Autechre - SIGN 16.10.20

[xox]

26 minutes ago, Dragon said:

 a wall of text to criticize and take down another user's post?

lol what? that's all you end up with?! if you think that happened well that wasn't my intention at all, to take down anyone; i just focused on the point! that wall of text was about music and about autechre

[brian trageskin]

10 hours ago, xox said:

i probably understand what you're saying and bc of my education and work i know a few things about the brain but sorry, i don't think you understood me here! physical properties of the sound and of our brain and hearing has nothing to do with what i was talking about! and btw comparing the sense of sight to hearing couldn't be more --- wrong? and what you're talking about is mostly comparable to the frequency domain of the sound/music. music works in ratios and relationships that change in time and abstractions of the highest order (highest just in comparison to other forms of art). i agree that other forms of art 'use' time, like dance performances or movies just bc they're 'happening in time' but that's it and btw that's not what i was talking about at all... and if we're talking about it, have you ever heard that dance performances and movies use music scores to provoke or to amplify feelings or even ''to give an emotional context to the scene''? the other way around just water downs a quality music (autechre bros understand this, hence the darkness at their concerts and it's one of the reasons ligeti rejected so many offers to make musical scores for movies) and that absence of music and silence in movies are being used for the same purpose (i.e. hitchcock, the birds)? why do you think that's the case? and when other forms of art are 'using' time, they just mimic the properties of music; that's why you can hear responses like ''oh, that movie feels like music'', same for a performance or even a book. but imageries that music provokes in us are totally our own! the reason why music deals with the will (as a philosophical term) and all other forms of art are dealing with ideas (as a philosophical term) is precisely bc of time, domain that we can only experience internally... as our own internal experience bc both the will and time are our genuine internal constructs, as ive said earlier, and 'space' (everything that's not us, including everything we see, including colors and ideas) are external constructs i.e. objectified ideas! you can't bend the objectified ideas but you can bend time, in music you can and MUST bend time at the level of narrative and abstraction not at the level of form which only consequently follows the bent content, you can and must so to say 'shorten the expression' (artistically speaking, in expression, in narrative, not merely making the track shorter for 20 sec, length changes became subjective experiences, again bc time = will?), elevate it abstractly IF you want to produce quality music (in other forms of art when this is done directly in the same way you end up with a nonsense, in other forms of art you must mimic some properties of music, not bend it like music), for an example, if you produce music yourself then you surely understand why plain arpeggiators are so weak, musically speaking...

i literally have no idea what you're talking about. what do you mean by music deals with the will, time = will, other forms of art just mimic the properties of music when they're using time and arpeggiators are weak, musically speaking? 

[xox]

3 minutes ago, toaoaoad said:

It's easier to find the melody in sch.mefd 2 than it is to read that post

agree! it's a hard topic! (to me at least) but to simplify the post i would need to make it muuuch longer

[Dragon]

3 minutes ago, xox said:

agree! it's a hard topic! (to me at least) but to simplify the post i would need to make it muuuch longer

it's a "you're wrong/but what about" post. 240p youtube quality.

[xox]

13 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

i literally have no idea what you're talking about. what do you mean by music deals with the will, time = will, other forms of art just mimic the properties of music when they're using time and arpeggiators are weak, musically speaking? 

 taken out of context like that, it means almost nothing but hey, don't worry about it! it's nothing important and probably nothing you'll miss (???is this even english) 

but i know something else that's more important... it's 11pm and i need to get up early for work

and btw @vkxwzi apologize if i was offensive in any sense, wasnt my intention 

Edited January 12, 2022 by xox

[vkxwz]

Not offended, seems like your point about mimicking music counters the rest of my thoughts, boring. At that point just say music is change in experience/meaning over time or something as boring as that. I do want to know more about what you mean by bending time at the narrative level? This makes me think of something ive thought of for a while, if you want to tell a story in music, if you are composing in a way that has a constant bpm, then ignoring that alignment of beats with previous ones seems like a misstep as it introduces a structural quality that isnt reflective of the story you are trying to tell, so how do you even work in that structural component of the sound to reflect the meaning that you want to give the sound? As an example of this "problem" take the story: xox goes to a bar, xox drinks too much throws his glass at a bartender, he gets removed by the bouncer. In this narrative on a very simple level you just have a set of 4 events depending on how you divide it up, should each event be assigned one bar? Why would they be equally spaced anyway? Just seems like the repetition will always introduce a part of the form that doesnt reflect its meaning.

Edited January 13, 2022 by vkxwz

[jules]

[xox]

12 hours ago, vkxwz said:

seems like your point about mimicking music counters the rest of my thoughts, boring. At that point just say music is change in experience/meaning over time or something as boring as that.

Yes, that would be boring IF that’s what I’ve thought or wrote but I didn’t! 
For the rest… it’s enough of me, maybe someone else can jump in instead 

[brian trageskin]

1 hour ago, xox said:

Yes, that would be boring IF that’s what I’ve thought or wrote but I didn’t! 
For the rest… it’s enough of me, maybe someone else can jump in instead 

oh come on, you can do better than this. and don't give me any of that 'i gotta work early tomorrow" crap, we both know you're unemployed. 

[Draft78]

On 1/7/2022 at 9:46 PM, splesh said:

Vangelis did come to mind listening to Ae somewhat recently for me listening to wetgelis casual interval.

 

Even in oversteps there may be some echo of this. I think of Yuop, when the first high notes come in.

 

On 1/7/2022 at 9:46 PM, splesh said:

Sonically, it feels like a snippet of eastre (as far as S&R are concerned) but this piece you've shared by the Greek synth maestro (eat shit Yanni team Vangelis all the way lol) does sound like a number of things the lads have done recently in a number of facets, some of the patches (both some of the early twinkles and the pads), as well as something in its melodic sense. Good call, this is a truly beautiful piece. I'll have to check out the rest of this score.

 

The rest of the soundtrack focuses on the variations of the main motif, which is a bit more melodramatic.

When the movie came out, however, there was this track in the trailer. It was 1983, I was 5, or just turned 6, yet those notes associated with the arctic void hit me immediately, so much so that my parents had to take me to the cinema. I don't know, is a certain type of susceptibility to certain things probably born or matured very early? Because I remember that other my peers were interested in the film because yes, you could see the killer whale, the adventure, but no one - from the trailer - felt that sense of cosmic tragedy. Until they saw the movie of course.

the US trailer is different from the Italian one (for us it takes a bit of sensationalism, like the killer whale, in fact, otherwise we can't do it ), but at a certain point carefree counter dronal, also turns up:

[Draft78]

On 1/4/2022 at 5:11 PM, xox said:

Good track but how to play anything after r cazt? Only all end kinda works or something completely different like 6-36

..I thought too that after r catz my ears had heard everything they had to hear, that by now they were no longer strictly necessary, yet when n cur arrived, it was still possible to find myself on a slab of pack adrift

[iamconsume]

That wall of text has drained parts of my soul... is that you, Colin Robinson?

[thefxbip]

''It's always hopeless to talk about painting - one never does anything but talk around it.'' Francis Bacon

Switch ''painting'' for any other artform.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by thefxbip

[thefxbip]

On 1/12/2022 at 6:13 AM, xox said:

i probably understand what you're saying and bc of my education and work i know a few things about the brain but sorry, i don't think you understood me here! physical properties of the sound and of our brain and hearing has nothing to do with what i was talking about! and btw comparing the sense of sight to hearing couldn't be more --- wrong? and what you're talking about is mostly comparable to the frequency domain of the sound/music. music works in ratios and relationships that change in time and abstractions of the highest order (highest just in comparison to other forms of art). i agree that other forms of art 'use' time, like dance performances or movies just bc they're 'happening in time' but that's it and btw that's not what i was talking about at all... and if we're talking about it, have you ever heard that dance performances and movies use music scores to provoke or to amplify feelings or even ''to give an emotional context to the scene''? the other way around just water downs a quality music (autechre bros understand this, hence the darkness at their concerts and it's one of the reasons ligeti rejected so many offers to make musical scores for movies) and that absence of music and silence in movies are being used for the same purpose (i.e. hitchcock, the birds)? why do you think that's the case? and when other forms of art are 'using' time, they just mimic the properties of music; that's why you can hear responses like ''oh, that movie feels like music'', same for a performance or even a book. but imageries that music provokes in us are totally our own! the reason why music deals with the will (as a philosophical term) and all other forms of art are dealing with ideas (as a philosophical term) is precisely bc of time, domain that we can only experience internally... as our own internal experience bc both the will and time are our genuine internal constructs, as ive said earlier, and 'space' (everything that's not us, including everything we see, including colors and ideas) are external constructs i.e. objectified ideas! you can't bend the objectified ideas but you can bend time, in music you can and MUST bend time at the level of narrative and abstraction not at the level of form which only consequently follows the bent content, you can and must so to say 'shorten the expression' (artistically speaking, in expression, in narrative, not merely making the track shorter for 20 sec, length changes became subjective experiences, again bc time = will?), elevate it abstractly IF you want to produce quality music (in other forms of art when this is done directly in the same way you end up with a nonsense, in other forms of art you must mimic some properties of music, not bend it like music), for an example, if you produce music yourself then you surely understand why plain arpeggiators are so weak, musically speaking...

Ever read Sculpting in Time by Tarkovsky?

 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by thefxbip

[Draft78]

8 minutes ago, thefxbip said:

''It's always hopeless to talk about painting - one never does anything but talk around it.'' Francis Bacon

Switch ''painting'' for any other artform.

 

yep, it's not entirely wrong ... but if we didn't find at least a little relief to digress about it, I'm afraid the ultimate meaning of the forum itself would vanish

[thefxbip]

Hahaha yeah, of course.

It's all good fun. It's just to remember words are in the periphery and cannot fully grasp something like music.

Bacon himself talked a lot about painting, knowing it's hopeless to do so.

Because it's still interesting and arguing about it has a gladiatorial charm i guess haha

 

 

 

[thefxbip]

Music is probably my favorite artform because it seems to me it's the artform that relays the most on pure abstraction and pure imagination.

It's a whole universe in itself.

It does not depend as much on anything else from the outside world like cinema, painting, writing and other artforms are.

Always found that to be a fascinating, astonishing thing. Miraculous almost. It's a whole universe of self-contained expression, of highly abstract relationships between sound and our psyche.

Edited February 10, 2022 by thefxbip

[xox]

1 hour ago, thefxbip said:

Ever read Sculpting in Time by Tarkovsky?

 

 

i haven’t! Would you recommend it? I presume it’s good bc tarkovsky

[thefxbip]

2 hours ago, xox said:

i haven’t! Would you recommend it? I presume it’s good bc tarkovsky

I certainly do! You seem interested in things like time and art and their relationship, i think you would dig it.

here is a quote:

''Turning now to the film image as such, I immediately want to dispel the widely held idea that it is essentially 'composite'. This notion seems to me wrong because it implies that cinema is founded on the attributes of kindred art forms and has none specifically its own; and that is to deny that cinema is an art. The dominant, all-powerful factor of the film image is rhythm, expressing the course of time within the frame. The actual passage of time is also made clear in the characters' behaviour, the visual treatment and the sound—but these are all accompanying features, the absence of which, theoretically, would in no way affect the existence of the film. One cannot conceive of a cinematic work with no sense of time passing through the shot, but one can easily imagine a film with no actors, music, decor or even editing.

The Lumiere brothers' Arrivée d'un Train, already mentioned, was like that. So are one or two films of the American underground: there is one, for instance, which shows a man asleep; we then see him waking up, and, by its own wizardry, the cinema gives that moment an unexpected and stunning aesthetic impact. Or Pascal Aubier's'8 ten-minute film consisting of only one shot. First it shows the life of nature, majestic and unhurried, indifferent to human bustle and passions. Then the camera, controlled with virtuoso skill, moves to take in a tiny dot: a sleeping figure scarcely visible in the grass, on the slope of a hill. The dramatic denouement follows immediately. The passing of time seems to be speeded up, driven on by our curiosity. It is as if we steal cautiously up to him along with the camera, and, as we draw near, we realise that the man is dead. The next moment we are given more information: not only is he dead, he was killed; he is an insurgent who has died from wounds, seen against the background of an indifferent nature. We are thrown powerfully back by our memories to events which shake today's world. You will remember that the film has no editing, no acting and no decor.

But the rhythm of the movement of time is there within the frame, as the sole organising force of the—quite complex— dramatic development. No one component of a film can have any meaning in isolation: it is the film that is the work of art. And we can only talk about its components rather arbitrarily, dividing it up artificially for the sake of theoretical discussion. Nor can I accept the notion that editing is the main formative element of a film, as the protagonists of 'montage cinema', following Kuleshov and Eisenstein, maintained in the 'twenties, as if a film was made on the editing table. It has often been pointed out, quite rightly, that every art form involves editing, in the sense of selection and collation, adjusting parts and pieces. The cinema image comes into being during shooting, and exists within the frame. During shooting, therefore, I concentrate on the course of time in the frame, in order to reproduce it and record it. Editing brings together shots which are already filled with time, and organises the unified, living structure inherent in the film; and the time that pulsates through the blood vessels of the film, making it alive, is of varying rhythmic pressure.''

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by thefxbip

[splesh]

On 2/10/2022 at 1:09 PM, thefxbip said:

I certainly do! You seem interested in things like time and art and their relationship, i think you would dig it.

here is a quote:

''Turning now to the film image as such, I immediately want to dispel the widely held idea that it is essentially 'composite'. This notion seems to me wrong because it implies that cinema is founded on the attributes of kindred art forms and has none specifically its own; and that is to deny that cinema is an art. The dominant, all-powerful factor of the film image is rhythm, expressing the course of time within the frame. The actual passage of time is also made clear in the characters' behaviour, the visual treatment and the sound—but these are all accompanying features, the absence of which, theoretically, would in no way affect the existence of the film. One cannot conceive of a cinematic work with no sense of time passing through the shot, but one can easily imagine a film with no actors, music, decor or even editing.

The Lumiere brothers' Arrivée d'un Train, already mentioned, was like that. So are one or two films of the American underground: there is one, for instance, which shows a man asleep; we then see him waking up, and, by its own wizardry, the cinema gives that moment an unexpected and stunning aesthetic impact. Or Pascal Aubier's'8 ten-minute film consisting of only one shot. First it shows the life of nature, majestic and unhurried, indifferent to human bustle and passions. Then the camera, controlled with virtuoso skill, moves to take in a tiny dot: a sleeping figure scarcely visible in the grass, on the slope of a hill. The dramatic denouement follows immediately. The passing of time seems to be speeded up, driven on by our curiosity. It is as if we steal cautiously up to him along with the camera, and, as we draw near, we realise that the man is dead. The next moment we are given more information: not only is he dead, he was killed; he is an insurgent who has died from wounds, seen against the background of an indifferent nature. We are thrown powerfully back by our memories to events which shake today's world. You will remember that the film has no editing, no acting and no decor.

But the rhythm of the movement of time is there within the frame, as the sole organising force of the—quite complex— dramatic development. No one component of a film can have any meaning in isolation: it is the film that is the work of art. And we can only talk about its components rather arbitrarily, dividing it up artificially for the sake of theoretical discussion. Nor can I accept the notion that editing is the main formative element of a film, as the protagonists of 'montage cinema', following Kuleshov and Eisenstein, maintained in the 'twenties, as if a film was made on the editing table. It has often been pointed out, quite rightly, that every art form involves editing, in the sense of selection and collation, adjusting parts and pieces. The cinema image comes into being during shooting, and exists within the frame. During shooting, therefore, I concentrate on the course of time in the frame, in order to reproduce it and record it. Editing brings together shots which are already filled with time, and organises the unified, living structure inherent in the film; and the time that pulsates through the blood vessels of the film, making it alive, is of varying rhythmic pressure.''

 

I still need to watch his films, but this is some insightful and well said stuff. I still haven't really brought myself to get super into film as an art form as much as I might like, it's not as easy for me, though not for lack of interest. It just demands a lot more focus and attention and time to dwell on. This theoretical side is very cool stuff to read and ponder.

[cern]

Now I really think Sign is Autechre's most moody album they ever created. 

It is very beautiful but there is a melancholy that is very deep.. Maybe too deep.  
I thought Onesix was gonna be difficult for me to get attached, but Onesix is a playful ride compare to SIGN. 
It is not the ordinary Ae-tracks Im feeling comfortable to just blast a normal day. 

I wonder if the Live-sets 2022 gonna be sad like this? 

[xox]

3 hours ago, cern said:

Now I really think Sign is Autechre's most moody album they ever created. 

It is very beautiful but there is a melancholy that is very deep.. Maybe too deep.  
I thought Onesix was gonna be difficult for me to get attached, but Onesix is a playful ride compare to SIGN. 
It is not the ordinary Ae-tracks Im feeling comfortable to just blast a normal day. 

I wonder if the Live-sets 2022 gonna be sad like this? 

More than Overst3ps?

[cern]

1 minute ago, xox said:

More than Overst3ps?

Oversteps is also moody but that album has some kind of Joyful thing going on.. Listen to Yuop and compare it to the last track of SIGN "psin AM" or even r Cazt. 

I even think tracks like Known(1) and 0=O are more uplifting ones..
Listen to Known(1) and compare it to second track in SIGN it is really like day and night:
 

 

[jaderpansen]

52 minutes ago, xox said:

More than Overst3ps?

definitely.

[maxwellsq]

loved Sign when it came out but now am mostly playing Plus , some incredible bass heavy tracks there