Autechre production methods speculation

[ignatius]

i find music + academia pretty boring honestly.  i enjoy the proof of concept and the big picture of but i usually find the results to be compositionally uninteresting. 

i like some of everything generally but i have a hard time surrendering to some things. there's a level of pretense i'm not willing to endure. i understand the output is a self expression of a whatever but academic GG Allin electronics don't do it for me even though i understand wanting/needing catharsis i don't find it something i need to continually experience vicariously through someone's music regardless of how many layers of hard work and intellect are underneath. shrug. i find it tiresome.

i have similar problems with some ambient music which is so full of tropes these days.. especially in live performances. there's a homogenized sameness across the genre that people try to make so complicated to the point of reinventing their process once in a while though achieving the exact same results are w/the 3 or 4 iterations of their process previous to the current one. 

/end soapbox. 

[ignatius]

as for ae production methods the AAA is full of gems and basically answers what they're about when it comes to gear and process which seems to be "messing around w/an idea/thing/technique and making discoveries that turn into tracks".  throw everything and the kitchen sink into that.  the answers around Draft 7.30 are pretty revealing.  the bit about using the Akai z8 and DP + a midi interface w/great timing so they could do percussive stutter things and multiply the pattern length by 1.40953409736x or whatever it was so that it turned the sound into a pitched melodic thing.. i mean.. obviously their smart and creative and figure shit out then use that to make science hip hop beats.

get a thing.. learn it inside out. make it do stuff not thought of by the manufacturer. exploit times 10.  squarepusher does this, aphex and others but apply sam/bob own style to it and ae music happens. 

the squarepusher interview done by keith fullerton whitman has oodles of this kind of chatter in it. get to know a thing like back of hand so you can play w/it and freak it out. tear things apart. put them back together. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, xox said:

exactly what id call a 'nonsense music' 

like, ''i can't make anything musically deep or interesting, but i want ppl to call me genius, so im gonna go full retard like nobody before me and if they can understand it or if they say it's emotionless im just gonna call them out''

but people say basically the exact same thing about autechre on a regular basis. does that not give you a pause before saying it about other music?

Edited June 22, 2019 by Guest

[danshoebridge]

Hmm I suppose for me it's the difference in approach - whereas autechre are all about taking these weird sounds and techniques and folding them into something more resembling a 'complete' song, for a lot of the academic musicians the process seems to be an end in itself.

 

There's a bit on the Xenakis track that sounds kind of similar to the sample slicing interludes on Chiastic Slide. I love those little track joins but wouldn't be remotely interested in an album that just consisted of nothing but disjointed experiments like that.

 

 

 

 

[Lianne]

36 minutes ago, tneuvm said:

but people say basically the exact same thing about autechre on a regular basis. does that not give you a pause before saying it about other music?

 

I agree with you here. I'm not saying this about anyone in this thread, because I don't know the music being referenced - but it's depressing the amount people trash more 'out there' music as pretentious, emotionless, noise... Or whatever else. I know I can't talk, as I express my disappointment about new music sometimes (and then backtrack), but I still don't know why unpopular, experimental music causes people to feel the need to question the value of said music with great dismissive virulence so often. Maybe these composers want to explore new terrain that interests them and hasn't been touched on much? Maybe they're not aiming at conveying the usual emotions most music conveys? Maybe they really are taking the mick? But even if they are, it's good different and extreme things exist. And when 99% of music is confirming to your needs, I don't get why it isn't anything except a benefit if a small number of people are pursuing academic and unusual ends.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Lianne

[sweepstakes]

50 minutes ago, ignatius said:

as for ae production methods the AAA is full of gems and basically answers what they're about when it comes to gear and process which seems to be "messing around w/an idea/thing/technique and making discoveries that turn into tracks".  throw everything and the kitchen sink into that.  the answers around Draft 7.30 are pretty revealing.  the bit about using the Akai z8 and DP + a midi interface w/great timing so they could do percussive stutter things and multiply the pattern length by 1.40953409736x or whatever it was so that it turned the sound into a pitched melodic thing.. i mean.. obviously their smart and creative and figure shit out then use that to make science hip hop beats.

get a thing.. learn it inside out. make it do stuff not thought of by the manufacturer. exploit times 10.  squarepusher does this, aphex and others but apply sam/bob own style to it and ae music happens. 

the squarepusher interview done by keith fullerton whitman has oodles of this kind of chatter in it. get to know a thing like back of hand so you can play w/it and freak it out. tear things apart. put them back together. 

/thread

[Guest]

6 hours ago, danshoebridge said:

Hmm I suppose for me it's the difference in approach - whereas autechre are all about taking these weird sounds and techniques and folding them into something more resembling a 'complete' song, for a lot of the academic musicians the process seems to be an end in itself.

 

There's a bit on the Xenakis track that sounds kind of similar to the sample slicing interludes on Chiastic Slide. I love those little track joins but wouldn't be remotely interested in an album that just consisted of nothing but disjointed experiments like that.

Again, I regularly see people throw the same exact criticisms at autechre. like that plaid or aphex are technically interesting and make actual songs, but autechre only care about mathematical generative processes, not musical results. it's a criticism that gets leveled at the boys constantly. (and if you read through this thread you might have some reason to believe it tbh.) even plaid themselves recently said that newer autechre is only "interesting academically."

I really suspect that anyone who spends their lives composing finished works/making tracks is very invested in producing end results that "sound good" to them, even if those results aren't normal songs.

 

6 hours ago, Lianne said:

 

I agree with you here. I'm not saying this about anyone in this thread, because I don't know the music being referenced - but it's depressing the amount people that trash more 'out there' music as pretentious, emotionless noise. I know I can't talk, as I express my disappointment about new music sometimes (and then backtrack), but I don't know why unpopular, experimental music causes people to feel the need to question the value of said music with great dismissive virulence. Maybe these composers want to explore new terrain that interests them? Maybe they're not aiming at conveying the usual emotions most music conveys? Maybe they are taking the mick? But even if they are, it's good different and extreme things exist. And when 99% of music is confirming to your needs, I don't get the problem why it isn't anything except a benefit if a small number of people are pursuing academic and unusual ends. 

completely agreed.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Guest

[Freak of the week]

5 hours ago, xox said:

exactly what id call a 'nonsense music' 

like, ''i can't make anything musically deep or interesting, but i want ppl to call me genius, so im gonna go full retard like nobody before me and if they can understand it or if they say it's emotionless im just gonna call them out''

My post wasn't aimed to you specifically, but nevermind. I don't think that the people I have mentioned in my post would call out on anyone for not understanding it or whatever, and that certainly isn't the point. The point is the use of the unconventional approach to get interesting sounds and dynamics. Some people, me included, like that approach, others don't. And I am completely fine with that.

3 hours ago, Lianne said:

 it's good different and extreme things exist.

Exactly.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Freak of the week

[zlemflolia]

While some people may think AE are too academic, and while there are other artists who may be considered to be further on the spectrum, I think AE reaches somewhere closer to the happy medium where their music is truly musical.  The other academic music linked above seems that the academic theory behind it came first with the music being a byproduct.  But that's probably just my biases and to the creator it does feel musical.  Whereas AE is clearly musical.  But some people don't think AE are musical.  I guess it's just entering waters that are too subjective to be worth talking about.  Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.  The music speaks for itself better than anyone's words ever will

[zlemflolia]

I'm trying to find an excerpt from Plato which I can't find, on the feelings he encountered when he would ask poets about their own work and find himself let down by the mundane nature of their explanations.  The poetry isn't made better if it comes with a 5 page essay alongside it explaining its creation process and full meaning.  It is what it is by its own accord and talking about it may degrade it

Edited June 22, 2019 by Zeffolia

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

While some people may think AE are too academic, and while there are other artists who may be considered to be further on the spectrum, I think AE reaches somewhere closer to the happy medium where their music is truly musical.  The other academic music linked above seems that the academic theory behind it came first with the music being a byproduct.  But that's probably just my biases and to the creator it does feel musical.  Whereas AE is clearly musical.  But some people don't think AE are musical.  I guess it's just entering waters that are too subjective to be worth talking about.  Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.  The music speaks for itself better than anyone's words ever will

I think the takeaway is really simple though. Ae is legitimate music--as we all know. And so is the academic electronic music posted.

 

I think both would sound like random noise to 95% of the population. But as Sean recently said:

Quote

I imagine our music works like a Rorschach test. Some people see something, others nothing. But doesn't the fact that some see it something is the best proof that there is something to see?

Awkward translation aside, it's perfectly reasonable to extend this principle to music that isn't Autechre right?

Edited June 23, 2019 by Guest

[zlemflolia]

I think it applies 100%.  I know that there are these specific moments within some Autechre tracks that I think are the most musically orgasmic and amazing musical tension-relieving points or buildup crescendos but if I showed it to someone else, likely even some AE fans, they would not know what the fuck I'm talking about, because it's just something obscure like how the texture of this one noise changes for one bar in a way that is different from the previous changes in all the other bars.  For this reason I guess I have to accept that it is subjective

[hello spiral]

watmmers mostly harbouring conservative and narrow views about music shocker.

[ignatius]

it's all art/music whatever. it's just a matter of personal taste that determines how much value we place on it and how much importance/visibility we give it in our lives. it doesn't mean there's a lack of respect for the artist etc just not a thread i want to pull or whatever because there's this other thread over here that interests me more blah blah blah. 

anyway... technique yay!

[xox]

tl;dr

I do NOT think that everything that comes out of one's ass is art! Stand that "anything goes" just doesn't apply to me. But that's me.... Is that a narrow view? Only by my definition of art. Is my definition of art narrow? YES, it is! 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Was away from my comp for a few days, sorry...

Ok, I threw the bomb and got the facepalm. Deserved i guess! okokokok

Anyway,.... My criticisms of the authors and their works and such music (which music i have on my hd, had them on cds and i do know their works) were mostly in the sense that they went "full retard" with their works (which to me equals to ''nonsense'') and that's all!  Do I think their works are worthless? No! I think they have a great value in history of computer art but not a great musical one, sorry and that's a big IMO. It's just IMO...

So, as you can see Im throwing bombs again! My goal with these bombs is for a reader to understand that other people understand complex concepts differently then he is. surprise, surprise! For example, concepts such as art, music and artistic value .... Furthermore, questions such as what's music and what't not and is there an objective view in this?, what is the aim of music and art in general?, question about the motives for presenting works to other people?, how to evaluate the work?, what's the connection between subjectivity and objectivity in art and emotionally and intellectually in art?, question of the transcendence in art?, the concept of time in music in perception and abstraction of time and music?, priority and complexity vs expressiveness?, what's the source of syntax and semantics in music?, question of 'synthesis per se' in music?, what's the connection of perception it self and knowledge in music?, determinism and chaos?, ... and so on. When ppl can generally agree on these issues and questions, they're able to understand each other quite well and as i know many of you by now and i sense a great dissonance in The Force and it makes me sad in a way...

Anyhow... We talked about it before when i gave my references in music and philosophy and other fields and no one replied with a single word, so i really dont have time nor energy to go through all that sheesh again, for nothing... Leave Britney alone!

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by xox

[d-a-m-o]

good thread, now I want to listen to Xenakis and Parmegiani.

[psn]

[xox]

22 minutes ago, d-a-m-o said:

good thread, now I want to listen to Xenakis and Parmegiani.

parmegiani is my fav! his de natura sonorum is on my top 20 el. music albums (ae has too many good releases ) 

[brian trageskin]

27 minutes ago, xox said:

what's the source of syntax and semantics in music?

leonard bernstein tried to answer this in a lecture series at harvard:

 

[xox]

9 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

leonard bernstein tried to answer this in a lecture series at harvard:

 

i know  

he's one of many that i regard as my dear and beloved teachers  

[hello spiral]

Going on these tired old 'that's not music' rants but also having de natura sonorum and the first Mark Fell album as among your favourites is some serious cognitive dissonance (pun maybe intended)

Just acknowledge your own subjective bias and lets move on shall we?

[brian trageskin]

okay cool @xox

well, couple bernstein's explanation with music theory and you pretty much have the answer to your question. 

 

[xox]

22 minutes ago, hello spiral said:

Going on these tired old 'that's not music' rants but also having de natura sonorum and the first Mark Fell album as among your favourites is some serious cognitive dissonance (pun maybe intended)

Just acknowledge your own subjective bias and lets move on shall we?

yeeees! exactly! good morning!

why dont you for a change try and think about it for a second? why would i love those albums and at the same time rant about some other 'experimental' albums? could it be that there's something that you dont see and understand either about me or about art in general? 

just acknowledge your own ignorance and lets move on shall we?

EDIT: of course im subjective. it's impossible not to be. only question is how much can we be objective. 

p.s. i mean, im not like this all the time. i do listen to music too, y'no... without thinking about this shit lol

Edited June 24, 2019 by xox

[xox]

11 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

okay cool @xox

well, couple bernstein's explanation with music theory and you pretty much have the answer to your question. 

 

if you havent already, try finding writings by (or about) sergiu celibidache, he goes even further 

on top of that kant's aesthetics, nietzsche's and schopenhauer's works on art are crazyy good read too

EDIT: yes, those old writings are timeless and are valid for any form of art, any sound and music, no matter how 'modern' and 'advanced' they are 

Edited June 24, 2019 by xox

[brian trageskin]

8 minutes ago, xox said:

if you havent already, try finding writings by (or about) sergiu celibidache, he goes even further  

never heard of him. will check, thanks!