Aphex Twin to what degree is Aphex Twin similar/disimilar to Frank Zappa

awful

I don't really see any similarities between the two - I mean I love their work, but apart from the often tongue-in-cheek/satirical nature of a lot of their songs; compare "Windowlicker" with Zappa's "Valley Girl". I think Frank's Xenochrony thing (taking pre-recorded guitar solo's or other pieces out of their original context and applying them to a new song is pretty interesting - but I can't put my finger on any other musical similarities.

PMRC hearing

I like Frank Zappa

  On 8/16/2009 at 1:40 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

As if Zappa never did acid man...

supposedly, he never did anything besides tobacco... who knows if that's true or not, but something tells me he wasn't lying about that...

he could've just said that to save his image.. but yeah, perhaps.

  On 8/14/2009 at 3:48 PM, mafted said:

  On 8/14/2009 at 10:35 AM, Scarper said:

Zappa applies a freeform, Jazz-like improvisation to his music, whereas Rich admits he knows EXACTLY what he wants out of a track when

he enters the studio, & each programmed micro-sound is there for a reason.

 

 

That's a good description. I can't listen to Zappa without wondering what the hell he's trying to say or do. Jazz improv is bullshit.. you can't have true improv with a bunch of theory rules guiding you at the same time.

I completely agree! That is the ultimate contradiction that forms the basis of Jazz! A style built on improvisation & freeform..... but only under the strict limitations of a series of scales that someone somewhere along the line

has decided upon. Crazy!

I don't like Zappa. His music lacks that melancholy emotional beauty that I require for enjoyment. He doesn't hold a candle to Richard in my opinion. The opposite view of those folks on a Zappa forum, Shocking. Zappa fans always have to say how he wrote everything, can read his own music, understood theory, directed orchestras. All a bucnh of excuses for crappy music. Technically well thought out crappy music. Just my opinion. Seriously, I respect others views to be different than my own. I just don't hear it

  On 8/14/2009 at 3:51 AM, Candiru said:

Frank Zappa was totally against drugs. Everyone else isn't because they are actually fun.

 

Frank Zappa was a badass guitar player. Aphex is too, but he won't admit it.

 

Zappa had a fucking weird nose.

Aphex plays guitar? Huh?

Also, Rich never said he knows exactly what he wants to do before he goes in the studio. He likes to, but has said his best stuff has come about when he was in the flow and not paying attention to what he was doing. Like he plots out every drum roll and acid squelch in his head before he even turns on his gear? Please. I think he was drawing a contrast between him and the autechre crowd that is into chaotic automata style programming. He said he is into more emotional music.

  On 8/18/2009 at 1:27 AM, Scarper said:

  On 8/14/2009 at 3:48 PM, mafted said:

  On 8/14/2009 at 10:35 AM, Scarper said:

Zappa applies a freeform, Jazz-like improvisation to his music, whereas Rich admits he knows EXACTLY what he wants out of a track when

he enters the studio, & each programmed micro-sound is there for a reason.

 

 

That's a good description. I can't listen to Zappa without wondering what the hell he's trying to say or do. Jazz improv is bullshit.. you can't have true improv with a bunch of theory rules guiding you at the same time.

 

I completely agree! That is the ultimate contradiction that forms the basis of Jazz! A style built on improvisation & freeform..... but only under the strict limitations of a series of scales that someone somewhere along the line

has decided upon. Crazy!

Yes, glad someone gets it.. if you come at it from a creative standpoint it doesn't make much sense. I like the autechre way better: make your own theory. Yep.

you sometimes need to accept some rules in order to articulate yourself and sometimes to be at least basically understood. it works just like language, like Joyce has done free-form improv in the end of Ulysses by conforming rules of constructing words and phrases at the same time. nothing more nonsense than life itself. Autechre didn't made their own theory. to make own theory and to make composition out of it is different forms of behaviour and purpose. everyone has some background, tradition of hearing and other 'genetic' stuff you can't deny. so it's really just a necessity of creation.

jazz artists understand 'bunch of stupidly strict rules' as a language and articulate themselves in it by deforming and playing with 'meanings' and inner-communication of symbols. if you go complete chaotic and 'true' you just would be drawing almost identical black spots. yes, there are much more deeper levels from where you can start but that's not extra-important to music.

and yeah, some of Zappa records a bit similar to analogue stuff of Richard

so just because you guys are too lazy to learn about jazz theory, it is not creative? moo duck is pretty spot on in that the rules and nuances are just part of the language. it is way more complex both rhythmically and harmonically than most pop drivel (and most idm believe it or not, but idm to me is more about literal sound waves rather than theory). there are really no true theory-less pieces of music besides noise tracks like the ktpas and fol3, though if you listen closely even those are actually in 4/4.

the notion that mafted thinks ae invented their own music theory is just indicative of how little theory knowledge he has (or how little attention he's paying). most everything they do is in 4/4 (even if its heavily syncopated) and harmonically, more times than not, the lines are laughably easy, even childish. but that's just part of ae for me. they do know some theory, but it's obviously not formally taught, it's just based on feeling from what i can tell (and an unparalleled ability to arrange and program textures, effects, transitions, everything else).

i'm not really all about free form jazz but saying it isn't creative is just stupid. it's simply a more complicated language than your ears are used to.

  On 8/19/2009 at 10:06 PM, theSun said:

so just because you guys are too lazy to learn about jazz theory, it is not creative? moo duck is pretty spot on in that the rules and nuances are just part of the language. it is way more complex both rhythmically and harmonically than most pop drivel (and most idm believe it or not, but idm to me is more about literal sound waves rather than theory). there are really no true theory-less pieces of music besides noise tracks like the ktpas and fol3, though if you listen closely even those are actually in 4/4.

 

the notion that mafted thinks ae invented their own music theory is just indicative of how little theory knowledge he has (or how little attention he's paying). most everything they do is in 4/4 (even if its heavily syncopated) and harmonically, more times than not, the lines are laughably easy, even childish. but that's just part of ae for me. they do know some theory, but it's obviously not formally taught, it's just based on feeling from what i can tell (and an unparalleled ability to arrange and program textures, effects, transitions, everything else).

 

i'm not really all about free form jazz but saying it isn't creative is just stupid. it's simply a more complicated language than your ears are used to.

WOW.. let's not be putting words in my mouth, ok? i never said ae invented shit. i said they believe in their own theory.. as in , when they said 'no bands should sound alike'. do you understand now? it's from a purely aesthetic (huh huh) viewpoint.

i also never said jazz wasn't creative (wtf??). i know what you guys mean about controlled chaos, or structured improv, but, coming from a synthesis background, the two don't go together very well (to me). that's all.

Zappa programmed everything on his Synclavier by typing in the values for pitch, note duration, velocity, etc. from a qwerty keyboard. Listen to Jazz From Hell for an example of this kind of composition.

Very much like RDJ, Zappa knew exactly what he was doing, wanted complete control over every nuance of his music, and could envision the musical outcome of strings of numbers.

Although he was an incredible improviser on guitar, compositionally nothing was left to chance. He even treated his live group of super-talented musicians as "instruments" directing their every move - even their improvisations.

  On 8/19/2009 at 11:16 PM, mafted said:

  On 8/19/2009 at 10:06 PM, theSun said:

so just because you guys are too lazy to learn about jazz theory, it is not creative? moo duck is pretty spot on in that the rules and nuances are just part of the language. it is way more complex both rhythmically and harmonically than most pop drivel (and most idm believe it or not, but idm to me is more about literal sound waves rather than theory). there are really no true theory-less pieces of music besides noise tracks like the ktpas and fol3, though if you listen closely even those are actually in 4/4.

 

the notion that mafted thinks ae invented their own music theory is just indicative of how little theory knowledge he has (or how little attention he's paying). most everything they do is in 4/4 (even if its heavily syncopated) and harmonically, more times than not, the lines are laughably easy, even childish. but that's just part of ae for me. they do know some theory, but it's obviously not formally taught, it's just based on feeling from what i can tell (and an unparalleled ability to arrange and program textures, effects, transitions, everything else).

 

i'm not really all about free form jazz but saying it isn't creative is just stupid. it's simply a more complicated language than your ears are used to.

 

 

WOW.. let's not be putting words in my mouth, ok? i never said ae invented shit. i said they believe in their own theory.. as in , when they said 'no bands should sound alike'. do you understand now? it's from a purely aesthetic (huh huh) viewpoint.

 

i also never said jazz wasn't creative (wtf??). i know what you guys mean about controlled chaos, or structured improv, but, coming from a synthesis background, the two don't go together very well (to me). that's all.

ok, they didn't invent anything but they did "make their own" something, according to you. and they "believe" in their own theory. i understand what you're trying to say, but calling jazz improv bullshit isn't helping get your point across. experimental jazz is simply another genre where people are pushing the limits of what is acceptable/possible.

the reason that you, from a synth background, probably don't understand is because hardxcore jazz theory is a totally different way of describing waves/sounds all across the spectrum. it is not literal, like most synths are, you can see the wavelength in most DAWs. can't get any more literal than that. theory is basically a bunch of code words to describe where the note fits within the spectrum, and it has been tied to various cultural connotations, for example minor keys are creepy. the scales and progressions are just part of the language.

but yeah, jazz and idm are as close genetically as humans and bananas (respectively).

All I need is a nice simple catchy melody. You can call it childish, simplistic, whatever, but Mcartney is still the only dude that wrote Yesterday. It more talent to write stuff like that then scale runs or clever counterpoint. Thats a comfortable place to be for the technically inclined but it isn't really that creative.

My sig may be relevant in the discussion... it's a comment I found on a board elsewhere.

Siding with marf, kind of. IDM is a vague genre that doesn't have "rules" like jazz does. I mean, I have high respect for jazz musicians because what they do requires a lot of skill - but not necessarily creativity. You can be creative with the "rules" but it's not necessary, unlike a completely unregulated genre like idm. Either way, creativity can sometimes sound like shit - see exhibit A, "noise music".

The comment about autechre may be true, to the extent that they created structure in a new and developing subsection of music

i think it's silly that you think idm is "unregulated".

if you say so.

when most everything is in 4/4 and a good majority of idm artists seem to really love the black keys, i find it hard to believe that the genre is "unregulated." perhaps there is an infinite potential for artists to compose songs of no rules, but the only tracks in the genre i can think of are noise tracks.

name me some tracks that demonstrate how unregulated idm is and i'll shut up.

gantz graf

4/4, easily discernible melody unless you are joyrex, sounds pentatonic, i don't have a keyboard in front me though.

I'll just be trendy and disagree to agree.

what about polyrhythms? Autechre luv polyrhythms. Could you perhaps be focusing on just one element of their music?

confield is unregulated . Its obviously beats and sounds affecting other beats and sounds in a very physical way. Physical meaning physics. Bending and pulling each other.

  On 8/20/2009 at 3:30 PM, theSun said:

when most everything is in 4/4 and a good majority of idm artists seem to really love the black keys, i find it hard to believe that the genre is "unregulated." perhaps there is an infinite potential for artists to compose songs of no rules, but the only tracks in the genre i can think of are noise tracks.

 

name me some tracks that demonstrate how unregulated idm is and i'll shut up.

There are little rules defining what should be idm, even if a particular track follows musical rules. There is also no overall style that defines idm, even though individual tracks or albums have obvious styles and there are certainly trends that run through in idm. "Unregulated" is poor word choice but there's no need to be pedantic over it. It certainly is when compared to other genres.

I hope you don't mind if I quote wikipedia, "Stylistically, IDM tends to rely upon individualistic experimentation rather than on a particular set of musical characteristics."

Jazz is easily definable as a genre whereas idm is a bit harder to classify just theory-wise.

  On 8/20/2009 at 7:43 PM, Rabid said:

<br />

  On 8/20/2009 at 3:30 PM, theSun said:

<br /><br /><br />

 

Agreed, I think the thing with IDM and other progressive electronic music in general is that often the 'theory' as such is the tecnique of sound manipulation which can be varied or complex as any other angle of musical expression it's just that there's no hard and fast rule for it or no defined educational establishment surrounding it as technoogy is a constantly evolving thing and trends follows innovation and experimention

This is where the trained musos often come a cropper in the argument of electronic music musical credibitiy as the the timberal/textural craftsmanship wich is a main virtue electronic music often flys over there graduation hats.

 

Anyhows what about the central scrutiniser?

/\ WTF Win2000 at work really sucks with modern forums