Jump to content

Autechre - SIGN 16.10.20


NewSchoolScience
 Share

Recommended Posts

black corporation FB page. i'd like to think they mentioned it in the mixlr chat last year, but i dont remember for sure.  also just sounds like it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, interesting/good to know. I thought they were done with hardware. I don't know enough about this stuff to have an opinion, but I think it's still useful to have context of how things were made. I wonder how this fits into the evolution of "the system" tho?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2022 at 9:11 AM, Draft78 said:

...Vangelis is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind hearing autechre, yet n cur has something, both in the melody and in the cold spatiality, that reminds me of this, from the Antarctica soundtrack

 

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

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2020 at 12:53 AM, xox said:

Yes! Just... although frequency is change in amplitude, what defines it is the speed of that change. If we deduce it completely it’s all about time; time/speed of amplitude (frequency domain) and time of events (time domain). That’s why we cant conceptualize music in other ways than as our internal experience, bc time is mind’s internal concept (space is external); we sense ourselves in/through time. That’s why music matters to us humans more than other forms of art.

ok im out

With that logic light is also just about the change in amplitude of the electromagnetic field at each photoreceptor in your eye, except you get more more spatial information from your eyes(6million cones each compared to 2 ears) and less resolution in terms of frequency(3 types of cones compared to 3.5k inner hair cells). And time is a part of loads of art that isnt music. I think music is so important to humans for other reasons that im not really sure about, similarity to language and the connection between language and emotion seems like an obvious one though.

The way our brains receive the auditory data is more like a 1 dimensional screen, similar to our vision being received as a 2d screen. We know this through stuff like fmri, but it doesnt explain the existence of binaural beats, really odd stuff.

Oh and sign is good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, vkxwz said:

With that logic light is also just about the change in amplitude of the electromagnetic field at each photoreceptor in your eye, except you get more more spatial information from your eyes(6million cones each compared to 2 ears) and less resolution in terms of frequency(3 types of cones compared to 3.5k inner hair cells). And time is a part of loads of art that isnt music. I think music is so important to humans for other reasons that im not really sure about, similarity to language and the connection between language and emotion seems like an obvious one though.

The way our brains receive the auditory data is more like a 1 dimensional screen, similar to our vision being received as a 2d screen. We know this through stuff like fmri, but it doesnt explain the existence of binaural beats, really odd stuff.

Oh and sign is good

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...

Edited by xox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 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...

yeah. so, in the Ae subforum we're all for people posting walls of text about the details and/or emotions of Ae's music. but... a wall of text to criticize and take down another user's post?

is the a sub-sub forum for people who intensely scrutinize people who intensely scrutinize Ae? i'm used to a certain level of introspection and this just isn't doing it for me, being completely fixated on another person and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by xox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by vkxwz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • 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.