Members Paolo Di Nicolantonio Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Originally posted by pgunders LOL. Autechre doesn't do random programming. If you think it is, then please, by all means, post some random programming and we can compare it with Autechre's work. Here you go - I just made this tune. It is 100% at random, for both rhythms and notes. I just pressed keys on the controller at random. I started at 8:15pm and finished at 8:47pm. To me, it sounds similar. http://synthmania.com/temp/Harmony-Central-autechre_style.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pgunders Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Wow, that's so random--sounds just like Autechre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paolo Di Nicolantonio Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Originally posted by pgunders Wow, that's so random--sounds just like Autechre! and what does it sound like, Britney Spears?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keanu reeves Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 good job with the cheesy video game techno music. bad job with the experimental academic IDM music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paolo Di Nicolantonio Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Originally posted by flukewurm good job with the cheesy video game techno music. bad job with the experimental academic IDM music. that's not the point. pgunders asked if I could post a song made at random, to compare with autechre. And I did. The song is 100% random. You can like it, hate it, I don't really care. But it was done by me completely at random. You are still going to think that they belong to an elite of "experimental academic music", and I'm still going to think that it's all bullsh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pgunders Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Yep, pretty amazing for randomly strung together sounds, Paolo. Especially that kick drum that hits every quarter note. That's sooo random. And that repeating bassline? Random to the core. I wish I were Britney Spears, Paolo. God, I'd never leave myself alone. Seriously, though. You said Autechre's sound was just random programming. If that's so, then anyone can sound like Autechre. So let's hear you make a genuine effort (or non-effort, since it is so very easy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keanu reeves Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 oh. i see. my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members setAI Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 nice! I've listened to the concert twice now- and I have not heard a single 'random'- that is stochastic rhythm or melody- it's all grooves- complex time signatures and polyrhythms- but very defined and structured grooves- the bass and melodies are also all quite composed- a little bit sinister and a little bit pretty abstracted electro/jazz/funk- nice and robotic but soulful at the same time- VERY head-bobby- very cool- anyone who can't groove on those rhythms and thinks they are random is missing out- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WRGS Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 seriously man....there set is them manipulating {censored} kinda in tha fashion in that sound on sound article....just they are using hardware instead of computers....its not just a bunch of random stuff...and yeah try to put forth a little effort if your gonna try n make a tune thats 'random' n comparable to autechre... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sizzlemeister Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Anyone unfamiliar with odd time signatures and poly-rhythms will probably perceive indecipherable, or random, patterns on the first listen (at least) especially when they're taken to extremes as Autechre is prone to do. I love the CLEAN sound they get here - everything really nicely defined within the mix. Fast, punchy tones. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Awake77 Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Admittedly, when I first heard 'glitch' and 'IDM' style tracks I was like 'WTF?!' and didnt like it initially. But you have to listen deeper...its quite amazing stuff is definitely isnt just a bunch of random sounds strung together. Its not random any more than chaos is random:D Im also a big fan of esoteric metal bands like Meshuggah,etc and this kind of electronic music strikes me the same way. You might not get it at first, but take some time to listen a little differently and you'll be blown away. That being said, I also think IDM is also a genre where its really easy for artists to sound like absolute {censored}. There's a big difference to what Autechre is doing and what a lot of the 'copy-cat' glitch stuff Ive heard is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paolo Di Nicolantonio Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 I have listened to these guys. I have also listened to Venetian Snares, Aphex Twin, Boards Of Canada... I went out and bought the Groove magazine to try and learn more about this. I have played the songs over and over. In general, they do not keep me interested because they sound repetitive to me. Plus the term "Intelligent Dance Music" really puzzles me, like to say that other music is not. There are plenty of musicians out there who REALLY bust their a*s studying music, going to conservatory, practicing hard for years, if there's a music that has the right to be called "academic", that IS the academic music, the classical music. People who study for years. Not a couple of blokes who can't read/write music, cannot create an interesting and memorable melody (Yes, melody as in "Moon River"), cannot write an arrangement, and basically can't play, and try to mask that fact by sounding weird and programming total random samples on a sequencer. Of course they are going to tell you that "they play that note by note". You are free to believe them, just like I'm free to not believe them, and I don't. They may be "intelligent" and "academic" to you, and that's fine. But don't sell them to me as "intelligent" and "academic" until you show me their conservatory degree. A proof that they really can play and they simply "sound random" because the choose to do so. Then I'll agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sinner6 Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Wow. You've created a mental box for music thats small and un inclusive. What about new ideas? Unexplored spaces? Frontiers? Boundries? You've clearly made up your mind to not accept things that stray outside "conservative" musical lines. Flaunting this mentality only emphasizes how fully you have missed the point. Just remember alot of the "classical" of today was considered "heretical" or revolutionary in it's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keanu reeves Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 you think VS and AT are repetitive? wtf? i can see how some people kind of say BOC and AE are repetitve. but even then in many cases they just morph thier songs so subtly that you dont always catch it. electronic music, more often than not, is not about the notes themselvs. i dont understand why you are soooo strung up on melody and notes. in this music's context these things more often than not make little difference. when using the term academic it is referring to the means of sound design and production styles that will {censored} with your head. its all about the mind{censored}s.. .. academic moreso in the sense of elaborate sound design. NOT necessarily an in depth understanding of notes and chord progressions and memorable pansy melodies all that mumbo jumbo.. because , again, they dont make much difference in this kind of music. its about rhythms, polyrhythms, production style, sound design, timbre, mood.. blah blah.. not about 'notes'.. who ever said any of these blokes can 'play' anything? understand notation? whoever said that was the goal? theyre producers. im sure they each have their own in depth understanding of music to be able to output what they do. and surely they have picked up a few instruments along the way. but their understanding is ususally not the in depth understaning in the, as sinner6 pointed out, conservative sense of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Awake77 Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 ...again, they dont make much difference in this kind of music. its about rhythms, polyrhythms, production style, sound design, timbre, mood.. blah blah.. not about 'notes'.. +1...although I agree with Paolo that classical training can be an important part of being a musician, I see all too often it 'get in the way' of a musician accepting and exploring new and experimental musical styles. Im 'classically trained' as a guitar player, and let me tell you it took *years* to break out of some of the 'rules' I learned before I started producing electronic/dance tracks that didnt sound contrived, or 'too symphonic'. Melody is still important, and keeping theory in the back of your mind is definitely a good idea - but trying to obey the 'rules' of classical training when composing electronic dance music rarely leads to anything innovative. You realized these 'rules' were designed hundreds of years ago, before these styles of music were even imagined? Why should the strictly govern what 'sounds good'? If something sounds good to you, then it does...its music, and its beauty is entirely in the ear of the listener. Still, knowng your scales and modes, chord/scale relationships, etc is an important part of being a mature musician - but it should by no means strictly govern how your music is created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members XorAxAx Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Paolo, have you ever just rocked out to an AC/DC song, ever? I'm not comparing Autechre with AC/DC; I'm merely pointing out that the conservative conservatory of conservatism conservation is but one way to arrive at a music product. You may wish to read the Wikipedia on IDM:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_dance_music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Allerian Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Originally posted by Paolo Di Nicolantonio Here you go - I just made this tune. It is 100% at random, for both rhythms and notes. I just pressed keys on the controller at random. [/url] This doesn't sound random in any way. You must really dig my material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keanu reeves Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 right awake77. i completely agree. and its incomprehensable to me that all of these guys have zero classical training. maybe not formal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pgunders Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 Hey, Paolo. I think you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WRGS Posted May 27, 2006 Members Share Posted May 27, 2006 pretty much everything has been covered on why your being closed minded and elitist so i emphasize that you really listen to these artists music and understand what is really going on....you are getting to caught up in the acedemia of the music which causes you not to hear how well done these fellows make music...remember, they're producers more than musicians so its all about the sounds you hear not neccasarily the melodies (not to say that they are unimportant)....oh, and read the wikipedia article....it explains a lot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kooki_sf Posted May 30, 2006 Members Share Posted May 30, 2006 boh! my selekta! http://forum.watmm.com/index.php?showtopic=7661 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Meatball Fulton Posted May 30, 2006 Members Share Posted May 30, 2006 Originally posted by Awake77 these 'rules' were designed hundreds of years ago, before these styles of music were even imagined? Why should the strictly govern what 'sounds good'? What people think of as "rules" are what music textbooks call "standard musical practice". If you go listen to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. you can derive some common approaches to melody, harmony...that's all. From there you can define what sounds good (consonant) and bad (dissonant) to the ear. I do have a problem with people who throw the rulebook away before they even read it, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Awake77 Posted May 30, 2006 Members Share Posted May 30, 2006 I do have a problem with people who throw the rulebook away before they even read it, though Yeah, same here. That does get annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paolo Di Nicolantonio Posted May 30, 2006 Members Share Posted May 30, 2006 Originally posted by Meatball Fulton What people think of as "rules" are what music textbooks call "standard musical practice". If you go listen to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. you can derive some common approaches to melody, harmony...that's all. From there you can define what sounds good (consonant) and bad (dissonant) to the ear. I do have a problem with people who throw the rulebook away before they even read it, though THank you. And by the way, I mentioned "academic classical music" ONLY because somebody defined Autechre as "academic" - which they clearly are not. It is an electronic band, like others. That falls under pop(ular) music, not the academia. I've been here several years, and anybody who knows me here (now and with my previous Mr Varaldo screen name) will tell you I'm not a square, definitely don't create boxes around myself and I am very open to experimentation, electronic music and new trends - and yes, I have rocked to AC/DC songs although rock doesn't interest me anymore. And - one more time because people don't seem having read my previous posts - I HAVE listened to these artists extensively. I love electronic music and I'm always searching for new material to hear. What I'm saying is that the disjointed loops that Autechre play do not keep me interested. It gets boring to me after a few minutes. But that's music! Autechre is not the first band to sound "different"! In my collection I have several records of "experimental" pieces that fall in that category: have you ever listened to the "Pierrot Lunaire" by Schoenberg? It is highly regarded as an innovative masterpiece. But I dare you to listen to it and say you enjoyed it.. I'd rather listen to Autechre all day, at least they use analog samples I can relate to, instead of micro-tonalities and female voices that sound like a pack of wolves with a tummy ache. And so forth for a lot of "experimental" records. What about Eric Dolphy's "Out To Lunch", a highly regarded jazz record? Ever listened to that? Sure, it's interesting and different, but, BE HONEST, are you going to listen to it and say, wow, I will listen to that for the rest of my days! And so forth for a lot of other free jazz records. What about Frank Zappa? The guy has a number of friends who swear to his music. And as much as some of his records are cool, a lot of them I find really, really hard to listen to, never mind liking them. And that the majority of people get bored, with his nonsensical art. What about The Grateful Dead's "Live/Dead"??? I remember arguing for an hour with a hard-core dead-head about this one. He thought this album was perfect, it was psychedelic, jazz, intellectual, and on, on, on, while I really failed to see any discernible JAZZ element in it. That was his view and it wasn't going to change. And so forth for a lot of other '60s weirdo bands. Bottom line: if you enjoy these bands, go ahead and listen to them all day!! Your view is not going to change. But I think that you are the guys who are closing themselves in boxes, because I think you like these artists because they (quoting from FlukeWurm" "when using the term academic it is referring to the means of sound design and production styles that will fuck with your head. its all about the mindfucks" mindfuck you. And I think much of this is because there exists a certain level of coolness about liking a type of music that "the mass, the crowds" don't like... it's like being part of a special club. But have you considered the fact that maybe, maybe maybe much of this is hype? That like the Pierrot Lunaire, Out To Lunch and Live/Dead, some of this music is just too different to be enjoyed by anybody else but their creators and a bunch of fans? And about the quote: "There's a lot of maths and generated beats on Confield, but we never considered that album very difficult," asserts Booth. "It's like pop music compared to some of the stuff we had considered putting out! And even when the beats sound like they are moving around in time and space, they're not random. They're based on sets of rules and we have a good handle on them. Draft is really straight, using straight-up normal sequencers and samplers. It's written note by note, where we know exactly what we put on. What are those rules?? Can you recognize them? Do Pierrot Lunaire, Out To Lunch and Live/Dead have rules? Maybe to their creators they do (although I doubt it!), but what about the listeners? Written note by note... I find that really heard to believe. If you do, I have some swamp land to sell you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hyperstationjr Posted May 30, 2006 Members Share Posted May 30, 2006 I really don't think it's about the hype at all, not for me anyway, and while I'm sure there are people who do just enjoy the "ultra-coolness" aspect of it, I basically literally listen to this stuff all day... it's on during my morning commute, it's on when I come home to unwind, it's on while I'm working and doing artwork... and that's really no exaggeration... and I find it very, VERY enjoyable and pleasing to listen to. Although this level of listening is sort of new, but I almost always have it on when I work on my art. Otherwise, I have all kinds of classical music and rock and metal and more electronic music and jazz etc etc etc... I will say that I don't have the absolute widest variety in music, and even that a lot of what I listen to is very similar or has very similar qualities, in particular in the melody and harmony... if that isn't pleasing to my ear then I just can't listen to it no matter how technical it is... I'm actually ultra-picky with what I listen to in that way sometimes... but for whatever reason, Autechre do it for me, and I would say they are probably my greatest musical influence... Anyway, I think the point I'm trying to make is, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't think it's fair to assume that because you don't "get it" there must not be anything there. I've come from about 7 years of studying art and art history, particularly contemporary art, and I hear this same stuff when people talk about "Minimalism", "Abstract Expressionism" and a whole lot of other "-ism's"... and it's always the argument that there is little to no "classical" approach or reference, or that there is no evidence of training in classical styles technically, and based on such lack of evidence, the work can't possible be good... It's always the same thing, all the time, and that's fine for you to think that way, but don't sit there and tell me your opinion and how you are entitled to it, and turn around and suggest my opinions are somehow skewed because of some kind of "image" associated with liking it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.