't even know. Reveling in a video(?) of him saying it is one thing, but trying to have an intellectual discussion about imitation in art is not advisable here.

 

 

I think Sean Booth's statement describes reality pretty well. I'm not copying him, I'm agreeing with him.

[MisterE]

MisterE, I just want you to know that your posts really irritate me. I hope you can 'except' that and 'stop' using 'apostrophes' in your 'assertive' ill-informed 'opinions' of 'art.' 'Thank you.'

you mean accept? would it please you if instead of apostrophes i used "quotation marks"? i mean, is that your main gripe here? oh no, i see, it's my "ill-informed 'opinions' of 'art.'"

 

can you tell me which those are? is it the ones where i said that some people are more innovative and influential, and that it was due to them being clever enough to do things a little differently (along with being in the right place at the right time)? i see that you'd rather just take pot shots without having to really explain anything. typical. i just want you to know that i don't really care how you feel about my posts, especially if you can't respond to any specific thing i actually said and tell me what's wrong with it. can you deny that a genre is typically a group of many people who are copying a particular set of ideas that a single person, or a much smaller group of people, actually came up with?

[sweepstakes]

I'm with MisterE on this one but both y'all talk too much. I feel like I'm reading dueling term papers.

[MisterE]

I'm with MisterE on this one but both y'all talk too much. I feel like I'm reading dueling term papers.

sorry. but at least it's on topic!

[Hugh Mughnus]

I just wanted to stop in and say...

 

 

penisEs.

 

"Art".

[luke viia]

MisterE: No. I just 'wanted' you to 'have' my 'opinion.'

[MisterE]

MisterE: No. I just 'wanted' you to 'have' my 'opinion.'

well, you are entitled to your opinion but it's pretty cheap without any logic to back it up. anyway, at this point i should probably stay out of this thread for a while as sweeps pointed out. although i don't know if i agree that i 'talk too much' in general around here. i don't even post on a daily basis, and when i do i guess i tend to post on things where i feel an urge to say something. so i'd say i post less frequently but maybe with wordier posts. tough titties, it's just my style bitches.

[xox]

I still haven't found composition that's 'better' (greater?) than Beethoven's Grosse fuge. If you would ask to define 'better' i couldn't.

[luke viia]

 

MisterE: No. I just 'wanted' you to 'have' my 'opinion.'

well, you are entitled to your opinion but it's pretty cheap without any logic to back it up. anyway, at this point i should probably stay out of this thread for a while as sweeps pointed out. although i don't know if i agree that i 'talk too much' in general around here. i don't even post on a daily basis, and when i do i guess i tend to post on things where i feel an urge to say something. so i'd say i post less frequently but maybe with wordier posts. tough titties, it's just my style bitches.

 

Don't worry, you and I will have plenty of chances to enter into debate if you keep up your style. I'm just as long-winded as you. It'll be fun.

 

The reason I've stayed out of this debate for the most part is that I think it's self-indulgent and self-serving ("my inspiration is more genuine than your inspiration!"). Art is subjective; arguing about who-owes-who-what-creative-inspiration is a dull and ultimately useless topic to my own creative spirit, and essentially, I find the whole thing over-intellectualized and condescending, no matter what angle is taken. It's not a topic that demands my attention in a deep way, basically. You're entitled to your opinion, but the assertiveness with which you presented it is what bothered me initially. I won't go into it more than that; it really doesn't matter.

[awepittance]

it's always a little bit deflating when a discussion like this devolves into the familiar variant on the absolutist trope of ;'everything's already been done and everything is derivative'

 

I think we can all agree that Autechre's music, especially the Confield and after era of them speaks to us hardcore fans (who've continued to stick it out) on a level that little if any other music or sonic art speaks to us. Resonates with a part of our brain that isn't normally accessed. That in and of itself is a huge feat especially considering how many people have access to the same tools AE has. This is sort of the direction i was trying to guide this thread into but my attempt was futile.

[LimpyLoo]

I still haven't found composition that's 'better' (greater?) than Beethoven's Grosse fuge. If you would ask to define 'better' i couldn't.

 

I think the best we can do is say what each of us enjoys more/most.

[awepittance]

it's undeniable that all art, especially good art that captivates us in a way that no other art has doesn't exist in a vacuum. of course everything is influenced by what preceded it. What i'm trying to engage a discussion about is why does a good percentage of AE exist in virtually it's own universe while at the same time continuing to engage us as fans. A few people already stated that 'truly original' avant-garde music would alienate most people and be too artsy fartsy for normal people to enjoy. While there is some truth to that, obviously there is a middle road, where you can push the envelope in ways that actually capture people's attention

[Guest disoriental express]

autechre redefined what music is to me with what they did from confield til present.

i've heard plenty of music that superficially sounds like theirs but is ultimately devoid of what makes ae's music so novel and delicious.

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

I half remember a quote by Autechre (but I'm probably paraphrasing it badly) about how when they got interested in creating more futuristic and alien sounds, part of it was about going out of their way to avoid what was recogniseable. Whether that be instruments, materials, spaces, genre tropes, song structures, etc. You could imagine then, that parts of their in-progress tracks may work musically and may have a lot of work put into them but could end up being stripped away, if they resemble convential reference points. On one hand that sounds like an obvious and necessary approach to take, but I think in practice it is difficult for emerging artists to avoid feeling encouraged when their work starts to sound like existing music that already recognise and like.