Is RDJ's music more entertaining or more serious?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. So if music makes you stop and think, if it's about reflection of the world then let's say it's serious. If, on the other hand, is more mood-oriented, if it's made to make you happy, melancholical or just makes you want to dance then it's entertaining music.

So what, do we say both for RDJ? Cool, but which side is stronger?

Take Mount saint michel track. Always makes me all groovy in a Idm way but also makes hard punches on what music initially is, it tries hard to find new ways of arranging sounds together and gives listeners a challenge. I've always felt it could be brought further on the point of musical self-awareness, but maybe its already as far as it could get as it's been made.

What think you watmm?

It is a mixture of both, in my opinion. You honestly can't get anything but fun and games out of albums like Universal Indicator or tracks like Come to Daddy, but there is a plethora of emotion and seriousness in LPs such as ICBYD, SAWII, Drukqs, and all. More often than not, he's actually being serious, which says something about his persona in interviews'n'such.

/babble

Still I always get the feeling that his music is always emotional first, then self-reflective and stuff like that.

He's a hedonist in a musical way, we have to admit that.

seriously entertaining

(is that The History Channel's slogan, or something?)

I think "absolute blend of entertaining and serious" is the only true definition of IDM or Braindance or whatevs.

I've always felt that the music after Drukqs seemed alot more serious than his earlier works.

  On 4/30/2010 at 1:13 AM, Bewarethefriendlyfoil said:

I've always felt that the music after Drukqs seemed alot more serious than his earlier works.

Yeah I was about to say, the analords are much more serious than, say, rdj album.

i think SOSW is about as serious as it gets

but then again it's intensely emotional, it's fucking idm^

  On 4/30/2010 at 12:25 AM, gaarg said:

Still I always get the feeling that his music is always emotional first, then self-reflective and stuff like that.

 

He's a hedonist in a musical way, we have to admit that.

I get that vibe. He's a strange person with a bizarre sense of humor on the outside but he's still an introverted, reflective genius. "Eccentric" is the only word I can think of at the moment.

  On 4/30/2010 at 1:13 AM, Lube Saibot said:

I think "absolute blend of entertaining and serious" is the only true definition of IDM or Braindance or whatevs.

perhaps first make an distinction between the creator and the listener? you could go anywhere you want here. are we talking about the creator's intentions? the listener's emotions? the listener's ideas about the intentions of the creator?

maybe accessible rather than deliberately entertaining

I know loads of people who aren't into electronic music as a rule but like Aphex Twin, he has a very instrumental/melodic way of thinking thats easier to get into than say Squarepusher which is a little more intricate

  On 4/30/2010 at 8:42 PM, goDel said:

perhaps first make an distinction between the creator and the listener? you could go anywhere you want here. are we talking about the creator's intentions? the listener's emotions? the listener's ideas about the intentions of the creator?

aren't they supposed to be very much alike? But yeah, its about intentions really.

  On 4/30/2010 at 8:58 PM, soundwave said:

maybe accessible rather than deliberately entertaining

 

I know loads of people who aren't into electronic music as a rule but like Aphex Twin, he has a very instrumental/melodic way of thinking thats easier to get into than say Squarepusher which is a little more intricate

yep. things that are strange and different often scare the living hell out of people

  On 5/1/2010 at 1:52 AM, gaarg said:

  On 4/30/2010 at 8:42 PM, goDel said:

perhaps first make an distinction between the creator and the listener? you could go anywhere you want here. are we talking about the creator's intentions? the listener's emotions? the listener's ideas about the intentions of the creator?

aren't they supposed to be very much alike? But yeah, its about intentions really.

no, i don't think they are supposed to be very much alike. at least not necessarily. there are quite a few artists with that whole "make of it what you want" attitude, of which rdj would be one example i guess.

the tracknames say it all, really. make of it what you want. if his intention was to bring specific emotions to his listeners he'd probably give his tracks names like "wanking for the third time in a row" , or "just broke up with my french gf".

on the other hand, some imagery during his live performances are quite explicit in conveying certain kinds of ideas/emotions. so, in a way he's not consistent in the "make of it what you want" attitude. although i don't expect him to become politically active in the near future. ;)

  On 5/1/2010 at 11:47 AM, goDel said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 1:52 AM, gaarg said:

  On 4/30/2010 at 8:42 PM, goDel said:

perhaps first make an distinction between the creator and the listener? you could go anywhere you want here. are we talking about the creator's intentions? the listener's emotions? the listener's ideas about the intentions of the creator?

aren't they supposed to be very much alike? But yeah, its about intentions really.

 

no, i don't think they are supposed to be very much alike. at least not necessarily. there are quite a few artists with that whole "make of it what you want" attitude, of which rdj would be one example i guess.

the tracknames say it all, really. make of it what you want. if his intention was to bring specific emotions to his listeners he'd probably give his tracks names like "wanking for the third time in a row" , or "just broke up with my french gf".

on the other hand, some imagery during his live performances are quite explicit in conveying certain kinds of ideas/emotions. so, in a way he's not consistent in the "make of it what you want" attitude. although i don't expect him to become politically active in the near future. ;)

But in the end every track is as it is. It's beyond its maker or any single listener to tell, guess or determine what exactly it expresses, or makes you express. It has tendencies however and I think both the musician and the listener are kinda on the same side there. Just two different listeners really.

As a painter this happens to me all the time. Abstract art, I think, does this thing that you can't ever seem to grasp it wholly.

ok, i think i understand. but this isn't about intentions. this is more about some universal effect a track can have, regardless of intentions. and although i think i know where you're coming from, i tend to disagree. because it's like saying: if we send an aphex track into space, the aliens on the other side of the galaxy would have - to a certain extent - a similar set of experiences listening to the track as we do. that's far fetched, and i'm willing to defend the idea that this universal notion even wouldn't hold if the alien factor would be left out. it's context dependent. so people in different contexts will have different experiences listening to a track.

but that's not the point i'm trying to make (and you prolly weren't exactly referring to either). my point would be, that it would always be possible for there to be radically different interpretations of things (tracks, experiences), such that there would be no underlying universally quality of the interpretations that would be consistent to one another. that would be my general underlying idea. here your point could be that certain tracks tend to arouse (?) a specific set of interpretations. and the next question could be why that is, or what factors would be important. my answer would be an anti-climactic: it's all in the context. we (watmm) are probably too much alike (contextually) to have radical different opinions.(it's the internet. people nowadays can live lives only interacting with likeminded people. it's sickening really).

the underlying issue might be that when we think we discovered some universal property, is it because we haven't stepped outside the box enough to see the other side? or is it because there actually is some universal factor involved? that's all academic mumbling, but i have a sick feeling i'm bordering on the trivial here.

  On 4/30/2010 at 1:13 AM, Lube Saibot said:

I think "absolute blend of entertaining and serious" is the only true definition of IDM or Braindance or whatevs.

Yes definitely.

  On 4/30/2010 at 1:13 AM, Bewarethefriendlyfoil said:

I've always felt that the music after Drukqs seemed alot more serious than his earlier works.

He's probably just abit of a melancholic.

  On 5/1/2010 at 12:22 PM, gaarg said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 11:47 AM, goDel said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 1:52 AM, gaarg said:

  On 4/30/2010 at 8:42 PM, goDel said:

perhaps first make an distinction between the creator and the listener? you could go anywhere you want here. are we talking about the creator's intentions? the listener's emotions? the listener's ideas about the intentions of the creator?

aren't they supposed to be very much alike? But yeah, its about intentions really.

no, i don't think they are supposed to be very much alike. at least not necessarily. there are quite a few artists with that whole "make of it what you want" attitude, of which rdj would be one example i guess. the tracknames say it all, really. make of it what you want. if his intention was to bring specific emotions to his listeners he'd probably give his tracks names like "wanking for the third time in a row" , or "just broke up with my french gf". on the other hand, some imagery during his live performances are quite explicit in conveying certain kinds of ideas/emotions. so, in a way he's not consistent in the "make of it what you want" attitude. although i don't expect him to become politically active in the near future. ;)

But in the end every track is as it is. It's beyond its maker or any single listener to tell, guess or determine what exactly it expresses, or makes you express. It has tendencies however and I think both the musician and the listener are kinda on the same side there. Just two different listeners really.As a painter this happens to me all the time. Abstract art, I think, does this thing that you can't ever seem to grasp it wholly.

  On 5/1/2010 at 1:04 PM, goDel said:

ok, i think i understand. but this isn't about intentions. this is more about some universal effect a track can have, regardless of intentions. and although i think i know where you're coming from, i tend to disagree. because it's like saying: if we send an aphex track into space, the aliens on the other side of the galaxy would have - to a certain extent - a similar set of experiences listening to the track as we do. that's far fetched, and i'm willing to defend the idea that this universal notion even wouldn't hold if the alien factor would be left out. it's context dependent. so people in different contexts will have different experiences listening to a track. but that's not the point i'm trying to make (and you prolly weren't exactly referring to either). my point would be, that it would always be possible for there to be radically different interpretations of things (tracks, experiences), such that there would be no underlying universally quality of the interpretations that would be consistent to one another. that would be my general underlying idea. here your point could be that certain tracks tend to arouse (?) a specific set of interpretations. and the next question could be why that is, or what factors would be important. my answer would be an anti-climactic: it's all in the context. we (watmm) are probably too much alike (contextually) to have radical different opinions.(it's the internet. people nowadays can live lives only interacting with likeminded people. it's sickening really).the underlying issue might be that when we think we discovered some universal property, is it because we haven't stepped outside the box enough to see the other side? or is it because there actually is some universal factor involved? that's all academic mumbling, but i have a sick feeling i'm bordering on the trivial here.

"..."