brian trageskin Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 i'm always impressed at the impact this tune makes despite its apparent repetitiveness, and i now know why. i'm willing to expose my music analysis of it if anyone's interested, hopefully i'd get insight from yous, as i think it could contribute to a better understanding of: - why this tune in particular is so tight, - what great music is made of, - why that is that most if not all of the tunes you've made or will make suck balls, and how to remedy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Right now at the isopropanol annual meeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 i'm always impressed at the impact this tune makes despite its apparent repetitiveness, and i now know why. i'm willing to expose my music analysis of it if anyone's interested, hopefully i'd get insight from yous, as i think it could contribute to a better understanding of: - why this tune in particular is so tight, - what great music is made of, - why that is that most if not all of the tunes you've made or will make suck balls, and how to remedy that. Go on then blud, I'm game. School me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YangYing Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 it's all about the kick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Waiting to find out why all my music sucks is a drag. Put me out of my misery dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 It's Saint Davids day too. FML. Btw I got big love for dodocahedron. Bare tune that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchroast Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 it's good because it was recorded to tape and analogue makes everything better than recording songs in a digital work station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 it's good because it was recorded to tape and analogue makes everything better than recording songs in a digital work station. Nah I don't prescribe too that. If you wanna sound like old aphex analog is definitely an easier route. If you wanna sound like mark fell I'd go digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Plus digital FM, sampling, dat tapes and the R8 was a big part of old aphex so not really true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchroast Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Plus digital FM, sampling, dat tapes and the R8 was a big part of old aphex so not really true. all of these things sound better when bounced to tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian trageskin Posted March 1, 2019 Author Share Posted March 1, 2019 https://youtu.be/UdNN6HQUqBo?t=1982 by the way, i think this tune deserves to be analyzed for several reasons: it's very musical (in the sense that it makes sense and conveys meaning without the use of spoken language), it's simplistic enough to be analyzed concisely (i hope), yet it uses enough musical devices and contains enough interesting data to exemplify what musicality is, what great music is about and how it works. i should also warn you that my understanding of music theory is limited, but good enough i hope to resort to. i'm sure a few people here have a far better knowledge of music theory than i do and they're more than welcome to take part. i know zoeb has analyzed rdj tunes in the past for example and i'm confident she knows way more than i do. but i also believe you don't have to know a whole lot music theory to be able to analyze and grasp a few things about how most profane music works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchroast Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 not sure who that is but if he didn't just drop the Correct Pronunciation of Autechre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Too much talking. Will check tonight. Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jejunum Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 here's my analysis of isopropanol and why i like it: + it's got busy beats very upfront + the intro beat thingy is very catchy + there's a cool "spooky" pad thing in the background + that little hiccupy/throwing up synth riff is nice and then further on comes the hi hats and the claps are panned for a moment and things get really funky but the best part is the flowers that bloom sample and then the return of the beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 My analysis of why I like aphex. He does the better than 99% of people with the technology available to him. Also he writes sick melodies which is surprisingly rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerwolf Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 9/10 track for me. Love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkom Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 It's one of my favorite Aphex tracks. It's at the same time very liquid, mechanical and electric, like being dropped into some giant metallic machinery with liquids and electric sparks flying around. Also love that filtered noise pseudo-melody or whatever that runs through most of the track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 I'm increasingly confused by the thread. When do I get to find out why my music sucks balls? Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donquixote Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 I even listened to the youtube link. That just confused me more. Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak of the week Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 isopropanol beat @3:29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronical Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 https://youtu.be/UdNN6HQUqBo?t=1982 by the way, i think this tune deserves to be analyzed for several reasons: it's very musical (in the sense that it makes sense and conveys meaning without the use of spoken language), it's simplistic enough to be analyzed concisely (i hope), yet it uses enough musical devices and contains enough interesting data to exemplify what musicality is, what great music is about and how it works. i should also warn you that my understanding of music theory is limited, but good enough i hope to resort to. i'm sure a few people here have a far better knowledge of music theory than i do and they're more than welcome to take part. i know zoeb has analyzed rdj tunes in the past for example and i'm confident she knows way more than i do. but i also believe you don't have to know a whole lot music theory to be able to analyze and grasp a few things about how most profane music works. I was curious up to the point where he said "in some cases there's like two chords and it's kind of a shuffle rhythm, so what are you gonna say about it" which is just mental to me. I'm swiss and could go to a rooftop, I wanna do QAs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian trageskin Posted March 2, 2019 Author Share Posted March 2, 2019 alright i'm improvising this while listening to isopropanol in repeat, so it might be messy but the best is the enemy of the good i hear. first, the 4 note synth riff is introduced in a rhythmically unexpected way, on an weak bar: the beat consists of two 16 note bars. bar 1 > kick 2 3 4 snare 6 7 8 kick 10 kick 12 snare kick 15 16 bar 2 > kick 2 3 4 snare 6 7 8 kick 10 11 kick snare kick 15 16 for the sake of demonstration, i'm calling the entire 32-note pattern L, as in Loop. the track begins with L x 2 (played twice). then L x 4 layered with a drill-type percussive element and the "filtered noise pseudo-melody" (to use mokz's words) that emphasizes the 16 note subdivision. for the demonstration, let's call that particular configuration of percussive elements L¤. next we get L x 1 without the filtered thingy but still with the drill thingy and with an open hi-hat 16 note pattern played twice. then bar 1 plays once, a different open hh pattern plays on top. i guess you could call that a drum fill or something, i don't know the right vocabulary. then L¤ x 4½, before finally hearing the synth riff for the 1st time. if we consider bar 1 to be the rhythmically strong bar, and bar 2 the weak one, we see that the synth line begins at a "weak" time. that whole percussive intro, with its rhythmically unexpected shifts (apart from L¤ which resolves as expected), functions like deceptive cadences, leaving us surprised at what comes next since we're used to hearing rhythmic resolutions (strong beat/bar - weak beat/bar - repeat) which are mostly absent here. that absence of release increases tension and grabs your attention. also, that intro illustrates that you can deceive the listener's expectations without using odd time signatures, while remaining groovy and straightforward. now, when we finally get to the synth riff, the last thing we expect at that specific moment is that synth riff that pops out of nowhere, in a "weak" manner: the first note, that starts on the strong beat of the weak bar, fades in extremely quietly, which is probably the last choice any musician would make to introduce a melodic "theme" or motif or whatever it's called. however that parameter, that choice that could be considered poor and ultimately unsignificant actually serves its purpose here, and is imo one of the strongest features of the tune. i'll explain why in the next post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hello spiral Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 jfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronical Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 i like the song because it has hard as fuck spooky clank sounds that resonate with my inner raver cyborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian trageskin Posted March 3, 2019 Author Share Posted March 3, 2019 a quick rectification: i made a mistake by saying the synth riff starts on bar 2 (the weak one), when it actually starts on bar 1. and it even starts on the "1" (1st beat / 1st subdivision) of the supposedly entire cycle, which is L x 4. here i'm analyzing L x 4 as the complete cycle because 4 repetitions of a pattern give us a sense of resolution once completed (culturally conditionned perception of rhythm because of common practices in western music). however, i maintain that the riff starts on a weak bar, because a subtle rhythmic shift happened without us (or me at least) even noticing it: by introducing L¤ at the beginning (L layered with drill + filtered thingies x 4), with its perfect resolution, we're now conditionned to hear its first beat, its "1", as the beginning of the cycle (4 repetitions of the 32 note drum pattern). but the thing is bar 1 and bar 2 are extremely similar, the only difference being on the "11" and "12". so when the one-bar drum fill with the open hh ends, and we get to hear L¤ again, we're tricked into perceiving that "1" beat as the beginning of the cycle, when it's actually the "1" of bar 2. by reintroducing the L¤ "patch", its instrumental elements, and because the difference between bar 1 and bar 2 can't be pointed out before reaching the "11", we lost the "1" of bar 1 and perceive it as the "1" of bar 2. this subliminal substitution of the strong bar with the weak one doesn't result in us perceiving the synth riff as starting on the strong bar, when it really is, but as starting on the weak one. it's all a matter of perception. therefore, if we isolate the kick-snare skeleton and occult the percussion "patches" layers, the actual rhythmic structure of the intro is: (boing boing) L x 2 - L x 4 - L x 4 > synth riff anyway that's one way to analyze it. one could also argue that it's L x 10 > synth riff, or that isolating the skeleton is not a helpful way to analyze the structure. imo it's helpful in the context of my first analysis because L¤ functions just like a tonal center, it completely shapes our perception of rhythm because of its resolving "cadence". once it's played, it clearly establishes the previous rhythmic section as being L x 2, and it tricks our perception of what comes after it. i hope all this shit makes sense. stay tuned for further analysis. omfg that wasn't quick at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.