luke vibert Why is it that the majority of people who listen to Electronic music don't know about IDM?

LOL @ IDM being challenging.

  On 5/9/2010 at 11:58 PM, Dan C said:

LOL @ IDM being challenging.

really tempted to recycle the dblue glitch joke someone made earlier. it's hard getting that thing to sound just right!

So, saying a Picasso is a more worthy rendition of 'art' than a cereal box is pretentious? I'd say it's just realistic.

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:01 AM, mafted said:

So, saying a Picasso is a more worthy rendition of 'art' than a cereal box is pretentious? I'd say it's just realistic.

it all depends on your point of view. some people really fucking like cereal.

my point is, to imply that you are better/more intelligent than someone because of something as subjective as musical taste is bloody ridiculous.

haha yea, i agree that it's a silly tag for a genre. i guess that's why it stuck.

  On 5/9/2010 at 7:38 PM, PWSTEAL said:

 

"Trance, Dubstep, Happycore, House, Speedcore"

What's all this then?

Can you recommend me any to listen to?

  On 5/9/2010 at 11:57 PM, disparaissant said:

art is entirely subjective. idm is no more artistic than any other artistic endeavour. what you see as challenging mind-juice, others see as noisy garbage, or max/msp wankery.

 

and be realistic, comparing mainstream music to anything is just kind of unfair. it's like comparing picasso to a cereal box. they're both artistic, but they serve entirely different purposes.

idm isn't more artistic then mozart or picasso or something yes... I don't think there's a gradient of how artistic something is... it's either art or its not, and if we didn't have musicians like AFX and others who made things that were like nothing else before it, there would be no such thing as art because everything would be the same.

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:06 AM, abusivegeorge said:

  On 5/9/2010 at 7:38 PM, PWSTEAL said:

 

"Trance, Dubstep, Happycore, House, Speedcore"

 

What's all this then?

 

Can you recommend me any to listen to?

NOT ART apparently

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:06 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/9/2010 at 11:57 PM, disparaissant said:

art is entirely subjective. idm is no more artistic than any other artistic endeavour. what you see as challenging mind-juice, others see as noisy garbage, or max/msp wankery.

 

and be realistic, comparing mainstream music to anything is just kind of unfair. it's like comparing picasso to a cereal box. they're both artistic, but they serve entirely different purposes.

 

idm isn't more artistic then mozart or picasso or something yes... I don't think there's a gradient of how artistic something is... it's either art or its not, and if we didn't have musicians like AFX and others who made things that were like nothing else before it, there would be no such thing as art because everything would be the same.

This is wrong on a couple of pretty epic levels.

I don't usually get involved in these kinds of arguments/discussions/online clusterfucks, and I probably won't be joining this one now, but I will say this one thing... Maybe two things:

A) AFX doesn't make things that are like nothing else before it

B) Things being the same do not make them bad/not art

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:06 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/9/2010 at 11:57 PM, disparaissant said:

art is entirely subjective. idm is no more artistic than any other artistic endeavour. what you see as challenging mind-juice, others see as noisy garbage, or max/msp wankery.

 

and be realistic, comparing mainstream music to anything is just kind of unfair. it's like comparing picasso to a cereal box. they're both artistic, but they serve entirely different purposes.

 

idm isn't more artistic then mozart or picasso or something yes... I don't think there's a gradient of how artistic something is... it's either art or its not, and if we didn't have musicians like AFX and others who made things that were like nothing else before it, there would be no such thing as art because everything would be the same.

art is just variations on a theme anyways, the need for new things guarantees that new things will happen, mother of invention and all that. if afx wouldn't have come up with something new, someone else would have.

edit: and the above is correct, not new does not equate to not art. hell, revivalism is HUGE in the art world. like i said, variations on a theme.

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:11 AM, Dan C said:

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:06 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/9/2010 at 11:57 PM, disparaissant said:

art is entirely subjective. idm is no more artistic than any other artistic endeavour. what you see as challenging mind-juice, others see as noisy garbage, or max/msp wankery.

 

and be realistic, comparing mainstream music to anything is just kind of unfair. it's like comparing picasso to a cereal box. they're both artistic, but they serve entirely different purposes.

 

idm isn't more artistic then mozart or picasso or something yes... I don't think there's a gradient of how artistic something is... it's either art or its not, and if we didn't have musicians like AFX and others who made things that were like nothing else before it, there would be no such thing as art because everything would be the same.

 

This is wrong on a couple of pretty epic levels.

 

I don't usually get involved in these kinds of arguments/discussions/online clusterfucks, and I probably won't be joining this one now, but I will say this one thing... Maybe two things:

 

A) AFX doesn't make things that are like nothing else before it

 

B) Things being the same do not make them bad/not art

 

A) Sure he did, though I'd like to hear your explanation on how he didn't?

B) So copying something is cool in your book? And by copying I mean 100% the same

the greatest artists steal directly said some poet

because thats the only way to keep building and building. like i'm pretty sure afx stole from moondog and early ambient music and mixed it with what he stole from electro and techno.

cookie stand isn't part of the food court

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:13 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:06 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/9/2010 at 11:57 PM, disparaissant said:

art is entirely subjective. idm is no more artistic than any other artistic endeavour. what you see as challenging mind-juice, others see as noisy garbage, or max/msp wankery.

 

and be realistic, comparing mainstream music to anything is just kind of unfair. it's like comparing picasso to a cereal box. they're both artistic, but they serve entirely different purposes.

 

idm isn't more artistic then mozart or picasso or something yes... I don't think there's a gradient of how artistic something is... it's either art or its not, and if we didn't have musicians like AFX and others who made things that were like nothing else before it, there would be no such thing as art because everything would be the same.

 

art is just variations on a theme anyways, the need for new things guarantees that new things will happen, mother of invention and all that. if afx wouldn't have come up with something new, someone else would have.

 

edit: and the above is correct, not new does not equate to not art. hell, revivalism is HUGE in the art world. like i said, variations on a theme.

Well AFX's career is a combination of him producing such unique music and it being also fairly popular in the industry... at least in terms of how it affected peoples perception of music. AFX could have just kept all his music to himself and been a milk-man all his life... sure someone else could have replaced him, but who knows what direction they would have gone... the fact we haven't really seen anyone else do what he did in electronic music kind of makes me question where music would be had he not achieved what he did. On a bigger note the Beatles surely change the course of the music industry... to say someone would have just picked up the Beatles music had the Beatles died early on or something is to say all artistic ideas are simply waiting to be plucked instead of being created.

wtf lol

at thread in general, no one in specific.

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:19 AM, karmakramer said:

 

 

Well AFX's career is a combination of him producing such unique music and it being also fairly popular in the industry... at least in terms of how it affected peoples perception of music. AFX could have just kept all his music to himself and been a milk-man all his life...

I See what you did there.

I hear the milkmans wife has nice tits.

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:14 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:11 AM, Dan C said:

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:06 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/9/2010 at 11:57 PM, disparaissant said:

art is entirely subjective. idm is no more artistic than any other artistic endeavour. what you see as challenging mind-juice, others see as noisy garbage, or max/msp wankery.

 

and be realistic, comparing mainstream music to anything is just kind of unfair. it's like comparing picasso to a cereal box. they're both artistic, but they serve entirely different purposes.

 

idm isn't more artistic then mozart or picasso or something yes... I don't think there's a gradient of how artistic something is... it's either art or its not, and if we didn't have musicians like AFX and others who made things that were like nothing else before it, there would be no such thing as art because everything would be the same.

 

This is wrong on a couple of pretty epic levels.

 

I don't usually get involved in these kinds of arguments/discussions/online clusterfucks, and I probably won't be joining this one now, but I will say this one thing... Maybe two things:

 

A) AFX doesn't make things that are like nothing else before it

 

B) Things being the same do not make them bad/not art

 

 

A) Sure he did, though I'd like to hear your explanation on how he didn't?

 

B) So copying something is cool in your book? And by copying I mean 100% the same

A) In what way did he? Can you give me precise examples of what he did that were so new?

B) Depends on what you mean by copying someone? If you mean everyone making the same song over and over again I don't know... But it would depend on what you meant by the same song, because I like covers of songs, and I love to hear different recitalists and orchestras play the same music over and over, because even though it is the same thing, every person is different, and will approach things differently, even if what they're approaching is exactly the same. I find that interesting, maybe you don't?

But I'm assuming that's not what you mean, I assume you mean that someone doing the same kind of music, with the same kind of sound is copying someone? And if you do, well maybe we have a different meaning for the word. But if that is what you mean, I don't have a problem with that, to quote a man with a stupid moustache:

“Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.”

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:17 AM, vamos scorcho said:

the greatest artists steal directly said some poet

 

because thats the only way to keep building and building. like i'm pretty sure afx stole from moondog and early ambient music and mixed it with what he stole from electro and techno.

Theres nothing wrong with history and learning from the past. But there's a difference between creating something new and fresh thats inspired from our history and mimicking.

  Quote

On a bigger note the Beatles surely change the course of the music industry... to say someone would have just picked up the Beatles music had the Beatles died early on or something is to say all artistic ideas are simply waiting to be plucked instead of being created.

not exactly the same, the artistic void merely would have been filled. but now we're veering off the subject of what constitutes art and into the realm of time travel.

  Quote

B) So copying something is cool in your book? And by copying I mean 100% the same

it can be, yes. depends on the statement being made.

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:22 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:17 AM, vamos scorcho said:

the greatest artists steal directly said some poet

 

because thats the only way to keep building and building. like i'm pretty sure afx stole from moondog and early ambient music and mixed it with what he stole from electro and techno.

 

Theres nothing wrong with history and learning from the past. But there's a difference between creating something new and fresh thats inspired from our history and mimicking.

for sure. i'll find that quote.

"Bad artists copy. Great artists steal."

-- Pablo Picasso

HEY GUYS

CHECK OUT THIS TRACK I JUST MADE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVrSr-yxqmE

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:22 AM, Dan C said:

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:14 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:11 AM, Dan C said:

  On 5/10/2010 at 12:06 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 5/9/2010 at 11:57 PM, disparaissant said:

art is entirely subjective. idm is no more artistic than any other artistic endeavour. what you see as challenging mind-juice, others see as noisy garbage, or max/msp wankery.

 

and be realistic, comparing mainstream music to anything is just kind of unfair. it's like comparing picasso to a cereal box. they're both artistic, but they serve entirely different purposes.

 

idm isn't more artistic then mozart or picasso or something yes... I don't think there's a gradient of how artistic something is... it's either art or its not, and if we didn't have musicians like AFX and others who made things that were like nothing else before it, there would be no such thing as art because everything would be the same.

 

This is wrong on a couple of pretty epic levels.

 

I don't usually get involved in these kinds of arguments/discussions/online clusterfucks, and I probably won't be joining this one now, but I will say this one thing... Maybe two things:

 

A) AFX doesn't make things that are like nothing else before it

 

B) Things being the same do not make them bad/not art

 

 

A) Sure he did, though I'd like to hear your explanation on how he didn't?

 

B) So copying something is cool in your book? And by copying I mean 100% the same

 

A) In what way did he? Can you give me precise examples of what he did that were so new?

 

B) Depends on what you mean by copying someone? If you mean everyone making the same song over and over again I don't know... But it would depend on what you meant by the same song, because I like covers of songs, and I love to hear different recitalists and orchestras play the same music over and over, because even though it is the same thing, every person is different, and will approach things differently, even if what they're approaching is exactly the same. I find that interesting, maybe you don't?

 

But I'm assuming that's not what you mean, I assume you mean that someone doing the same kind of music, with the same kind of sound is copying someone? And if you do, well maybe we have a different meaning for the word. But if that is what you mean, I don't have a problem with that, to quote a man with a stupid moustache:

 

“Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.”

I'm about to get in a car and travel for an hour, but I'll respond when I get done. I hope some old timers here though could answer your part "A" question... honestly I don't have first hand evidence that his music when it was released was like nothing else... but listening to his albums (Drukqs) I have yet to find much of anything that matches it still to this day.

here is how i would respond to A.

aphex twin took the early electronic experimentation of people like stockhausen and eno and mixed it with a more "popular music" element of techno and electro. this had never been done before. then after hearing ragga and jungle music he realized the potential for incredibly complex drum sequencing and began innovating in that field. etc

owchies i just farted out muh dick

holla holla get dolla

abusive george is a blue bunny

now try not to think about blue bunnies

How is Eno early electronic experimentation?

i put him there because he made (coined) ambient, and aphex's early stuff was a mixture of the ambient electronic and the beats of techno. you're right though

This thread sucks my cock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1