Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zeffolia

Autechre production methods speculation

Recommended Posts

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 by xox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: nvm, fuck it

 

also, ignatius, I don't think anyone's saying you have to value or pay attention to anything. just that ppl should just say they don't like something instead of solipsistically (is that a word lol) dismissing it as bs and assuming that the creator had some ulterior motive and doesn't actually care how it sounds.

Edited by tneuvm
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, xox said:

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! 

  Reveal hidden contents
 
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!

 

You should have simply said that you don't like that stuff instead of shitting on something of which you know nothing about. If you actually bothered to read the links I posted then you would have realized that there is a whole philosophy behind the works which I posted. I mean it's not just "I am just gonna fucking blast this shit to confuse everyone and call it art".

But whatever, this is internet, blah blah, so who cares in the end eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and tbh I only have the foggiest idea about what the process is behind that Tone AI thing. I just enjoy it because it's gnarly af. And it's not some angry 'catharsis' as some other person threw shade on it with that backhanded description. I enjoy it for insane patterns and anti-patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hello spiral said:

I enjoy it for insane patterns and anti-patterns.

It usually comes down to that. Anyway, Tone and some other guy developed a software that screws up with mp3s, then Tone played that software to train neural network.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I had the mp3 one on CD, that was great too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

def

This too:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You wanna be able to fully appreciate the chre aesthetics? Better read sum Schopenhauer first!"

Arthur Schopenhauer

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Freak of the week said:

You should have simply said that you don't like that stuff instead of shitting on something of which you know nothing about. If you actually bothered to read the links I posted then you would have realized that there is a whole philosophy behind the works which I posted. I mean it's not just "I am just gonna fucking blast this shit to confuse everyone and call it art".

But whatever, this is internet, blah blah, so who cares in the end eh?

what part didnt i understand? and what philosophy? that's not philosophy of music! google that term and you'll find it, being ''absolute music'' or not. also, try introduction to the topic like works by carl dahlhaus and hans heinrich eggebrecht

now, the first link talks about specific methods of stochastic composition, right? that's not music! at least tell me, at which point was the author at 'action-reaction loop' during the process? it also talks about sound and stochastic synthesis. also, that's not music. m-e-t-h-o-d-s, like all academic works for the last millions of yrs. it's just pushing some non-musical plans and m-e-t-h-o-d-s, to do what? series of sound coming out of speakers, yes, but that's not music. sound alone is not music, nor is series of sound music, not even so called ''organized sound''. sound has potential to become music but i dont think that was the plan here anyway. that's why i generally hate academic 'art', where the essence of art is always somewhere in the background but their precious 'i'm so clever m-e-t-h-o-d-s' in the foreground. bravo for the effort and math, zero for artistic depth and creativity!

copy/past from the second link: ''This Thesis proposes three main objectives: (i) to provide the concept of a new generalized non-standard synthesis model that would provide the framework for incorporating other non-standard synthesis approaches; (ii) to explore dynamic sound modeling through the application of new non-standard synthesis techniques and procedures; and (iii) to experiment with dynamic sound synthesis for the creation of novel sound objects.''

--- do i have to say anything about this 'music'?! again, just pushing some intellectualized academic agendas!

i sometimes find such works interesting as an idea, very rarely as music but if you like it as music, good for you! but, saying that it's more complicated than autechre?! im sorry but you're not correct here because you're trying to compare apples with rocks and that's what hit my nerve!

Edited by xox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tneuvm said:

edit: nvm, fuck it

 

also, ignatius, I don't think anyone's saying you have to value or pay attention to anything. just that ppl should just say they don't like something instead of solipsistically (is that a word lol) dismissing it as bs and assuming that the creator had some ulterior motive and doesn't actually care how it sounds.

oh i agree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jaderpansen said:

"You wanna be able to fully appreciate the chre aesthetics? Better read sum Schopenhauer first!"

Arthur Schopenhauer

lol 🙂 

but that's the point really! to appreciate autechre and in all its depth you dont have to read academic thesis that comes as a supplement to the music

Edited by xox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I briefly spoke to Yasunao Tone during ATP 2003 after his performance, he had told me he was using scotch tape on the cds, whilst munching a filthy hot dog.

Edited by IOS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hello spiral said:

def

This too:

 

this is the one that gets the "hey something is wrong w/your dial up modem" joke from people. 

fwiw i've let moduar patches play out for 30 minutes or so that sound a lot like this digital munging and it's fascinating once in a while. i've rarely recorded any of it because it essentially already exists. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IOS said:

I briefly spoke to Yasunao Tone during ATP 2003 after his performance, he had told me he was using scotch tape on the cds, whilst munching a filthy hot dog.

heh lush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, xox said:

what part didnt i understand? and what philosophy? that's not philosophy of music! google that term and you'll find it, being ''absolute music'' or not. also, try introduction to the topic like works by carl dahlhaus and hans heinrich eggebrecht

now, the first link talks about specific methods of stochastic composition, right? that's not music! at least tell me, at which point was the author at 'action-reaction loop' during the process? it also talks about sound and stochastic synthesis. also, that's not music. m-e-t-h-o-d-s, like all academic works for the last millions of yrs. it's just pushing some non-musical plans and m-e-t-h-o-d-s, to do what? series of sound coming out of speakers, yes, but that's not music. sound alone is not music, nor is series of sound music, not even so called ''organized sound''. sound has potential to become music but i dont think that was the plan here anyway. that's why i generally hate academic 'art', where the essence of art is always somewhere in the background but their precious 'i'm so clever m-e-t-h-o-d-s' in the foreground. bravo for the effort and math, zero for artistic depth and creativity!

copy/past from the second link: ''This Thesis proposes three main objectives: (i) to provide the concept of a new generalized non-standard synthesis model that would provide the framework for incorporating other non-standard synthesis approaches; (ii) to explore dynamic sound modeling through the application of new non-standard synthesis techniques and procedures; and (iii) to experiment with dynamic sound synthesis for the creation of novel sound objects.''

--- do i have to say anything about this 'music'?! again, just pushing some intellectualized academic agendas!

i sometimes find it interesting as an idea but if you like it as music, good for you! but, saying that it's more complicated than autechre?! im sorry but you're not correct here because you're trying to compare apples with rocks and that's what hit my nerve!

Looks like somebody is triggered.  😀

Anyway, since you are into philosophy, I would recommend you to read Formalized Music by Xenakis (it can be downloaded from *ahem* certain Russian sites). He mentions Herakleitos and Plato a lot. At the beginning of the chapter "More Thorough Stochastic Music" he says "Indeed, the challenge is to create music, starting, in so far as it is possible, from a minimum number of premises but which would be "interesting" from a contemporary aesthetical sensitivity, without borrowing or getting trapped in known paths." A bit later he says "Therefore, we find ourselves in front of an attempt, as objective as possible, of creating an automated art, without any human interference except at the start, only in order to give the initial impulse and a few premises, like in the case of the Demiourgos in Plato's Politicos, or Yahweh in the Old Testament, or even of Nothingness in the Big Bang Theory." Why did I quote him? To show you that he actually has a philosophy. In his aforementioned book there is a whole chapter called "Towards a Philosophy of Music". He also respects people like Bach and Beethoven, so it's not like he just hates everything that's old, in case you had that impression.

In the chapter "New Proposals in Microsound Structure" he mentions the failure of the classical Fourier theory (additive synthesis) to  convincingly synthesize the sounds of the classical instruments (remember that this was pre-FM) and he also explains what are in his opinion some of the causes of that failure. So he says "We shall raise the contradiction, and by doing so we hope to open a new path in microsound synthesis research - one that without pretending to be able to simulate already known sounds, will nevertheless launch music, its psychophysiology, and acoustics in a direction that is quite interesting and unexpected." And then comes that disorder concept. So it was like " the usual approach doesn't work, let's try a different one and see what we can come up with". He is not pretending that his approach will solve everything, such an approach doesn't exist.

Re: that whole "advanced" business - maybe I chose the wrong word, I admit that. I like to shill academic music around here because I think that it is worth shilling, and that it's not just a technical wankery (at least I don't want it to be). And I want to point out here that I don't think that everything "academic" is good, on the contrary, a lot of it is boring. Same as with the "normal" music. What does the word "academic music" even mean? It means that it was made by somebody who has a formal training in music, and that there is an artistic goal behind it. Is that a good thing? It depends, like everything else. Some people think that the music theory is just a limiting factor, and that it has to be avoided at all costs. I think that the theory can help you understand some things better and work out some compositional aspects faster than without the theory. But there is always of course the matter of your personal taste, none of us are robots. What I have discovered, listening to the academic stuff that I think is good, is that it is really rich in sounds and rewarding if you pay close attention. In the end I will just post these two FM-heavy pieces which I think are brilliant:

/rant

P. S. This is now officially "Academic Electronic Music Thread".

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, triggered! I know it’s foolish of me 🙂 ... i guess i still suffer from intellectual narcissism. I thought i got rid of it by now! Lol

Thnx for the recommendations! Im familiar with some of it from other sources but I will loom into them! 

Edited by xox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 1:39 PM, Freak of the week said:

 

/rant

P. S. This is now officially "Academic Electronic Music Thread".

 

 

i like the stuff around 6:25.. those weird sounding synthetic horns. nice tones. syfy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think in the warp demo tapes they prolly used a lot of synthesizers and drum machines

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot take

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m convinced they run effect sends though VCAs and Ring Modulators where they can ring mod any element of a track with any other element in a track and then give it it’s own separate rhythmic pattern. I think they also audio rate modulate things with human voice samples somewhat frequently. Gives things that R2D2 “I can’t tell if thats a drum or a synth line” quality. I think you can hear these tricks all over their body of work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread delivers in many ways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...