Jump to content
IGNORED

Which Autechre release have you heard least often?


dingformung

Recommended Posts

 I just don't find it special or groundbreaking in any way.    The least listened to are probably Amber and Chiastic Slide

 

 

Disregard this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well, i'm kinda against the whole notion of "this is groundbreaking, me like" vs "this is trivial, i'm not like that" and variations of that formula like "the most important album ever, it happens so that it suits my taste alright". I mean this ambition is obviously trivialized and we're not like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i'm kinda against the whole notion of "this is groundbreaking, me like" vs "this is trivial, i'm not like that" and variations of that formula like "the most important album ever, it happens so that it suits my taste alright". I mean this ambition is obviously trivialized and we're not like that.

 does music have to be beautiful and decorative or meaningful and special? should it create a feeling of comfortability and well-being or should it provoke an aesthetic experience that expands the borders of our perception? which should be more carefully avoided, making trivial and stupid music or making swank and pretentious music? or am I thinking in wrong terms there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, i'm kinda against the whole notion of "this is groundbreaking, me like" vs "this is trivial, i'm not like that" and variations of that formula like "the most important album ever, it happens so that it suits my taste alright". I mean this ambition is obviously trivialized and we're not like that.

 does music have to be beautiful and decorative or meaningful and special? should it create a feeling of comfortability and well-being or should it provoke an aesthetic experience that expands the borders of our perception? which should be more carefully avoided, making trivial and stupid music or making swank and pretentious music? or am I thinking in wrong terms there?

 

 

Music have to be Aryan and resist degradation by mixture, i tell you that much. I think you were getting at something at the end of your escapade, not necessarily wrong terms as much as false dilemma/dichotomy and all that shit.

 

I was indeed not touching matters of taste but a tendency of a listener to project its own, in itself culturally-heated, fixations onto a larger picture, grotesquely featured in all sorts of media, and often deny the routine nature of stuff.

 

In a more abstract sense, we are programmed to prefer certain qualities by being fractals of our society, qualities such as, for example, striving for a constant "new" (the new in words of J Dilla) *on the market* unlike more isolationist pristine cultures that were drown in the constant reiteration of tradition. And perhaps "the noble thing to do is to deny our programming"... nah, i'm bullshitting you all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 I just don't find it special or groundbreaking in any way.    The least listened to are probably Amber and Chiastic Slide

 

 

Disregard this guy.

 

I realize it's a bit controversial to say this here but I can't deny my perception. I always look for stuff that amazes me with something unconventional, something I don't hear anywhere else. It's not necessary about complexity, mainly about sound design for me, but it sometimes help when I don't quite understand the music from the composational side. Meaning I wouldn't be able to compose such stuff myself, that's why I find it intriguing to listen to (Miles Davis falls into this cathegory as well for me). That's what attracts me to music but I understand why people like Amber and Chiastic. And I don't find those album horrible at all. For me they are more historically important. Hope that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

 

 I just don't find it special or groundbreaking in any way.    The least listened to are probably Amber and Chiastic Slide

 

 

Disregard this guy.

 

I realize it's a bit controversial to say this here but I can't deny my perception. I always look for stuff that amazes me with something unconventional, something I don't hear anywhere else. It's not necessary about complexity, mainly about sound design for me, but it sometimes help when I don't quite understand the music from the composational side. Meaning I wouldn't be able to compose such stuff myself, that's why I find it intriguing to listen to (Miles Davis falls into this cathegory as well for me). That's what attracts me to music but I understand why people like Amber and Chiastic. And I don't find those album horrible at all. For me they are more historically important. Hope that makes sense.

 

 

Yeah totally, I was just fucking around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tri-Repetae and Chiastic for me album wise. Not sure why, both kinda fatigue my ears - Like I've tried to digest a big dense text book in one sitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tri-Repetae and Chiastic for me album wise. Not sure why, both kinda fatigue my ears - Like I've tried to digest a big dense text book in one sitting.

I feel the same way about Untitled. Although it's obviously fascinating and beautiful music there is this aggressive edge that makes it hard to endure for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm just not in the mood for these that often:

elseq
Confield (MCR Quarter tho)
Move of Ten
Untilted
Oversteps (I think I actually like this slightly more than Draft at this point)
Draft 7.30
 
I keep forgetting about these even though I think they're really good:
Gantz Graf
L-event
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, i'm kinda against the whole notion of "this is groundbreaking, me like" vs "this is trivial, i'm not like that" and variations of that formula like "the most important album ever, it happens so that it suits my taste alright". I mean this ambition is obviously trivialized and we're not like that.

 does music have to be beautiful and decorative or meaningful and special? should it create a feeling of comfortability and well-being or should it provoke an aesthetic experience that expands the borders of our perception? which should be more carefully avoided, making trivial and stupid music or making swank and pretentious music? or am I thinking in wrong terms there?

 

 

Music have to be Aryan and resist degradation by mixture, i tell you that much. I think you were getting at something at the end of your escapade, not necessarily wrong terms as much as false dilemma/dichotomy and all that shit.

 

I was indeed not touching matters of taste but a tendency of a listener to project its own, in itself culturally-heated, fixations onto a larger picture, grotesquely featured in all sorts of media, and often deny the routine nature of stuff.

 

In a more abstract sense, we are programmed to prefer certain qualities by being fractals of our society, qualities such as, for example, striving for a constant "new" (the new in words of J Dilla) *on the market* unlike more isolationist pristine cultures that were drown in the constant reiteration of tradition. And perhaps "the noble thing to do is to deny our programming"... nah, i'm bullshitting you all the way.

 

 

No, you're completely right, music has to be all Nazi and shit :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We R Are Why or whatever the hell it is. I literally only listened to it once, which was back in either 2001 or 2002. Maybe even 2000.

And Elseq 2.

Album-wise probably either Incunabula or Oversteps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well, i'm kinda against the whole notion of "this is groundbreaking, me like" vs "this is trivial, i'm not like that" and variations of that formula like "the most important album ever, it happens so that it suits my taste alright". I mean this ambition is obviously trivialized and we're not like that.

 does music have to be beautiful and decorative or meaningful and special? should it create a feeling of comfortability and well-being or should it provoke an aesthetic experience that expands the borders of our perception? which should be more carefully avoided, making trivial and stupid music or making swank and pretentious music? or am I thinking in wrong terms there?

 

 

Music have to be Aryan and resist degradation by mixture, i tell you that much. I think you were getting at something at the end of your escapade, not necessarily wrong terms as much as false dilemma/dichotomy and all that shit.

 

I was indeed not touching matters of taste but a tendency of a listener to project its own, in itself culturally-heated, fixations onto a larger picture, grotesquely featured in all sorts of media, and often deny the routine nature of stuff.

 

In a more abstract sense, we are programmed to prefer certain qualities by being fractals of our society, qualities such as, for example, striving for a constant "new" (the new in words of J Dilla) *on the market* unlike more isolationist pristine cultures that were drown in the constant reiteration of tradition. And perhaps "the noble thing to do is to deny our programming"... nah, i'm bullshitting you all the way.

 

 

No, you're completely right, music has to be all Nazi and shit :)

 

 

Sean Booth: ... I don't listen to pop, but someone dumped a load of Max Martin tracks on me to try and explain what he was about, and it seemed really, really alien to me, like Nazi youth music or something. I think everyone has a different idea of what weird is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.