squarepusher innovation vs musicality

so got to thinking... most electronica heads generally feel that innovation is the fulcrum of what makes the music good.

eg, autechre's morphing beats, squarepusher's funky chops, aphex's complete re-invention of music from the ground up, boc's carefully and meticulously degraded sounds.

but, i personally feel that a good tune wins out over and above the 'pushing the envelope' thing.

now of course, all of the above mentioned are very capable of sublime melodies and chord progressions.

my point is that there are many people who try to do the whole bleeding edge thing with electronics, and it amounts to fuck all because there's no musical; or emotional content.

there are also many musicians who don't particularly break the sound barrier in terms of novelty, or innovation, but their music is so beautiful and full of creamy goodness that it transcends the notion of innovation by simply carrying squads of emotional content.

feel free to add your opinion, or discuss this in a sensible manner.

or don't, whatev.

Ya, I know what you mean.

Ive really started appreciating alot more music once I realized that, I just love electronic music, I don't love a big wank fest. Its very relaxing once you can accept that music doesn't have to be exactly what its "supposed" to be to be great or cutting edge or whatnot. I can pop in Mandriod basically copying Kraftwerk and sing along with "Driving in my turbo Mini" and smile because its just fun.

Damn that sounds fucking hippy. I'm going soft in my old age.

nah, it doesn't sound hippy.

i think of it more as the punk vs prog rock thing that went down in the 70's... prog rock got so self involved that we started getting yes albums with 20- minute guitar sols in 7/8 time with a bar of 15/8 chucked in every 5 measures. virtuosic maybe, but it didn't really mean anything to anybody except skinny guitarists who consistently say "genius., genius" whilst listening to a very very fast soloist.

last couple of albums by autechre= yngwie malmsteen to me.

yes it's technically amazing, but it just does not move me.

most of my favourite musicians, electronic or otherwise, could do an 'unplugged' set.

ie the tunes are so great that they'd translate to a string quartet, or a jazz band, or an accoustic guitar and a piano.

you get the picture. a good tune is a good tune is a good tune. it's about emotional content, not about technical ability.

ok i can appreciate the time and effort that has gone into the more manic tracks on drukqs for example, but i don't choose to listen to them very often, becauser they don't speak to me on an emotional level... only an intellectual one.

yeah i totally agree. i find i'ts pretty silly to judge tracks on whether they're innovative or not

i was all about being innovative a while ago. now i just write melodies that stir up some emotion in me and put a beat to them. then i listen and cry like zelah.

i agree with everything you've written in this thread, logan.

stirring of emotions, any of them, was what first made me love music when i was very young listening to my parents Beatles records. it was so much easier to be emotionally moved by music when i was younger though. a sad byproduct of getting older. or is it that i've listened to too much music over the years? i dont know which is it. its few and far between these days to hear something that affects the emotions. it still happens and its magical when it does. its my favorite thing about music.

If most of your favorite tunes can translate to acoustics well, then what's the point of electronic music in the first place?

I agree with musicality being at the forefront.

I like Venetian Snares, and one of the reasons I like Snares is because of the kickin' beats and the beautiful melodies/harmonies/wtf, not because of the technical prowess involved at all. I've found that sitting down and doing an ambient SAW2-like track is shitloads harder work than doing something like Vsnares. I happen to prefer Snares-type stuff as a personal preference, when I hear that, I'm really feeling it, I'm into the music. I feel the rhythm.

vs.

lol wtf? you think aphex twin reinvented music from the ground up? man im so tired of things like this. when will all of you understand how derivative aphex twin squarepusher and boc really are? go listen to some coil, then learn about electronic music in the 60's and listen to stockhausen and go from there. i guarantee you will hear all that new music as a simple collage of past ideas.

innovation is not that important, neither is musicality (wtf is this anyway). art is simple: you make visible what is invisible. that's it. everything else is pure phantasy. if you think music is about emotivity, your dreams derive from a romantic ideal 200 years old.

also, youre basically saying in your original post ``i want artists to start from a place i know and add just a few new things`` or ``innovation has to be blended with things i know for me to accept it``

what do you people need for music to ``move`` you? a beat you know? something familiar? some day you will say ``it's all sound``!

There's always been certain music that's moved me way more than other music. It's always been stuff with incredibly emotive melodies.

That's why I hear stuff like Untilted and think "neat" and hear stuff like "Wide Angle" or "Lilies" and thing "incredible".

well the brain prefers simple and known things. the expression you use, ``move``, is a bit confusing to me. do you mean you feel BETTER or COMFORTABLE while listening to certain types of sounds/structures? Are you interested in the unknown? on what levels can aphex twin be compared to the bee-gees, for example? are the bee-gees moving you? is it a generational/cultural things or is it an esthetic question? etc.

edit: actually, never mind.

it's great that you can come here and show us your wonderful brain.

don't patronise me, you don't know how involved my knowledge on the subject is.

and we're essentially talking about pop music here.

and in amongst your grandiose statements about stockhausen (who's work i'm fully aware of btw), all you display is a need for other people to think you're educated, not an education itself.

context my friend...

nevermind.

anyone else got something positive to add?

I don't want electronic music to involve itself in any kind of defined sound, essentially. It's becoming to be about fast breaks and slow pads rather than taking sounds that shouldn't fit together in any coherent sense and making them work together musically. I'd like to see it move back towards the latter. TCH and Analord and Hospitality: No. Untilted and Mmale & Ffemale and Burial: More please.

edit: Uhh...to address the actual topic at hand, don't tie electronic music up with too many sounds that have already been used. Musicality is important, though, I've never been able to stand musique concrete and such. Make both things equally important, and for god's sake, don't use a fucking guitar.

yes tnx i made an error in posting in this tread :(

  dR_PeNiSoN said:

lol wtf? you think aphex twin reinvented music from the ground up? man im so tired of things like this. when will all of you understand how derivative aphex twin squarepusher and boc really are? go listen to some coil, then learn about electronic music in the 60's and listen to stockhausen and go from there. i guarantee you will hear all that new music as a simple collage of past ideas.

I totally agree. Im not saying BoC or AFX is bad music... but to say they reinvented music from the ground up.... just.... no.

There is different music for different occasions. There are different emotions then happy, and sad. When I listen to a piece by Autechre, or Devine, and its devoid of any melodies, or harmonies, and its just sound design/beats.... it is very emotional... but not happy or sad or etc. Its a unique experience, but it is an emotion for sure. People who say it is emotionless, just aren't understanding what it is it is projecting. And I don't mean that in a condescending way, like "oh, you dont get it!" *raises nose to sky* ... I just mean not everyone gets all types of music... and its ok. I dont get country music. I dont get lots of pop, and I dont get a lot of 12 tone music, and jazz. There is some of each that I do get... but in general the experiences that went into writing those types of music, do not resonate with my life's experiences.

What if a composer writes a piece of music that is meant to be purely technical, but then a listener hears it, and finds that it is extremely emotional? Is it not emotional? How about vice versa?

And about innovation vs musicality... another arbitrary point. Some people set out to write emotional music, and end up innovating, and vice versa.

Personally, I want to write music that I find emotional (whatever that emotion maybe be) to me. If along the way, I do something that someone calls innovative, then awesome... if not, then hopefully theyll still find it emotional, if not, hopefully they will just keep looking for different music until they find what they like.

  loganfive said:

and we're essentially talking about pop music here.

maybe i should have been more specific when i started this thread.

edit: just read first post, i was pretty specific... talking about elctronica here guys.

and i never at any point stated that musicality, or innovation were mutually exclusive, nor did i say autechre were unemotional.

and aphex pretty much did reinvent electronica from the ground up.

just because I didnt respond specifically to your post, doesnt mean my points arent valid.

I didnt say you said autechre were unemotional....I was just thinking out loud. I didnt know we had to follow strict guidelines of responding to ONLY what you posted about

:on2long:

You can be equally musical and innovative, I don't believe innovation is the fulcrum.

oh my god i still have to intervain in this tread sorry loganfive

wtf is POP music? why do you need to categorize like that? what are the caracteristics of pop music? again, im asking, on which principles can aphex twin and the bee-gees or celine dion, for example, be compared? and what does ``get music`` mean? there are so many terms here of which you do not give the defintion of... Stop using superficial words like that and start understanding how your perceptions work and how psychoacoustics work. im not patronizing you you dont need to be complexed by what i say, its not directed to you, im trying to add to the conversation this is an internet forum i don't give a shit who you are or showing anyone that im educated or whatever.

and no, aphex twin did not reinvent anything from the ground up. sorry logan, youre talking ratshit and it is my duty to point it out here.

go listen to stockhausen again, instead of just ``being aware`` of all his work.

Tune is everything for sure. I dunno its weird in clubs its more about beats and bass then tunes I'm finding. Like I can listen to Dubstep for hours but I'd hardly rate it as melodic.

I can only speak for myself here, but I think I understand what you're getting at Logan.

For me, the creative process is simply a dynamic and changing balance of intention and execution. When I'm disappointed in my own work or the works of another, it is usually because I take it as being overbearing in some aspect of that balance, a feeling of perhaps "trying too hard". Like when someone sets out to make a bleeding edge track from the beginning- if that is the entire focus, then yes, I do believe it can choke creative expression. If the approach is more balanced or perhaps more open, then a bit of focus on pushing the envelope can be incorporated as a learning experience that benefits the whole process. I'm afraid I don't have an unambiguous way of putting that- this is all hyper subjective anyway, innit?

In my own work I am pretty much trying to capture my processes more than trying to create music specifically. Sometimes the process becomes music, and sometimes it collects dust and is ultimately forgotten. Almost everything I do that I keep happens as a kind of "accident"- meaning that my attention is more on twiddling knobs or whatever I'm fiddling with than on creating structure. If I set out to do something specific, I usually try to limit it to something within a single part or sound that I want to learn about, rather than to try to write a specific style or piece, per se. Even so, the pieces I'm more likely to hang on to do bring out an emotional reaction of some sort for me, either communicating a feeling that I'm experiencing at the time, or just the enjoyment of a tune or a beat. But even in times such as this, sometimes the journey there started from just trying to fiddle around with some tweak or explore some boundary in some way.

Again, this is all hyper subjective, and one man's trash is another man's treasure, all that...

  dR_PeNiSoN said:

oh my god i still have to intervain in this tread sorry loganfive

 

wtf is POP music? why do you need to categorize like that? what are the caracteristics of pop music? again, im asking, on which principles can aphex twin and the bee-gees or celine dion, for example, be compared? and what does ``get music`` mean? there are so many terms here of which you do not give the defintion of... Stop using superficial words like that and start understanding how your perceptions work and how psychoacoustics work. im not patronizing you you dont need to be complexed by what i say, its not directed to you, im trying to add to the conversation this is an internet forum i don't give a shit who you are or showing anyone that im educated or whatever.

 

and no, aphex twin did not reinvent anything from the ground up. sorry logan, youre talking ratshit and it is my duty to point it out here.

 

go listen to stockhausen again, instead of just ``being aware`` of all his work.

agreedd.. even though aphex is a good artist. he's not like the innovation of ultra musicality. most of his old stuff derives alot from club music from when he was young, not necessarily a bad thing though :)